Cllr Phil Davies | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The item on the Schools Budget starts at 21:54. I include a transcript below of what was said during this item. The Schools Budget (2014/15) is a recommendation from Cabinet to the Budget Council on the 25th February. This is two days before the Coordinating Committee meets to decide on the call ins on consulting on closing Lyndale School and the top up payments for schools.

Surjit Tour towards the end states that the proposed budget includes a contingency “to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing”, however as the Coordinating Committee hasn’t met and made decisions on the call ins yet how can the financial implications be quantified?

7. Schools Budget
Cabinet (13th February 2014)

The report for this item can be read by following this link.

Cllr Phil Davies: The key item there is the Schools Budget for 2014/15 and Tony you’re going to introduce this? Thank you.

Cllr Tony Smith: Thank you Chair. Thank you. This is the Schools Budget for 2014/15. The Schools Budget report which you have summarises the main factors that have been taken into account in setting the Schools Budget of £240 million for 2014/15.

The overall funding for pupils aged three to sixteen is maintained in cash terms. In addition the budget contains a small amount of growth for schools.

There’s funding for the further expansion of two year old provision from September 2014 and for the full year effect of high needs costs for 4-16 students. Some details for academies for high needs have still to be finalised and the Schools Budget will be updated with this information when this information is available.

The Schools Budget report was considered by the Schools Forum on the 21st January. The Forum agreed the recommendations listed in paragraph 2.1 of this report and that said that the dedicated schools grant funding the Schools Budget for maintained schools and academies is approved at the sum of £240,058,000.

The headroom of £1,215,100 which is detailed in paragraph 4.6 is allocated within the formula to all schools and early year providers. The high needs contingency totalling £908,900 is agreed.

A reduction in planned programmed maintenance, PPM, of £200,000 is agreed. Use of the dedicated schools grant reserve totalling £732,000 in setting the Schools Budget is agreed and the remaining balance for automatic meter readers reclassified as a reserve for installation of defibrillators.

An additional recommendation is also made in respect of the funding for school’s private finance initiative. The Council currently adds £2.6 million to the ring-fenced Schools Budget in respect of the PFI funding gap.

£2.3 million of this Council funding is an agreed saving in 15/16 and the remainder is protected at this time. This proposal is to reduce the Council’s funding for PFI by £600,000 in 14/15 … 15/16.

The 14/15 Schools Budget has already been submitted to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and is finalised. However there is a £1 million approx schools budget carry forward from 13/14 to 14/15 which can be used to compensate for the £600,000 funding gap.

The schools therefore will receive the same budget for 14/15 as planned. I’ve got a resolution Chair which I’m putting forward. “Council regrets that due to its financial challenges it is unable to fund in full the PFI affordability gap for 14/15 and will reduce the Council contribution to the Schools Budget by £600,000 to £2 million. Officers are instructed to take appropriate actions in respect of the 2014/15 Schools Budget.” That’s the resolution.

Cllr Phil Davies: Thanks Tony, I’m just going to ask Surjit to just say a few words about one particular element of this Schools Budget, Surjit.

Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Head of Legal/Member Services): Thank you Chair. Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK, so Tony Smith’s moved the resolution that we all heard. Can I ask can we agree that recommendation?

Councillors: Agreed.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK thank you very much, thank you Tony. Right OK, thanks very much for that Tony.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

The reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School (which is the decision that was called in)

I read the Wirral Globe article headlined “Town Hall bungle means Lyndale meeting called off” with interest as it was related to my earlier blog post headlined “Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?”.

Basically Wirral Council is stuck (and apologies for the cliché) between a rock and a hard place. Their new constitution states call ins have to be decided by the Coordinating Committee, however a law (The Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999) means it has to be decided by a committee with parent governor representatives on and a previous case Transport and General Workers Union and Hilary Hollington v Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 452 means that if they went ahead and made a decision on the Lyndale School call in by the Coordinating Committee without any parent governor representatives having a vote as part of that committee’s decision, then such a decision would almost certainly be quashed (based on that bit of case law) by a High Court Judge if any of the parents requested a judicial review.

