Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

                            

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.

On Monday evening the issue of the future of Lyndale School was debated by Wirral Council councillor for about forty-five minutes. I’m going to try and sum up what was said and decided in a short blog post so inevitably I will be leaving some things out.

The notice of motion by the Conservatives and Labour’s amendment to it is already covered here. The response from the Lyndale parents is here, in addition to that there were a further ninety or so responses to the consultation.

Cllr Paul Hayes (proposing the motion to keep the school open) started by referring to the consultation response by Lyndale parents and the passion and “strength of feeling” he’d observed at a recent consultation meeting (which you can listen to in full). He said he hoped all councillors had received a copy of the consultation response.

The Mayor Cllr Steve Foulkes said that some councillors had received it on the day of the meeting and that he didn’t believe they could be expected to read it in full as they hadn’t had time to digest it.

Cllr Paul Hayes continued by referring to an earlier consultation on Kingsway Primary School and the similarities between the two. He was critical of an officer chairing the Lyndale School closure consultation meeting and said that as well as the majority of people feeling that the officer wasn’t neutral, he also described him as “rude and dismissive”. He described the consultation process as “farcical”.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked whether Labour’s amendment should be ruled out of order as it was negating the original motion. Labour’s motion deleted all paragraphs in the original motion bar one line. He said surely the same effect could be achieved by voting against the motion?

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said he would allow a legal opinion, but it had been a difficult decision on his part to allow the notice of motion on Lyndale School to be debated. From his point of view he felt that Cllr Stuart Kelly “didn’t have a leg to stand on” with regards to the [Labour] amendment being ruled out of order.

Surjit Tour said that the notice of motion referred it to the Cabinet as the final decision rested with te Cabinet. The amendment also did exactly the same in referring it to a special meeting in September. Therefore in his view the amendment was lawful.

The Mayor said that points of order was not the way he wanted to open the debate and asked the mover of the amendment to speak.

Cllr Phil Davies said that it had been agreed some time ago that they need to have a special Cabinet meeting and that there had been a very detailed consultation exercise, the results of which they had not yet seen. In his view the consultation responses were a “hugely important piece of evidence” which the Cabinet needed to consider before taking a view. To take the clear view expressed in the Conservative notice of motion before the special Cabinet meeting was “premature” as they would be making the decision now in advance of the special meeting. He was also very concerned that if the notice of motion was agreed then they would fall foul of predetermination. He thought it was a shame that Cllr Hayes had said that officers were not neutral.

He continued by referring to his time as Cabinet Member and again referred to the claim that officers were not neutral. Cllr Davies said that the amendment asked that they take no action on the motion tonight but refer it. Again he said that he was worried if they agreed the motion it would have predetermined the outcome before the Cabinet had considered the evidence, but there was no question that Lyndale School provided a “unique and caring environment”. He had visited the school but it was essential he had an open mind and considered all the evidence. He worried that if they made a decision tonight then they would be completely ignoring important evidence that they had not yet seen.

Cllr Andrew Hodson referred to his daughter who had learning difficulties, despite being in her 30s she had a mental age of nine. He considered himself lucky that she had her full health, but that the children at Lyndale had complicated health needs. Although his daughter lived in an establishment she still had her independence in fact [Cllr] George [Davies] had been at the opening.

He referred to the Corporate Plan about protecting vulnerable people and how Lyndale School was an essential service that met people’s complex needs. The staff at Lyndale were geared up to making sure that while receiving an education the children were safe and well cared for. He was perplexed by the decision as the Council would not benefit financially from the closure of Lyndale School so why do it? He finished by making a plea to keep the school open.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said that the Childrens and Young People Department had told him they had received ninety response and that he had had time to read the documents. He knew that members of the Council had been concerned about the future especially [former] Councillor Tom Harney. He referred to the document received at the weekend and referred to the reference in it to a working party.

Cllr Gilchrist referred to the space that children using wheelchairs need, children with epilepsy, those require oxygen and those who required time consuming feeding. He had attended two of the consultation meetings and concurred with Cllr Paul Hayes’ description. He referred again to the parents’ response to the consultation quoting from it and that it may be September by the time the issue was resolved. He said that the high needs budget for 2013/14 was £31.7 million.

