Labour councillors on the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee vote to ban filming of the Wirral Council public 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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Well, in what is becoming a rather predictable saga and in a repeat of what happened at the start of Pensions Committee on Tuesday evening, Labour councillors once again voted that filming be stopped of this public meeting of Wirral Council’s Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday evening.
The Conservative councillors (except for the Chair who abstained) and sole Liberal Democrat councillor voted against banning filming but were outnumbered by the Labour councillors.
When asked by Cllr Fraser what the reasons were for banning filming the proposer of the motion Labour councillor Jerry Williams responded as follows:-
“Well, we’ve had clear guidance on this issue, here we are, on the other hand ostentatiously filming and recording events from the gallery could be regarded as disorderly and disruptive or otherwise. It is secondly unsettling to point a camera at someone at issue, significantly Members would know as they were being filmed, we have no control over way the film is taken, edited or even produced. I think that’s quite clear.”
Cllr Dave Mitchell, Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, “I’m in no rush, but I want my say in the end. In relation to that particular note, the passages that you’ve read out, what was the final recommendation to Cabinet or to the Council when that was actually dealt with? I’m just reminded while you’re looking it up, if you look behind it your good selves you will see there are Cabinet here, and for eighteen months every Planning Committee was filmed by the local authority. Did I interrupt you guys? Again it goes back to the comments [Cllr] Leah [Fraser] made before, it was stopped for financial reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with it being filmed because I know I’ve got nothing to hide.”
There were many items on the agenda that I’m sure the Wirral public would’ve liked to see (and hear) their local councillors’ views on which included domestic homicides, pavement and grass verge parking, parks modernisation and the Arrowe Park hospital travel plan.
Ironically (and causing much laughter) in the first main item after filming was banned (an item on domestic homicides) the Labour councillor Mike Sullivan, who had earlier seconded the motion banning filming, spoke of his regret that it was “not on the record” followed up with the barbed insult of “people this side [Labour] know the rules, Members opposite don’t”.
A report of the Licensing Act 2003 Committee of Wirral Council of the 7th November 2012, Interest Declarations, Minutes (25th July 2012), Result of consultation on draft statememt of principles (Gambling Act 2005), classification of Small Creatures (Light Cinema, New Brighton)
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Licensing Act 2003 Committee (Wirral Council) 7th November 2012
Present
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair), Labour
Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour)
Cllr John Salter (Labour)
Cllr Harry Smith (Labour)
Cllr Steve Niblock (Labour)
Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour)
Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative)
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat)
Council officers
Anne Beauchamp (Committee Officer)
Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager)
Ken Abraham (Legal adviser)
Unknown officer (male)
In attendance
Cllr Geoffrey Watt
Press/public
John & Leonora Brace
The meeting started with Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) giving apologies for Cllr Pat Williams (Lib Dem). The meeting was interrupted by the tune of an ice cream van, which the Chair, Cllr Bill Davies made a joke about, he went on to say that there were a number of meetings going on of different committees and that a number of councillors had sent their apologies. Apologies had been received from Cllrs McCubbin, Davies (George), Leech and Williams (Pat). He said he had a quick Any Other Business and asked if he could sign the minutes?
Agenda Item 1 Declarations of Interest 1:09 to 1:30
Cllr Niblock asked if he could declare a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Cllr Denise Roberts also declared a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Agenda Item 3. DRAFT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES UNDER THE GAMBLING ACT 2005 1:50 to 8:20
The Chair asked Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager) to talk about this item. She said the Committee had agreed a draft statement in July which had gone out to consultation, which had closed on the 31st October [2012].
At this point a Council Officer arrived.
Margaret O’Donnell continued that they had received one response which was attached at appendix 3, there were no specific direct comments so no amendments had been made to the draft since July, she said the purpose of the evening was to seek approval, then it would go to full Council on 17th December [2012] and was to be revised no later than January 2013.
Cllr Niblock referred to page 15 3.3 in the reference to “Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Authority” which should read Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. He pointed out a minor error where a full stop should be a comma and asked a question about page 31 about bingo being played in a member’s club.
Margaret was about to answer his points but Cllr Niblock went on to point out page 36, 21.2 apologising and saying he meant 27.3 and the phrase “will be decided on a case by case individual basis”, which he thought should either be case by case or individual.
Cllr Harry Smith agreed with him.
Cllr Niblock went on to point out that certain proper nouns such as Licensing Authority needed to be capitalised but were all in lower case.
Margaret O’Donnell said she would ask it to be looked at.
Cllr Harry Smith said, “Who are we going to shoot?”
Cllr Hornby asked a question about CRB checks and qualifications for door supervisors?
The Chair said that they used to interview door supervisors.
Margaret O’Donnell said that [door supervisors] were covered by the Security Industry Agency and they had to go through a process to be licensed.
Cllr John Salter asked if they had consulted the Chief of Police and if the Police had made comments?
Margaret O’Donnell confirmed the police had made no comments.