The only committee that could legally decide the call in (that has parent governor representatives on it) is the Families and Wellbeing Committee (however for it to do so would currently be unconstitutional). There was a meeting scheduled of the Families and Wellbeing Committee for Thursday but it was mysteriously cancelled. If anybody knows what this cancelled meeting was about and if it was related to the call in please leave a comment.

So what happens next? Well the Coordinating Committee will meet on Wednesday 5th February as planned, but at the meeting will probably receive legal advice that they can’t make a decision on the call ins as they don’t have any parent governor representatives on their committee.

To progress with this matter will need a change to Wirral Council’s constitution. Such changes originate as a recommendation by the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee first (usually on the advice of Surjit Tour), which next meets on the 24th February. A recommendation would then be made to change the constitution to Budget Council on the 25th February and presuming the change is agreed to, the call in will be decided on the 27th February by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.

The quote from Cllr Leah Fraser in the Wirral Globe article of “The parents and staff of Lyndale School deserve better than this chaos” is one I agree with. Both the quotes of Cllr Phil Davies and Joe Blott leave out an important point not mentioned, which is that the parent governor representatives will have a vote in the decision over the call ins. I’m not sure if the Diocesan representatives have a vote too (it’s something I’d have to look into), but as far as I recall one of the two Diocesan representative positions on the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee is vacant (although an appointment to it could be made at the next Council meeting).

However taking from 16th January (date of the original Cabinet decision) to 27th February (date of the proposed Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee to consider the call in) is a total of one month and eleven days. Certainly it is not ideal for the parents and staff of Lyndale School to face uncertainty over the outcome for such a prolonged length of time.

What Wirral Council’s constitution currently states on call ins is included at the end of this blog post. Changes to it will need to be made if the Lyndale School call ins are to be made by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee on the 27th February.

The controversial rewrite of Wirral’s constitution (which included changing the call in procedure) happened at an extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council last April.

Here are some quotes from what councillors said at the time back in April 2013 about the constitutional changes which Labour councillors voted for, but Conservative and Lib Dem councillors were opposed to.

Cllr Phil Davies (Labour’s Leader) (who recommended the constitutional changes which included changes to the call in system) said, “What are the aims of the changes we’re proposing? Well we want to clearly improve our governance and decision-making procedures.”

Cllr Jeff Green (Leader of the Conservatives) said, “One of the elements of these changes is to remove the Children and Young People’s and the Adult Social & Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committees. Given Wirral’s history …. it seems to me a backward and dangerous step to actually remove any of the scrutiny.”

Former Councillor Darren Dodd (Labour) said, “This is what the people of Wirral have been asking for, for for a very long time.”

Cllr John Hale (Conservative) said, “These proposals should be consigned to the dustbin where they belong”.

Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative) said, “Where will it end, what next? Will Wirral be twinned with Pyongyang?”

Cllr Tom Harney (Liberal Democrats) said, “We don’t know where we came from, we don’t know where we’re going.”

Excerpt from Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins

35. Calling in of decisions

(1) All decisions of:
(i) the Executive Board,
(ii) an individual member of the Executive Board or
(iii) a committee of the Executive Board, and
(iv) key decisions taken by an officer;
shall be published, and shall be available at the main offices of the Council normally within 2 days of being made. All members of the Council will be sent a copy of the decision.

(2) That notice will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision will come into force, and may then be implemented, unless the decision is called in for scrutiny by 9a.m. on the Thursday following publication of a decision on Friday. (Adjusted by a maximum of one day in there is one or more Bank Holidays in that period)

(3) (a) During that period, the Chief Executive shall Call-In a decision for scrutiny by the Co-ordinating Committee if so requested by any six members of the Council who have given detailed reasons for the Call-In of the decision. The detailed reasons must be provided by the Lead signatory, by the Call In deadline. When a Call In is requested the Chief Executive shall liaise with the Member listed first on the Call-In schedule, to ensure there is sufficient information provided to enable the Call-In to proceed. As long as there is a clear reason given, the call-in should be allowed. He/she shall then notify the decision-taker of the Call-In. He/she shall call a meeting of the Committee on such date as he/she may determine, where possible after consultation with the Chair of the Coordinating Committee, and in any case within 7 working days of the decision to call-in.