After being given extra time, he referred to the strain on families, the SEN Improvement Test and said that if they wished, councillors on the Cabinet could choose not to vote on this notice of motion (and amendment). The notice of motion was about Council’s view.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that the way the process worked was that councillors who stood were indicating that they wished to speak in the debate and that if no Labour councillors stood up then councillors who wished to speak should still be allowed to address the Council. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he had no objections.

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said that if that was an early test, that he would decide what goes on, who was asked and which councillor would make a contribution.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that he’d pick up on the point made by Cllr Paul Hayes at the start. He too had been surprised at the way the presentation had been presented by officers to the parents and that the parents knew what was required and that the parents were the ones who should be listened to. Cllr Mitchell recommended that councillors read every page of the parent’s response to the consultation and absorb every part as it “rips to shreds” the proposal [to close the school] and deals with the real issue which was the children.

Cllr Mitchell continued by saying that it had nothing to do with the schools formula funding as it was all there set by the government and had never been taken away. This was not the case with education funding and the way the funding was divvied out was decided by Cabinet. One of the problems that concerned him with the consultation itself was the way parents had asked questions to officers and had no responses till the last day of the consultation.

Cllr Pat Williams objected to the Mayor refusing to let her speak. She said she was being deprived of her democratic right and that she’d been elected by the people of Oxton to speak.

The Mayor [Cllr Steve Foulkes] changed his mind and agreed to let her speak after all.

Cllr Pat Williams said that during the consultation period it was made abundantly clear that the appropriate place was to let the children remain at Lyndale School. She referred to the petition against closure of nearly 11,000 signatures which demonstrated how much Lyndale School was valued as a unique asset. She like other councillors referred to the parents response to the consultation and wanted the profound and complex needs of the children fairly reflected in the funding.

She had visited the school and was always most impressed by the caring an dedication of the staff and when she was Mayor had had the pleasure of formally opening the sensory garden. The consultation had ended and it was overwhelming apparent that Lyndale School should stay. She asked councillors to take note and resolve that Lyndale was to remain open.

Councillor Pat Cleary (the new Green Party councillor) said that he wanted to make a brief point. He said that Lyndale School doesn’t have to be closed and he appreciated the sincere feelings. He was disappointed as he didn’t understand the Labour councillors not engaging.

One issue he wanted to raise was that 18 months ago there had been a letter from the Leader of the Council during the What Really Matters consultation about whether local elections should only be held once every four years. It had been said that the reason the proposal was being brought forward was that early analysis of the consultation results had shown 91% supporting this change. In that instance a recommendation had been brought forward before the consultation was finished, he wanted to know why the current situation was any different?

Cllr Tony Smith said that he agreed that the uncertainty about Lyndale School must be resolved and had been an ongoing concern for a number of years. The consultation had been undertaken, but reducing numbers of children on the school roll, changes in funding arrangements and questions about the future viability of the school were the reasons behind the consultation. He stressed that the consultation was not about the quality of the education.

He continued by saying that any decision about future provision would be informed by individual needs and make sure people’s requirements were fully met. The government required the [SEN Improvement] test to be undertaken to show that the proposal was as good as or better than the children’s current provision. He said that they would make sure they had an up to date understanding of each child’s needs.

They had undertaken a consultation and there was oversight from the [Wirral] Schools Forum. The original decision had been called in and it was made clear then at the outset that the process should be open and transparent over the twelve week consultation.

Prior to the consultation starting, there had been a meeting with parent governors of Lyndale and throughout the consultation six public meetings. Eighty-five people from the community had turned up to these, with some attending more than one. Wirral Council had commissioned an independent person to consider each of the published options and any new options and consider the application of the government’s [SEN Improvement] test. All councillors had also been invited on an escorted bus tour which included Lyndale School. Twenty-two councillors had taken part in these visits on the 16th/17th June. He made the assurance that all information relevant to the consultation would be made publicly available prior to the Cabinet meeting to inform the decision making when the Cabinet would be taking all factors into account such as the needs and welfare of each individual child.

Cllr Jeff Green (seconder to the Conservative motion) reminded people that when Cllr Tony Smith spoke that closure is a preferred option. He reminded people why it was called in and referred to the speeches of Cllrs Hayes, Gilchrist, Mitchell and others (as well as congratulating Cllr Cleary on his maiden speech). He said a maiden speech was normally held in silence but the response from Labour councillors was because he’d beaten them in an election.