The Chair commented about training, the three meetings on tonight and that they were looking for alternative dates. As there were no further questions, the recommendation to the Council meeting of the 17th December of the Draft Statement of Gambling Principles was agreed.
4. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS ACCEPTED BY THE CHAIR 8:20 to 24:04 Classification of unclassified film “Small Creatures” (Light Cinema, New Brighton)
The Chair said there was one item of Any Other Business which Margaret would explain.
Margaret thanked the Chair for allowing this item of Any Other Business. She said it was in respect of the classification of a film in accordance with guidance issued by the British Board of Film Classification, as they had a cinema in New Brighton called the Light Cinema which wanted to show an unclassified film. She said they were obliged to protect children from harm. She said she received an email on the 6th November from a gentleman who wanted to show it during anti-bullying week (the week starting the 19th November), she said it had been classified by Liverpool Licensing Authority, she said the film related to anti bullying, an individual called Martin Wallace wanted to show the film Small Creatures and had submitted a synopsis and was classified as a 15 by Liverpool City Council screening at FACT. She read out a synopsis about the film. She said there was discrimination of a homophobic nature, on-screen cannabis smoking, no horror in the film, reference to two instances of self-harm, but brief, it had strong occasional language, no nudity but occasional references to sex, crime and occasional violence (a school fight on a field) and a stabbing on camera.
Cllr Harry Smith asked if there was a moral ending?
Margaret O’Donnell said the film was about 89 minutes long.
Cllr Harry Smith referred to possible abuse.
Margaret O’Donnell suggested it could be delegated to a subcommittee, who would then have the chance to view the film.
Cllr Harry Smith asked again if there was a moral ending?
Margaret said that the 14-year-old boy ignored the advice of his teachers and gets involved in knife crime, there’s then a stabbing.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was “disappointed with the ending of the film”.
Margaret said the key thing was the classification and if people should be permitted to go see it.
Cllr Niblock asked if Liverpool City Council had just classified it based on a synopsis, as what it looked like might not be like what’s written on paper. Margaret O’Donnell responded. She said they hadn’t been able to establish how Liverpool City Council had come to its decision.
Cllr Sykes referred to the guidance, Margaret O’Donnell responded by reading out what the British Board of Film Classification see as a 15 classification, during this Cllr Andrew Hodson arrived at 5:47pm for the 6pm meeting. Another councillor arrived at 5:48pm for the 6pm meeting.
Cllr Sykes asked if it would be shown as part of anti-bullying week? Margaret nodded.
Cllr Gregson made some comments.
Cllr Salter wanted something written down.
Cllr Gregson asked about the Liverpool decision.
Margaret O’Donnell said she was seeking the “general view of the Committee” and that she was more than satisfied to report back. She said the email had put them in a difficult position, if it hadn’t been for the meeting she’d have suggested setting up a subcommittee, which would depend on the availability of councillors, she said she would report back the comments made this evening and it was a matter for the applicant if they wanted to pursue it further.
Cllr Hornby said it depended on how the film was directed, which can be misunderstood. He said, “I don’t like the idea of we giving carte blanche to something because someone else across the river said, “It’s OK.”” Cllr Hornby said it was his view it had to be done through a subcommittee.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was really worried there was no moralising end to it and referred to what happened to the baddies at the end of Grange Hill.
Cllr Hornby referred to direction.
Cllr Mitchell agreed that it should be delegated to a subcommittee, who would get the information prior to the meeting, she said it’s to coincide with anti bullying week.
Cllr Roberts asked if the Liverpool councillors seen the film? She said it was no worse than books for teenagers.
The Chair said at his discretion a member of the public has indicated they wish to say something and that he will allow it.
Declaration of interest: The member of the public is my wife and writes and edits for this blog.
Mrs. Brace thanked the Chair for letting her speak. She said that similar types of films had been banned, but if it did go ahead she thought that only people aged over 18 should go and watch it.
The Chair thanked Mrs. Brace for her comments.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair said he thought a decision had been made and it would go to a subcommittee. It was agreed to delegate the decision to a subcommittee.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair closed the meeting and said that the Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee would start in five minutes.
Wirral Council: Proposal not to pay £250 to employees earning less than £21000
Wirral Council previously agreed back in March of this year (2012) (when it decided the Budget for 2012/2013) to pay all its employees earning less than £21,000 (which comes to over 2,000 employees) an extra £250 (net of National Insurance, Income Tax, pension contribution etc) in December 2012.
“Our staff are those who are best placed to point out where we are failing and to tell us how we can improve the services that we will deliver. We are therefore investing to ensure we listen and properly engage with them in the future:”
…..
“We recognise the importance of leading by example as an employer and we will again make provision for a payment of £250 for our lower paid workers – those earning under a full time equivalent of £21, 000.
£600,000”
Now go forward to now and there’s a proposal to the December Council meeting not to pay this £250 to 2,470 employees earning less than £21,000. The linked document goes into the detail and shows it affects a higher proportion of their female employees (calling this an “unintentional disadvantage”), a higher percentage of black and ethnic minority employees, a higher percentage of non-Christian employees, a higher percentage of transgender employees and a higher percentage of its young (under 30) employees.