(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.

(4) Having considered the decision, the Co-ordinating Committee may:-
(i) refer it back to the decision making person or body for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns or;
(ii) refer the matter to full Council. Such a referral should only be made where the Co-ordinating Committee believes that the decision is outside the policy framework or contrary to or not wholly in accordance with the budget. The procedures set out in those rules must be followed prior to any such referral.

(5) If a decision is referred back to the decision making person or body it shall be reconsidered in the light of the written concerns of the Co-ordinating Committee before a final decision is made.

(6) If following a call in, the Co-ordinating Committee does not refer the matter back to the decision making person or body and does not refer the matter to Council, the decision shall take effect on the date of the Co-ordinating Committee meeting. If the Co-ordinating Committee does not meet the decision shall take effect from the date when the Committee should have met.

(7) If the matter is referred to full Council and the Council does not object to a decision which has been made, then the decision will become effective on the date of the Council meeting.

(8) If the Council does object the Council may take a decision, which is outside the policy and budgetary framework. Otherwise the Council will refer any decision to which it objects back to the decision-making person or body, together with the Council’s views on the decision. That decision making body or person shall choose whether to amend the decision or not before reaching a final decision and implementing it. Where the decision was taken by the Executive Board as a whole or a committee of it, a meeting will be convened to reconsider within ten working days of the Council request. Where the decision was made by an individual, the individual will reconsider within ten working days of the Council request.

(9) Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances where members have evidence which suggests that the decision was not made in accordance with the principles of decision making in the constitution.

(10) Call-in and urgency
(a) The call-in procedure set out above shall not apply where the decision being taken by the Cabinet is urgent. A decision will be urgent if any delay is likely to be caused by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interest. The record of the decision and the notice by which it is made public shall state whether, in the opinion of the decision making person or body, the decision is an urgent one, and therefore not subject to call-in. The Chief Executive must agree both that the decision proposed is reasonably in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency. Decisions taken as a matter of urgency must be reported to the next available meeting of the Council, together with the reasons for urgency.

(b) The operation of the provisions relating to call-in and urgency shall be monitored annually, and a report submitted to Council with proposals for review if necessary.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

The New Year is a time of looking back to the previous year and forward to the new one. So please cast your minds back to November 2013 and a meeting of the Improvement Board held in public.

Prior to this there had been a short ten-day consultation on the Improvement Board Review report.

As the Improvement Board Review report is sixty-three pages long I will quote the sections I am referring to here about changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee (the committee referred to in the quote from section 95 is Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee):

“ 20. Action Taken

…
20.4 It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 15)

“PRIORITY 2: CORPORATE AND DECISION MAKING

95. It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 34)

“Next Steps

112. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced, by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee.” (page 37)

“SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS FOR WIRRAL

167. A key challenge is to ensure compliance to the revised procedures. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee. The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” (page 49)

Prior to the Improvement Board public meeting on the 15th November there were special meetings of both the Coordinating Committee and the Audit and Risk Management Committee to discuss the Improvement Board Review report.

The Coordinating Committee agreed this:

That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states that the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing that direction of travel.

All Members will be encouraged to engage in the next steps identified within the report.

We must not be complacent as we still need to improve in many areas identified in the report and embed positive changes.

We thank all members of the Improvement Board for their help.

We thank all employees and Members for their efforts in this journey of improvement.

We would recommend the approach adopted by the Local Government Association, in piloting sector led improvement, and would recommend it to others who find themselves in difficulties.

and the Audit and Risk Management Committee (by eight votes to one agreed):

(1) That this Committee welcomes the report of the Improvement Board, which draws attention to the significant progress Wirral has made in the last 20 months.

It recognises that there are still issues which need to be addressed but believes it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur.

We would recommend the sector-led approach to change and development to other authorities who find themselves in difficulty.

(2) That the thanks of the Committee be accorded to the Improvement Board, all staff and Members who have participated in the change process. It now remains for Members to continue to participate in their own development and not become complacent but ensure that change becomes embedded for the future.

(3) That the recommendations contained within the Review report be endorsed and that, subject to clarification as to the ownership of the steps required to support continued improvement, all Members be encouraged to engage in the work required in those areas.