Cllr Green said that Lyndale was unique and incredibly special and that that needed to be safeguarded.

Continues at How did 62 Wirral Council councillors vote on Lyndale School?.

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

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

 

What’s interesting is how Julia Hassall’s (Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services) reasons to consult on the closure of Lyndale School have changed over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxt7NLR2biU#t=13m46s
Julia Hassall addresses the Cabinet (16th January 2014). What’s quoted below starts at 13:46.

Julia Hassall said to Cabinet, “The reasons for considering consulting on closure of the school are set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Closure of the school is being proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll which does contribute to a difficult financial position.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_QKYyKwJkQ#t=2m05s
Julia Hassall talks to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February who were reviewing the Cabinet’s decision starting at 2:05.

Julia Hassall said to the Coordinating Committee, “The report that was presented to Cabinet on the 16th January was seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School. The report set out the background saying that local authorities have a statutory duty to make sure that there are sufficient places in their area and there’s fair access to educational opportunity to promote every child’s potential.

The reasons why in the report we’re considering the closure of the school is because of the viability of the school was compromised because of its small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position and I think as you said Chair [Cllr Steve Foulkes] earlier, this is not in any way because of the standard of care and education within the school which is good and in many aspects outstanding.”

Interview (BBC regional news) 18th March 2014

In an interview Julia Hassall said, “The quality of care and education is really good at this school but there are concerns about whether we can sustain this school going forward” (source interview (ITV regional news) 20th March 2014).

However two days later she seemingly has a complete volte-face on funding or financial reasons being the reason for consulting on closing Lyndale.

Interviewer: This is all about saving money for the Council, isn’t it?
Julia Hassall: It’s absolutely not about saving money for the Council or balancing the Council’s books.
Voiceover: Julia Hassall is Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services.
Julia Hassall: If, and it’s very much if Lyndale School closes, the Council does not benefit in any way.
Voiceover: The Council also say that Lyndale children would be well looked after if they had to move to another school.
Julia Hassall: Both of the other schools could care adequately for these children and educate them properly. They’ll need to make some changes and adjustments. We absolutely will not put these children in settings where their needs are not properly met.
Voiceover: A consultation on the future of Lyndale School will start next month, the Council say they are minded to shut it down. The parents will continue their campaign to keep it open.

Below is a copy of page three of a handout at the Coordinating Committee meeting on the 27th February deciding on the call in to consult on closing Lyndale School which explains

LYNDALE SPECIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL, EASTHAM

SURPLUS FORECAST FOR 2014/15
Following a further cost saving exercise (re non teaching staff costs) recently approved by the Governors, & on the basis that the Minimum Funding Guarantee is to be applied, a small surplus is now forecast for 2014/15 & the cumulative deficit at 31/3/15 is now forecast to be approx £18,000, rather than the cumulative £72,000 included in the January Report to Cabinet. Savings from this reorganisation of approx £70,000 per annum, will continue in future years.

AGREED PLACES ALLOCATION
Following the independent reviews undertaken by Eric Craven in 2012, the Governors consider that the appropriate number of places to be allocated to School (as required to be agreed with the Education Funding Agency) to be 28.

TOP UP FUNDING
As detailed in the submissions to the recent consultations, the Governors consider that the currently proposed level of Band 5 Top Up funding of £16,000 per pupil to be insufficient to fund the necessary support required by these children. (As you will be aware, the Governors response to the 2013 consultation considered that the Band 5 Top Up funding should be £27,500 per pupil to adequately cover the various & complex needs of these most vulnerable children. Please also note that the Full Time Equivalent cost of a teaching assistant currently stands at just over £21,000 per annum.)
To this end, the Governors consider it essential for an impartial assessment of the needs of each individual pupil to be undertaken, from which the appropriate level of funding should follow.

PUPIL SAFETY
In view of the Band 5 assessed pupils’ lack of mobility and complete vulnerability, the Governors consider it essential for the children to be educated in a completely safe environment and the current proposals do NOT meet this necessary requirement. It is more cost effective to invest available capital funding in making relatively minor changes to the existing Lyndale premises rather than making significant changes to the newly rebuilt Stanley School or Elleray Park (which is already planned to expand, but purely to adequately deal with their existing pupil numbers.)