So what have they done to mitigate the impact of this? They state they’ve written to the 2,470 employees that would be affected by this and they’ve discussed it in meetings with the trade unions.
As to the reasons why it’s being done, as the music hall song chorus goes:-
“It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor what gets the blame,
It’s the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn’t it a blooming shame?”
However if last March is a guide, then the Labour councillors will vote for this proposal and the Conservative/Lib Dem councillors will vote against. Labour have seven more councillors (plus Cllr McLaughlin can now vote as she’s no longer the Mayor). Conservative and Lib Dems have seven less. So whatever Labour decide will happen… and they tend to go by what the senior officers of the Council tell them to do.
This proposal (if it goes through which seems likely) just makes a small dent in the currently projected £13.2 million overspend. Quite what awaits the staff in the New Year is probably a much reduced workforce…. as to who is for the chop we’ll just have to wait and see.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Present
Councillors on Employment and Appointments Committee
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Conservative)
Cllr Peter Kearney (Conservative)
Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) deputy for Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative), spokesperson
Cllr Mark Johnston (Liberal Democrat), spokesperson
Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour), Chair
Cllr Phil Davies (Labour)
Cllr George Davies (Labour)
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour)
Officers
David Armstrong, Acting Deputy Chief Executive
Tony Williams, Acting Employee Relations Manager
Chris Hyams, Head of HR and Organisational Development
Surjit Tour, Legal adviser
Andrew Mossop, Committee Services Officer
In attendance:
Cllr Adrian Jones (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services)
Two members of public
00:08 to 00:15 The meeting started with the Chair, Labour councillor Paul Doughty welcoming people to tonight’s meeting.
1. Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest00:15
He asked if the councillors had any interests to declare? No declarations of interest were made.
The Chair, Labour Cllr Paul Doughty asked Tony Williams, Acting Employee Relations Manager to introduce the report. Tony Williams said it was a regular report to update the Committee on attendance and referred to figures in the report.
Cllr Harry Smith (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) and Cllr Chris Meaden (Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure) arrive.
Tony Williams said the report showed that health issues were the highest cause of absence, which they were doing work to address, with an example being given of stress awareness. He also referred to the absence rate at the Department for Adult Social Services. He asked if there were any questions?
Cllr Paul Doughty said the report was for noting, so it was noted.
4. Update on Managing Workforce Change and Redeployment 03:20
The Chair, Labour Cllr Paul Doughty asked Tony Williams, Acting Employee Relations Manager to introduce this report.
Tony Williams said there were now fourteen employees on the register, he said at the last meeting there had been six, but five of these had been resolved. He said three on the register had complex circumstances, with two of these being due to disability, he referred to exempt appendix 12.
The Chair, Labour Cllr Paul Doughty referred to exempt appendix 12. He asked if anyone had any questions?
Cllr Mark Johnston, Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about the reason behind the increase in employees on the register from the Department of Law, HR and Asset Management?
Tony Williams answered Cllr Johnston’s question by saying it related to a graduate trainees program. Cllr Mark Johnston asked a further question to Tony Williams. Tony Williams replied.
Cllr Lesley Rennie, Conservative asked about a point she had raised at the briefing. She wondered if the senior management restructure would lead to people’s jobs being subject to risk. She asked if in future members of the Committee, Leaders and Deputy Leaders could receive updates more regularly, such as fortnightly?
Chris Hyams answered.
The Chair Cllr Paul Doughty asked the Committee if they were happy to note the contents of the report? The report was noted.
6. Restructure of Human Resources and Organisational Development 10:00 7. Monitoring Use of Compromise Contracts 29:25 8. Appeals SubCommittee 30:24 9. Employment and Appointments SubCommittee Minutes 14/6/12, 28/6/12, 4/7/12, 5/7/12 31:33 10. Any Other Urgent Business Approved by the Chair (Part 1) 31:46 11. Exclusion of press and public 31:52
12. Exempt Appendix – Update on Managing Workforce Change and Redeployment
13. Exempt Appendix – Monitoring Use of Compromise Contracts
14. Any Other Urgent Business Approved by the Chair (Part 2)
Well today, myself and my election agent delivered my nomination papers to the Town Hall for the election of a councillor for the Bidston & St. James ward, with polling day held on 3rd May 2012. They were checked and found to be OK and my agent should get official notification through the post.
I’ll find out who the other candidates are at the end of the nomination period (I am assuming this election will be contested as it would be highly unlikely for it not to be), but I’m expecting there will be at least Labour candidate, a Conservative candidate and a Lib Dem candidate.
So thank you to the ten people who proposed, nominated and assented to my nomination. Oh and thanks to my election agent Leonora Brace too, who also proposed my nomination (which I accepted).
Certainly it was easier filling out the nomination papers this year as I didn’t have to get a Designated Nominating Officer’s signature or decide on emblem/description and local people seemed to be somewhat disillusioned with one (or more) of the mainstream political parties.