Here is a transcript of the answer given to my question on this issue at the Improvement Board meeting of the 15th November 2013 on the issue of changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?

You can watch Graham Burgess’s and Cllr Phil Davies’ reply to this question by following this link to footage of the Improvement Board meeting.

Graham Burgess replied, “In terms of the request to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit & Risk Management Committee. First of all I think it’s going to be proposed by the Leader of the Council that for the new municipal year, after the elections in May, that there should be a majority of independent people on the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

There’s only one other Council in the country that’s adopted this approach and the Leader may wish to speak for himself on this matter but I think it is, it’s got to be recognised I hope, the willingness of this Council to open itself up to external scrutiny by I don’t know the numbers yet because that’s going to be discussed, it will be and Phil’s agreed that it should be referred to the Council’s scrutiny committee to discuss the best way to do it, the best way to recruit them, the exact numbers, but certainly I think it’s really brave of him, the fact that this Council and the other one Council to open themselves up in this way.

And the sort of people who might be ?????, and again there’ll be discussions with scrutiny and looking at elsewhere and taking advice from audit. I suspect there’ll be a number of people with a financial background to challenge that.

There’ll be a number of people who can represent key community organisations and can represent individual voices on the Wirral. So there’ll be a mixture I suspect of professional and lay people who can judge whether this Council is actually operating well in terms of its audit responsibilities.

I think that’s another demonstration of the openness that Phil and all parties I suspect want going forward and to be challenged. So in theory and in practice in fact, the councillors can be out voted by the independent members on that panel.

Might I also say that the Council does intend, again this is not finalised to retain the Chair of that panel as a councillor. The majority will be non councillors and that’s because it’s still a Council committee and in terms of organising things we need the availability of a councillor to do that, but I don’t want to be drawn about that.”

Cllr Phil Davies: “Just a sentence to say I think it will enable kind of an ongoing challenge to be built into monitoring, reviewing how we go forward in terms of all of the issues that have been looked at by the Improvement Board over the last eighteen months.

So I think it’s just another kind of check going forward that we’ve got an external voice or external voices, not part of the Council to really scrutinise what we’re doing on our performance going forward and I welcome that.”

So just to go back to a quote from the Improvement Board review report “The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” Well on Monday 6th January 2014 at a special meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee councillors (and the independent members of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee) will discuss a review of Wirral Council’s constitution and a survey of councillors. The survey itself states “This feedback will inform a full review of the Constitution that will be undertaken in January 2014” asking for councillors to return the survey by the 7th January 2014 (the 7th January 2014 is stated on the survey, but the recommendation in the accompanying report states 24th January 2014).

Yet nowhere in the thirty-six proposed amendments to Wirral Council’s constitution is there even one that refers to appointing a majority of the Audit and Risk Committee as independent members. The Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee is the Council committee that proposes and scrutinises changes to Wirral Council’s constitution. So why haven’t changes to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee appeared on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee agenda for the meeting on the 6th January?

The Improvement Board will be returning in March 2014 to see the progress Wirral Council has made, so why the delay on this matter. Does it require the matter to be referred to the fifteen councillors on the Council’s Coordinating Committee to agree things like “the exact numbers” of independent members on the Audit and Risk Management Committee? If the intention is a majority of independent members that can outvote the councillors you merely have one more independent member than councillors and remove the casting vote of the Chair?

Where is the Leader’s “proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution” and why isn’t it included in the agenda of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee’s meeting of the 6th January? Why delay implementation of this until after the elections in May? Surely if it’s a “demonstration of openness” this could (as was indicated in the Improvement Board review report) be included in part of the January constitutional review and these changes to the constitution agreed at the Council meeting in either February or March?

At least then when the Improvement Board returned to check on progress in March (although the independent members wouldn’t have been recruited yet) the constitutional change to the Audit and Risk Management Committee could be pointed to as evidence that Wirral Council has actually implemented one of the Improvement Board’s recommendations?