EDUCATION
The Governors and staff have always aimed to make Lyndale a Centre of Excellence for the education of PMLD pupils and the current proposals would be detrimental both to the considerable staff expertise which has built up over the years and to the group of available supply staff who provide the necessary support ensuring the best for our children.
Ian D Harrison F C A
Vice Chair of Governors, Lyndale School
26th March 2014

So if anyone could leave a comment detailing the reason (or reasons) why Wirral Council is planning to consult on closing Lyndale School it would be appreciated!

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

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

                        

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub.

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Also the plot in front of you doesn’t have any access to the highway and fronts the street. There’s very little space in that it’s actually quite a small plot of land.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Tony?

Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton Council, Labour): Thanks Tony too. Do you have any details of the acquisition of the land neighbouring the land and when the current owners took possession of that land about the date that they purchased that land for? Whether it was because it was a big piece of land…about it was eighteen months.. the land valuation office about the land valuation office so it gives you a better guide as to not what they wanted, but what they already paid for the land that they’ve already got?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): I’m sorry I don’t have those details but I’ll see what I can find out.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Again Steve?

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): I suggest progress Chair that I think this, now that it’s a public document which I think it should be, the land valuation is out there and in you know the public arena. We’re unlikely then, to get any more than this for this piece of land but can we ask officers to consider the options that Members have raised when parcels of land like this as a general policy that we go to auction or we use that methodology to see if we can get the best return we can on any piece of land or any asset that we sell?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Yeah absolutely and I think that it’s central to the way that we deal with any asset I would sell in making sure that now the District Auditor and the District Valuer at all times for any disposal or acquisition with us in getting that relevant necessary advice at all times. Mary?

Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Just a kind of an afterthought really Chair. It would be interesting to know what pieces of land we do own and where they are so that we can be forewarned if you like we know nothing just jump out of the ground and be flogged off rather cheaply in the future? Just to make as all aware.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): And I think fundamentally all these things are captured in our asset register and it would be useful to actually have a workshop for all Members to take Members through everything that remains within the asset register and what its strategic long-term how its potential is. Ken?

Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley Council, Labour): Thanks Chairman. We used to have a New Deal for Communities earlier in across my area in Huyton and when we demolished about eleven hundred houses the price of the land then was at the maximum. Now we’re lucky to get a third of that price for that land and what we’re looking to do now is hold onto the land so we’ve got a development project. We already have developments there.

When they’ve finished one plot, hopefully that will sort of drive up the price of the next plot up. So the price of land at the moment is at an all time low and about ..%. The price has been advertised so nobody is going to pay more than the advertised price.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Gordon?

Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton Council, Labour): Just really a technical point on how we put this in the public domain. If we decided that we really wanted to seek an auction price for this meeting, we’d have declared our hand by it being a public document. Would we compromise ourselves? So I just wonder … that the information was regarding this, the mark down, but are we best advised putting this in the public arena with this being sold in anyway? Thank you very much Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Ok, if there’s no further contributions, if I can move the recommendation in paragraph seven of the report?

Councillors: Agreed.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

                        

At Thursday’s meeting of Merseytravel, councillors had to decide whether to sell a Liverpool pub (bought for £106,174 in May 2009) for only £18,000. The pub was bought as part of the since axed Merseytram scheme. According to the report prepared for councillors it was “overgrown with vegetation”, “substantially demolished” and only retained its front walls. Due to fly tipping Merseytravel was served with a “environmental enforcement order” by Liverpool City Council. Despite its unloved state, since being purchased by Merseytravel, “minimal works to improve the site have been completed by Ascot Property Group in 2013”.

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 6 (Disposal of Land)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item number six is the disposal plans, Tony’s going to actually present that <A HREF="“>report, I’m just going to make the point that this part of the land is actually falls within my ward, I’ve checked with the Monitoring Officer and I don’t need to declare an interest because I have no personal interest in the matter. I did want to make that clear beforehand, so Tony?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Thank you Chair. Yeah, Merseytravel owns a small plot of land on the corner of West Derby Road as you can see in the report. This proposal is to accept an offer for the sale of it to an organisation called The Lofts (Ormskirk) Management Limited.

The background to this property purchase on behalf of our Merseytram scheme was to secure the land for the tram. Obviously now that the site is owned by ourselves, we’ve further looked to try and dispose of it. We have taken a decision it’s important to establish.

Effectively the building is just a façade, it’s just a shell, it’s an old pub, it’s derelict, it’s been knocked down. In fact recently it was identified by the city council as an eyesore and obviously I’ve been exploring there’s actually been a lot of debris and fly tipping from the site. At the moment it’s a liability to us and what we’re looking to try and do is dispose of it.

The advice of the District Auditor is effectively we should pursue a meeting and sell to the adjacent landowner, who’s actually preparing a land package to … a large … of the site. Our understanding is that there’s going to be a planning application for residential and then retail usage. The proposal is that we’ve had from them is to sell for £18,000 which is a reduction on what we purchased it for, details are in the report and if you want me to take any questions Chair on the proposal?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah, thanks Tony. Les and Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Yeah, I can understand the issues around this particular piece of land and it’s got a history of causing us problems. We are expending revenue on looking after the piece of land I guess, but my question and challenge is really about how we deal with what maybe I don’t know a portfolio of bits of land that are this. Some of them may be a remnant of Merseytram, others may be different but particularly there is another methodology of getting rid of land where you go through open auction, you do it through an agent and you don’t know who the owner is. Sometimes that brings a better price or a worse price.

The argument that’s sort of been discussed or debated is should we have gone to auction with this rather than just simply .. bid we’d have got more money. Or if we auctioned it now with a reserve price of £18,000 would we get more potentially?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): I’ll just say Chair, we did look at obviously going to auction there’s a cost but there’s no guarantees that there’d be buyers. The advice from the District Auditor was that the best option including the landlord who’s actually bought the plots of land is to make the best bid. If we want to open auction there would only be one bid and we may only get the reserve price.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Shane do you want to add to that?

Shane Fitzpatrick (Senior Head of Operations, Merseytravel): Just to add a comment on that, the land obviously was acquired from the Liverpool City Council and one of the conditions of the sale was to offer that back as an option. That was not, there was no take up on that offer.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks for that Shane, I’ve got Les first and then Tony.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative)): Chair, I was going to bring up the auction thing but that having been said now, looking at what it was bought for £106,000 and what we’re asking for it now £18,000 is actually a very low price for a plot of land that’s built some buildings on.

I mean I know in Wirral there’s been some damage to prices, but round about £80,000 to £90,000 for a plot of land for a house. So when I see £18,000 I mean I take it into account that it is a piece of land that’s been you know misused, fly tipping and everything else but it’s still a fair amount of land for £18,000. Surely you could have done a bit better than £18,000?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Obviously that reflects the condition of the land. It’s actually derelict and it’s only a façade wall, it’s completely derelict land. Also …

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued).

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

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

                               

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 4 (Tunnel Toll Setting 2014/15). The report for this agenda item can be downloaded from Merseytravel’s website.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item four is the tunnel tolls setting process for 2014/2015, Gary and Frank do you want to introduce the report?

Merseytravel officer (Gary Evans, Head of Customer Delivery): Thank you Chair. Members will have the report in front of them, just to summarise the report it’s very consistent with previous year’s toll setting arrangements. Section two of the report details the legal process that the Authority must follow in considering and setting toll levels for the year. Section three actually details the authorised toll levels that were triggered in line with the Tunnels Act 2004 by RPI levels published in November 2013.

Section four covers the actual tolls that have been charged over the past five years and helps give Members a historical view around the authorised levels compared to actual levels charged along with the Fast Tag discount offered and that detail is in section four. Section five of the report, in determining the tolls Members must take account of issues of an economic and social nature in their decision making process. Section five details a range of economic and social data for the Merseyside region for 2013. This range of evidence will allow Members to have a considered opinion.

In section six Members will be aware that some of the principles of the Tunnels Act are to ensure that toll levels are broadly in line with other transport options in the region and section six details the cost of those alternative or comparable cross river transport services in place. Finally section eight of the report it details that any potential toll increase of ten pence, passed on vehicles in other classes generates the Authority approximately £2.4 million per an annum. I’m happy to take any questions on that report.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks Gary. Are there any questions or comments for Gary in the first instance? Steve?

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Thanks Chair and clearly as a Wirral representative it’s a highly sensitive issue and a difficult issue for Wirral Members to deal with because I think it is well accepted that the major impact of the tunnel toll increase does fall on Wirral residents and a great number of other residents indeed who use the tunnel on a daily basis as a commuter route or route to work. So clearly it is a difficult issue, I just want to lay out though a few issues.