If a simple recommendation to have a majority of the Audit and Risk Management Committee made up of independent people has to go to a meeting of the Coordinating Committee to be agreed in principle (November 2013), the Audit and Risk Management Committee to agree its recommendations (November 2013), then the Coordinating Committee (again to agree the details), then the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (to recommend the constitutional changes to Council), then full Council (to agree the constitutional changes), is it any wonder that the Anna Klonowski Associates report referred to the “bureaucratic machinations” of Wirral Council (which seem to still be alive and kicking) and that the Wirral public (as expressed at the public meeting of the Improvement Board in November) are sceptical that there is a political will to change Wirral Council in the direction of more openness in what most people would consider a reasonable timescale?

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Just before Christmas started Wirral Leaks asked for a guide to the BIG Fund/ISUS/Working Neighbourhood investigation. Well where to start?

BIG stands for business investment grants. ISUS stands for intensive start-up support.

BIG is not to be confused with Think Big (marketed under the rather terrible catchphrase Think Big! Think Wirral). Think BIG was for grants of over £20,000 and as far as I know isn’t included in the whistleblowing allegations. Think BIG had a budget of £300k a year in Wirral Council’s budget from 2009/10 and is now called the Think Big Investment Fund.

Business Investment Grants (for under £20,000) were awarded to companies that were successful in applying for a business investment grant. Grant Thornton (who are also Wirral Council’s auditors) were asked in October 2012 for a quotation for work to look into the whistleblowers’ concerns. As a result of this work, two reports were produced and sent to Wirral Council. One report was on BIG and the other on ISUS.

In response to a question from Nigel Hobro to Cllr Phil Davies at the full Council meeting in July, Wirral Council published the summary of Grant Thornton’s report into the BIG program.

I made a Freedom of Information request for Grant Thornton’s ISUS report in August 2013. On the 23rd September 2013 Wirral Council stated that “the report, which has been reported previously, has been handed over to the Police for their consideration, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report” and refused providing the report using a s.30 exemption (Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities).

I asked for an internal review as the investigation had been carried out by Grant Thornton UK LLP (who isn’t a public authority). Another factor I pointed out was that Wirral Council weren’t bringing criminal proceedings, but instead passing it to the police. I also pointed out that s.30 was a qualified exemption and subject to a public interest test (which Wirral Council hadn’t included in its original reply).

Wirral Council’s response to the internal review was that they still refused to release the report. However they did provide further detail as to why. Firstly they stated that the investigation into the BIG and ISUS program was done independently of Grant Thornton’s role as Wirral Council’s auditors. This was to “review the earlier investigation conducted by the authority’s Internal Audit section and to conduct their own investigation into these allegations” and referred to an assurance by Grant Thornton that their work on BIG & ISUS was independent to that of their work auditing Wirral Council’s accounts.

Wirral Council regarded the work that Grant Thornton had done on BIG and ISUS as on Wirral Council’s behalf, therefore in Wirral Council’s view a s.30 exemption still applied. Stating this in English only a person with a legal background would write “as such Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is still appropriate as the investigation was conducted by an organisation acting on behalf of the organisation.” Despite referring it to the police, Wirral Council gave the impression they hadn’t made their minds up as to whether they would start a criminal prosecution themselves. However if they hadn’t made their mind up already not to institute criminal proceedings on this why refer it to the police?

In a concession though, they did agree with me that the original refusal should have included Wirral Council considering the public interest test. The person doing the internal review did carry out a public interest test (of sorts).

They gave many reasons against disclosure (and none for). The reasons they gave were that they regarding it being in the public interest not to disclose the report were that “the investigatory process is safeguarded“, that it would “undermine an investigation/prosecution of criminal matters“, “dissuade members of the public from reporting potential or actual wrongdoings“, “undermine the prosecution process and the role of the criminal courts” and “could prejudice the right to a fair trial“.

However, there is more than this in this story. As referred to in this previous blog post headlined “Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed” and referred to at 1.16 to 1.22 of Grant Thornton’s report the contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions Limited (also known as Wirral Biz) was never signed (a copy of the unsigned contract is linked to from that blog post).