This is my, having been new to the Authority last year this is the second time I’ve been confronted by this difficult decision and it is a decision we have to make because there’s a little bit of a clue in the name of this organisation, it’s the integrated transport authority and those people who want to separate the tunnel as a separate entity are missing a trick. The tunnel is integral to the things we do. Integrated transport means all routes whether it be bus, whether it be train, whether it be ferry, whether it be people who use the tunnel and the tunnel is in our ownership. So it falls upon us to make this, make this difficult, often very difficult decision.

One of the factors Gary referred to is the issue in and around the economy and whilst we are being told by the government everything’s great and the economy’s on the uplift. The economy always grows slower in the north-west. I think the economy at the moment is the, economic growth is so fragile that the tunnel toll in our sort of own mini economic scenario may be something that doesn’t help the economy, in fact hinders it and slows it down even further. At the same time as hailing that the economy is on the up, Chancellor Osborne consistently refers to further austerity packages.

Austerity for the north west, well austerity for local government means you are singled out and are hit with the biggest cuts. Austerity for north-west local authorities means that you are picked out for the most severe cuts and the highest percentages. I won’t quote the examples but we are always hit hardest, perhaps because we lack a number of Tory MPs. So therefore I think the tunnel tolls, partly by being part of the integrated transport network is also part of the overall budgetary position that the Authority finds itself in.

Now individuals can pick which topic they think extra money made from tunnel tolls is spent on, others can pick ones that are more favourable, others can pick ones that are less favourable, but nevertheless it does form part of the overall budget package. So any money that isn’t, is removed by any resolution today, would have to be found and replaced. So I’m glad that later on in the business the Authority is setting a freeze on the levy for the local authorities and that will certainly ease the position for any council tax payer over on the Wirral. And if the money, if the tunnel tolls say overnight were to be free and passed onto the council tax payer directly I think that would be an enormous burden for every single household particularly Wirral and elsewhere.

That would be impossible to bear and would not get through a referendum Chair I would add. People would vote against something that would lead to a ten percent hike on Council Tax simply to pay for the tunnels. So we are in a position where we have to make a budgetary decision in and around that based on the knowledge we have in front of us.

My argument has been since I’ve come on the Authority and before that position is that this link between across the Mersey or links across the Mersey is such of economic, national economic significance that it should have the right to be included in the national road network and therefore funded directly from national taxation as opposed to what is a local taxation situation. It appears our plea last year was unheard and it also appears that consultation that is taking place at the moment actually picks out estuary crossings for one that will always be tolled under this government’s consultation. So I think, if nothing else happened today, we need to get lobbying and make sure that that exemption is removed and that we have the right to campaign for the tunnels to be taken into the national road network and see how far we get with that. So clearly there’s those issues.

The other issue is that the overall budget of the ITA must be robust enough to maintain the running and safety of those tunnels because we would know that the economic damage done by say one tunnel going down or you know heaven forbid two tunnels in a state that they couldn’t remain open would be massively detrimental to our economic recovery, in fact it would probably see the economy off overnight. So we have to have a robust budget and people think that whilst the tunnels are well maintained, there’s a reason for that because the cost of the serious and major repair and damage to the infrastructure of the tunnel itself would exceed you know many people’s budget, we’d probably have to borrow money to actually do that. So it is well that we remember that, that this budget should be robust and a high level of reserves to dig your .. major repairs if necessary.

So having said all those things I do not believe that this is the right time in the economic cycle for us to increase the tunnel tolls for all the I can see the temptation to do so and from my part I haven’t prepared any resolution otherwise, but will probably unless someone convinces me in the next part of the debate will see myself actually voting against the increase based on the fragile economy that we are part of that the tunnel toll increase at this time would be the wrong route but I do believe, I do believe seriously that if we are serious about getting into the national road network we need to up our game and certainly we have one Conservative MP on Merseyside who should have the ear of government.

It would appear that the ground can change overnight, when we look at the decision on the A14 which was to be financed by tolls and it so happens that the Tory MP had the ear of government and that decision was reversed so they can change their mind if the right people use the right amount of influence. So my view is that we should continue the campaign for the national road network to take over the funding of the tunnels. In the absence of that, I understand the very difficult decision that we make today but I don’t feel on the basis of the evidence that I’ve got in front of me that I could support it today. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks Steve, that’s a very helpful contribution at that.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thanks Chair. I’m not going to rehearse the story because quite frankly I agree with a lot of what Councillor Foulkes has had to say today. I do have a proposal to put forward, I think just to add to what Steve has had to say is that constantly on Merseyside, Wirral as well as a lot of the other surrounding councils are statistically below the national employment levels and have been for some time and quite a difference between those two levels. So it is an area that is actually under the cosh as it were.

Austerity I agree with Steve has hit us for whatever reasons us a lot harder up in the north-west and we’re all feeling it to all the councils and that means right down to the services that we’re giving and to the general public that have to pay for those services. It is really, really tight. Our councils locally will have to pull up their belt certainly and taking difficult decisions to actually keep those services running and to make decisions that are on a lot of occasions non political but have to be made to actually keep those services going to the people and if that means increasing you know they’ve had to do it but in other areas they’ve had to cut the cloth according to their need and take that service and the cost of that service down.

I think Merseytravel should be giving a message out at this time too, I agree again with what Steve said. I think this is the year, this is the time when we as Merseytravel, whilst still being safe in our tunnels, completing all the jobs that we’re expected to do health and safety and all that, should be sending out a message to say look we realise that this is hard, we realise that this is going to have an impact on the local economy ie people going to work it is going to be a hard time to put an extra ten pence on the tunnel tolls. It may not seem a great deal to us but it is to the people who have to travel every day through the tunnel to go to work. It’s a lot of money on their wage packets at a time when their wage packets are not going up, they’re going down.

So I’ve got a proposal that we keep and freeze the tunnel tolls to the level that they are now and then relook at it next year. At the same time I would like to see and I’ll reiterate what I said last year, a discount scheme and I am not talking about Fast Tag which is for everybody, I am talking about a Merseyside discount scheme which I know operates in other parts of the country. I would like to see that looked at and see whether we can do something for the people of Merseyside to have a local discount scheme. Now that’s my proposal to the meeting today. Thank you Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks for that. I appreciate you’re putting forward a motion. I’m going to suggest that we take your motion at the end of the debate and allow all Members who wish to have their contributions first but it is being circulated around the chamber. Does anyone else want to make any contributions? If there’s no other Members from the, oh go on Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): It is helpful now to see it in print. Errm, right ok well we do I mean yeah looking at paragraph d it’s probably something I missed out in my contribution before. I you know, in my every day life I have to turn up at Unilever which is an international company and we have many colleagues and employees that travel from this side of the water and beyond through the tunnels to go to work. I’m amazed actually the number because I do think I’m getting a bit obsessive about Merseytravel now, I’ve done my own mini survey and out of nine people I asked who do that trip on a regular basis in their car only one of them had got a Fast Tag and they’d let it run out.

So I have to asking myself Fast Tag there, which is a signficant saving every day, why is these barriers up or why are these people not engaging with something that immediately saves them money. I just wonder if our marketing of the Fast Tag is as great as it should be, because there is an alternative out there. So I actually have no problem supporting Les’s motion, it doesn’t say who’s seconded it. I believe that John has seconded it, so that’s fine and dandy by me so just the issue about Fast Tags, that there is an alternative for people to save money but I’m amazed by the number of people that don’t take them up.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah I think that’s a very good point Steve because I was going to say from my position sat here as Chair that I heard everything that you both have said and I think we all take the same view that this always a very difficult and challenging decision and process that Members go through every year. It’s not an easy process and inevitably some of the recommendations that come to us are challenging. Steve’s point is exactly right in the sense that if we were ever to get a free crossing across the river the only practical way of that ever happening would be for the government to take the tunnels into the national road network.

When we’ve asked in the past, government ministers and Department for Transport officials have been unequivocal in the fact that there is no government thinking of taking the tunnels into the national road network and furthermore and I’m glad Steve pointed it out in the government’s consultation on the national network’s proposals for both the road and the railway networks it actually singles out on page fifty-two of the document that estuarial and river crossings will remain on a tolled basis under the government’s policy. Added to that it also makes the point that new road schemes will be looked at under a tolled basis which is government policy but apparently doesn’t seem to count if the proposed road runs through John Major’s former constituency.

So with the government having no clear intent of taking the tunnels off our hands that leaves us in a bit of quandary doesn’t it you know in terms of the way you could finance the tunnels? Either it would be via the levy and the county taxpayer which in any circumstances would be challenging but in its current circumstances where finances for local government are so excruciatingly difficult because of the way the government is behaving. He’s absolutely right that on balance then the cost of the tunnels does fall to the users in that very difficult situation and obviously although the cost of running those tunnels is always significant to make sure we operate them not just in a way that is fit for purpose, but those key assets that they are for the Liverpool City Region but in doing so in a way that actually provides them to be some of the best operated in the world and some of the safest in the world. That does come at a price, but it comes at a price and we’re always very conscious and keen that we operate those in the most cost-effective and most cost efficient way accordingly.

I also take on board everything that’s been said about the state of the local economy. Whilst I think there’s been some elements of encouraging news and some elements of employment growth locally particularly some elements in terms of a report that came out last week about private sector employment increasing .. in the local area. I fully take on board just how fragile things are in the local economy and that remains a very, very difficult and challenging situation that we find and it would be nice to see the government taking a more thorough approach in terms of the way they look to support our region accordingly.

But I think it’s also important when we look at this debate that we don’t just view the tunnels as an isolated part of our transport network. You know we are an integrated transport authority and the tunnels are not only integral to the transport network of the Liverpool City Region but it’s actually vital that they operate in an integrated way and that the decisions we take in regard to the tunnels are not in isolation to the overall transport network as a whole and equally the decision that we take when we go through this process of setting the tolls we can’t take in isolation of our overall budget setting process which we’re going to deal with as the next item which we know is as challenging as it is this year and inevitable that it will get even more difficult as we go into the future.

So with that all in mind and it’s very, very difficult for us to take this decision, I’m on the balance of considerations of the opinion that the ten pence increase that is being proposed is proportionate and on balance the best decision that we can take in very difficult circumstances at this moment in time. However I’m still very conscious of the fact that that still represents a ten pence discount on the authorised toll that could be charged. It’s not going to up to £1.80, the proposal’s £1.70 and furthermore and Steve made the excellent point about the Fast Tag scheme, the Fast Tag scheme will still demonstrate a considerable saving for local users and your point about actively and proactively marketing the Fast Tag scheme is exactly right Steve.

Last year was the first time that we’d ever properly done that and I’m really pleased we’ve managed to get usage of the Fast Tag up to forty percent of all users and let’s remember the vast majority of those Fast Tag users are local residents and local businesses. There is a saving to be had and it works out that every seventh journey if you use the Fast Tag is free so it’s very strong I think from all of us that we want to make sure we continue that proactive marketing of the Fast Tag to make sure we maximise the uptake and make sure that local commuters and local residents and local businesses will get that benefit. If there’s no further contributions from the floor, Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thank you. Chair, I take on board the protection that you’ve said and I agree with a lot of it and there is obviously frustrations on both sides but given that reserves are healthy, given there’s been an underspend in the capital program, the £2.4 million could be found and I think it’s important that we send out a message from Merseytravel that we’re not prepared to raise it every year, year on year, year on year and in times we can listen and we can help and that’s all I’m asking for not every year we go against .. item but let’s send a message … to do that Chair that’s all I ask.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): I think I’ll take that on board Les and I think whilst I’m conscious that reserves are healthy, we need to make sure that we’ve got healthy reserves to deal with any issue that may arise. Both in terms of any sort of significant issue with regard to the operational maintenance and operational things but also any other opportunities on the transport network and the way that we want to develop an integrated transport network that is fit not just for the twenty-first century but is fit for a world class city region which is what we want for the Liverpool City Region. If there’s no further contributions Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Yes Chair, I’d like to move the motion and if I can remove paragraph c) from the proposed motion to my motion which says maintain existing discount on authorised tolls for cash and Fast Tag tolls to the level that is effective from the 1st April 2014 and d) the authority asks the Director General and Chief Executive to investigate the cost implications as well as any implications under the Tunnel Act 2004 of bringing forward a further discount for Fast Tag users in order to reduce the burden of tolls on regular users of the tunnel.

Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem): Second that Chair

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks John. Can I see all Members in favour?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): All against?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): That’s lost. In that case can I move the recommendations in paragraph 11 of the report. Is that agreed?

Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour): Can I second that?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Do you want to put that to the vote accordingly? All in favour?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and against?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and that’s carried.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Can I have my vote recorded?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Absolutely, that’s why we put it to the vote for you.

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

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other