Therefore Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd don’t regard it as a binding contract. Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd are quoted in Grant Thornton’s report as stating in a letter to Wirral Council from December 2012 “this company has nothing to hide in relation to its involvement in any of the above programmes [one of which was the BIG programme] on which it provided services. We are therefore prepared to grant access on the basis requested, on the understanding that your costs of the exercise are borne by the Council.”

Despite this commitment by Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to Wirral Council by letter in December 2012, that they had “nothing to hide” Grant Thornton state in 1.21 of their report that “we have not been given access to the documentation retained by the company concerning the services it provided under the BIG programme and have, therefore, been unable to discuss these with Enterprise Solutions.”

Complicating the matter further, Wirral Council was also in receipt of money from the (since abolished) North West Development Agency in the form of grants. This was for the ISUS (intensive startup side of things). The first ninety pages of the contract with the North West Development Agency is here and a further thirty-six pages here.

The North West Development Agency money given to Wirral Council under the terms in the contract (one hundred and twenty-six pages isn’t the whole contract as there were pages on publicity requirements I haven’t scanned in yet) came from Europe. Just to complicate things even further, Wirral Council also used Working Neighbourhood Funds money to fund these programs.

The whistleblowers’ concerns were that companies that didn’t qualify for grants were given them. On the BIG side, applications were first reviewed by the BIG Panel then the award of the grants were agreed by Wirral Council’s Cabinet (not part of public meetings of Cabinet but in private after the press and public were excluded) due to “commercial confidentiality“.

Grant Thornton looked into the applications of six companies that had applied for business investment grants. In five of these they found “financial anomalies” which were not explained to the BIG Panels. Four of these five were “significant anomalies” which had not been brought to the BIG Panel’s attention. The types of anomalies are outlined in 2.33 but ranged from accounts that indicated that the applicant had paid unlawful dividends (contrary to the Companies Acts) to balance sheets were one year’s opening balance didn’t match the previous year’s closing balance.

One applicant had included a £500 grant from Wirral Council in its accounts, which had been received four months before the accounting period that the accounts covered. Grant Thornton recommended that out of the six applications it looked at that Wirral Council should claw back the grant to the company referred to as BIG6 and refer that application to the police (which happened at some point earlier this year).

I asked Merseyside Police some questions in September about their investigation in September. The reply I got from a Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson was “This matter is currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council and any requests for information you have should be directed to them, perhaps by way of a Fredom of Information enquiry” (yes freedom is spelt incorrectly in the reply, but to be fair to Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson I would guess that freedom is a word used very rarely by police officers).

This blog post contains a transcript of the answer given to Nigel Hobro by Cllr Phil Davies back in July 2013.

So who knows what’ll happen next in this overly complicated saga? Who knows? Certainly my attempts to make inquiries have been stonewalled (apart from the contracts which I’ve published). However there is an unconfirmed rumour that DCLG (the Department for Communities and Local Government) are going to clawback grant money from Wirral Council in 2014 which could come to a six-figure amount.

So there you have it, nearly everything I know about the BIG/ISUS saga and Wirral Council.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Secrets about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration revealed

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre

Earlier this year I made a Freedom of Information request for the procurement advice that Wirral Council received from Peter Oldham QC and also Weightmans’ partner Sean Crotty about the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre.

A Rosemary Lyon (one of Wirral Council’s in-house solicitors) refused this request on grounds of commercial confidentiality (its own and other third parties). She stated that providing the information would “adversely affect its [Wirral Council’s] bargaining position concerning potential regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre which would result in less effective use of public money” and “make it less likely that companies or individuals would provide the Council with commercially sensitive information in the future and consequently undermine the ability of the Council to fulfil its role”. They even went so far as to claim that releasing the information “would adversely affect the course of justice”.

However, this blog post is the story behind what went on behind the scenes that Wirral Council clearly (according to the response to my Freedom of Information Act request) didn’t want to be disclosed to the public or written about in the media for reasons I will go into below.

On the 16th July 2013, the Leader of Wirral Council Cllr Phil Davies (under delegated decision making powers meaning that he made the decision on his own) gave his agreement to a “preferred development agreement” with Neptune Developments Limited to “allow them to work up a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for Birkenhead Town Centre incorporating Council owned land on Europa Boulevard and involving the re-modelling and offer of Birkenhead Market”.

In the report seen by Cllr Phil Davies before reaching his decision reference was made to “a commitment to develop a clear master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre” in the 2013/16 Corporate Plan. Reference was also made to the previous offer to Wirral Council in 2010 by William Tar Developments to build a casino on two out of three plots of land owned by the Council on Europa Boulevard. That offer was rejected in September 2010.

However what’s not been known widely by the public until now is that “At the same time and in response to the marketing exercise Neptune Developments Limited (NDL) submitted a proposal requesting that the Council move away from disposing of the sites separately and instead work with them to develop a wider regeneration scheme for Birkenhead. NDL had already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street and they suggested that this coupled with Council owned land on Europa Boulevard could be combined to allow a more comprehensive redevelopment scheme to be worked up and in turn would give a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites were developed separately” and that “negotiations have been continuing with NDL since the completion of the marketing exercise”.

Detailed below is Neptune’s proposal,

“Neptune proposes that the project is taken forward on the basis of a two stage agreement. The first, which is the subject of this Report, will involve granting NDL Preferred Developer Status which will be extendible to a period of 12 months and will be subject to NDL meeting the following performance targets:

Work up the Master-plan into a detailed implementation strategy for approval by the Council

Working with the Council, NDL will develop proposals which will reposition the town as a retail and leisure destination

NDL will negotiate further site acquisitions if necessary to deliver the agreed strategy.”

Subject to securing Members (Ed – Members means councillors) approval to the Strategy and Master-plan NDL would then be required to enter into a second Conditional Development Agreement which would commit them, at their own risk, to work up the proposals into a position were they could be implemented and to deliver the returns that are needed to secure the wider regeneration of this part of the Town.

It is proposed that the Conditional Development Agreement with NDL will be structured to ensure the Council receives the best value obtainable for the 3 sites on Europa Boulevard which will be determined by an independent valuation and all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk.”

In a section titled “Other options considered” it’s basically stated that no other options were considered because NDL has an interest in the land needed to build Birkenhead Market on once its moved.

“An initial assessment of the NDL proposals confirms that if delivered the scheme will have the potential to revitalise an important part of Birkenhead Town centre delivering a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites identified in this report were developed out separately. No other options have therefore been considered as NDL has already secured an interest in the balance of the land that is needed to deliver the re-provided market.”

The section on consultation states this “There will be a need to carry out extensive consultation on the scheme prior and during the detailed planning process. This will be carried out jointly between the Council and NDL.”

The section on legal implications refers to the advice that my Freedom of Information request in September was about (and refused). Once again Members means councillors.

“7.1 In the event that Members want to pursue this proposal and to ensure that it is compliant with current EU procurement law, Officers have sought advice from Weightmans LLP and Counsel about its legality.

7.2 The advice has now been received and it concludes that the Council would at this stage be able to enter into a Stage 1 Preferred Development Agreement on the proviso that a final test of lawfulness is carried out when the Stage 1 work has been completed and the detailed arrangements can be assessed.

7.3 NDL is aware of this advice and would be prepared to complete the first stage obligations at risk to allow the final lawfulness test to be undertaken when the scheme has been fully worked up.”

In other words Wirral Council’s happy to pass on the advice it received (at a cost of £7,404 of taxpayer’s money) to Neptune Development Limited to help them in a commercial venture as it may result in Wirral Council receiving money in the future for land in Birkenhead that it doesn’t want.

According to this article in the Wirral Globe in July 2013 Wirral Council wants to rebuild Birkenhead Market and move it.

Neptune Development Limited clearly as they have “already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street” have a commercial interest in any master plan proposals and would be able to “negotiate further site acquisitions” in advance of the master plan becoming public knowledge.

Doesn’t this all sum up how Wirral Council tries to operate though and considering the public interest in the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre being done in accordance with EU procurement law do you dear reader think I should make a further Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the advice they received from Peter Oldham QC and Sean Crotty of Weightmans in relation to this matter in the hope that they would provide it this time?

P.S. If anyone would like to have a stab at translating ”all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk” into plain English that can be understood by the average person please leave a comment!

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Share this:

The reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed

Share this:

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

Share this:

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Share this:

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

Share this: