Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?
Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)
This article in the Guardian about the consultation on the proposals has the opening two sentences which sum things up, "What do you do if you’re part of a government that believes in decimating the fire and rescue service as a means to making "efficiency savings", only to find yourself regularly thwarted by elected councillors who sit on the local fire and rescue authority? Answer: abolish the fire and rescue authority."
It 2012 the Merseyside Police Authority (made up half of local councillors and half of independents) was scrapped and replaced with a Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner. It would seem the Conservative government wants to do something similar to what the Coalition government did to the police authorities in 2012, but this time to the fire and rescue authorities in England.
What happened to the police authorities and their replacement with police and crime commissioners plus police and crime panels was part of the Coalition agreement:
"We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives."
The Conservative 2015 manifesto stated "We will enable fire and police services to work more closely together and develop the role of our elected and accountable Police and Crime Commissioners." but didn’t go as far as stating the fire and rescue authorities would be abolished and their functions transferred to the police and crime commissioners.
Objectors referred to pay and display parking in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead and the reduction in visitors once charges for parking had started. Many objectors thought that car parking charges would put people off from visiting New Brighton. Some objectors thought that what charging would be unlawful. Others felt that Wirral Council ordering the pay and display ticket machines before the consultation on the proposed traffic regulation order started pre judged the outcome of the consultation.
The most detailed objection from Singleton Clamp & Partners Limited sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group stated:
Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?
Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?
Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014
On the right of the photo above is Peter Rushton. He’s chairing a public consultation meeting in Greasby last year, one of the public meetings held to consult with the public on the closure of West Kirby and Upton stations and a replacement fire station at Greasby. It’s a still from this video I took of the public consultation meeting.
He introduces himself as “I’m Peter Rushton from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service”. What I don’t think the public knew then (or perhaps know now) is that Peter Rushton had a contract with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority through his service company Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited.
His contract has a secrecy clause which states:
"Publicity
10.8 Neither the Authority nor the Supplier shall publicise in any media or public announcement information regarding the terms of the Contract, or the Service supplied, without the prior written consent of the other party in either case such consent not to be unreasonably withheld."
However I’m skipping ahead a little here and I’d like to briefly make a point about how this contract was awarded. The contract originally for six months (although it was later extended for a further six months) was for a value of £12,500 and started on the 8th April 2014.
Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited was only incorporated a fortnight before being awarded the contract. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution at the time required that for contracts of this value that two written quotations had to be obtained first. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution required there to be a report if this isn’t the case and 3.3 of their contract standing orders detailed the procedure to be followed:
"For procurement projects under £172,514 for Goods and Services and £4,322,012 for Works, the Head of Procurement or their nominated deputy, and a Director must approve any exemption, prior to any commitment being given by the Authority to any supplier. The Chief Fire Officer will keep a register of exemptions granted detailing the nature and value of the contract, the circumstances justifying the exemption and the name of the contractor awarded the contract."
However what was the contract actually for? That’s detailed in an attachment to the contract. A day was defined earlier in the contract as meaning 7 hours of work.
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11
Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES
Background
MFRA is in the process of merging 8 fire stations into 4 as part of a major service reengineering exercise to deliver large scale savings. This will necessitate a large programme of internal and external consultancy.
Project Scope/Deliverables
The service required is to deliver professional communications expertise, a communications strategy and support to the following people during the process:-
CFO and Exec team
Director of Strategy and Performance who leads the restructured corporate communications team in house
It will include devising and over-seeing the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy with all stakeholders to effectively help deliver 4 fire station mergers.
The work will require (but is not limited to) attendance at the following meetings which may take place outside normal office hours:-
Internal PO briefings
Public consultation meetings both open and facilitated
To chair open public consultation meetings
Briefings with stakeholders in the area including MPs, councillors
IRMP meetings
The services will also provide for the following:-
Play a leading role in delivering two events
Long Service & Bravery Awards
The official opening of the Joint Control Centre
Assist Principle Officers on all PO Briefings
Provide strategic communication advice to Principle Officers
Plus any other duties in relation to the station merger programmes as requested by the Director of Strategy and Performance.
Timescales and fees
Timescales
The Services will be provided over a maximum of 8 days per a calendar month for a period of six months from the commencement date with an option to extend on the same or different terms which would be agreed between the parties prior to any extension period.
Times, days and hours of the service to be agreed between the parties in advance of any attendance.
Fees
The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12
Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14
ATTACHMENT 2
FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE
Peter Rushton will undertake the activities as per the Specification in Attachment 1 during the period 8th April 2014 to 7th October 2014 based on a commitment of 8 days per a calendar month. For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority shall only be charged for days actually undertaken by the Supplier.
48 days will be undertaken during the six month period at the standard day rate of £250. The total value of this contract (including any pre-agreed expenses) is therefore £12,000.
The Authority will apply a ceiling to the Travel & Accommodation Expenses Rates payable to the Supplier of £500 for the six month period. Expenses must be approved by the Authority in advance of being incurred and shall be payable at the Authority’s approved rates in force at the time of Contract award. The Supplier will be required to provide copies of relevant accommodation and travel receipts.
Consolidated invoices shall be presented every 4 weeks clearly detailing the dates on which activities were undertaken and itemising any expenses claimed which were incurred during the same 4 week period.
The Authority shall pay the Supplier the sums due under the Contract, on 30 day payment terms, from receipt of a true and valid invoice.
All invoices should be submitted to:
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Exchequer Services Department
Bridle Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L30 4YD
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13
Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14
AS WITNESS the hands of the parties
Signed by and on behalf of the Authority (In Caps): MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY JANET HENSHAW
Signature: (Janet Henshaw’s signature)
Date: 08/04/2014
Signed by the Supplier (In Caps): PETER RUSHTON CONSULTANCY LIMITED
Signature: (Peter Rushton’s signature)
Date: 08.04.2014
The six month contract was then extended for a further six months (see below).
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2
Finally, the last report to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the outcome of the consultation to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations with a new fire station at Saughall Massie mentioned many of the expenses that related to the consultation, but nothing was in that report about this contract. If the cost of this contract had been included in the report, there should’ve been an extra £6,250 mentioned in the report (£25,000 divided by four is £6,250).
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
124. The General Regulatory Chamber hears a wide range of appeals on regulatory matters, for example charities, consumer credit, transport and appeals from decisions of the Information Commissioner. We do not currently charge fees for proceedings in this chamber, with the exception of appeals in relation to gambling licences. In these cases, the fee charged is based on the value of the licences that are in dispute. We are not proposing to change the fees for these proceedings.
125. In 2013–14 the estimated cost of the General Regulatory Chamber (including Gambling) was £1.6m. The fee income generated from Gambling proceedings (the only fee charging tribunal within the General Regulatory Chamber) was £11,600.
126. In the remaining jurisdictions within the General Regulatory Chamber, we have proposed one fee for an appeal decision on the papers and one fee for an oral hearing. Our proposal is to charge a fee of £100 to issue proceedings, which would entitle the claimant to a decision based on a review of the papers. The claimant may alternatively elect for an oral hearing, in which case a further fee of £500 would be payable. Based on current volumes, we estimate that this proposal would generate a cost recovery percentage of around 17% after remissions.
127. The fees will also apply to “reference” cases where cases are started in the first-tier Tribunal but have to be referred directly to the Upper Tribunal for a first instance hearing.
Questions
Question 14: Do you agree with the proposed fees for all proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber: specifically £100 to start proceedings with a determination on the papers; and a further fee of £500 for a hearing? Please give reasons.
Question 15: Are there any proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber that should be exempt from fees? Please give reasons.
I’d better explain a bit better what the above is about by explaining the process to making a FOI request.
You make a Freedom of Information Act request to a public body and if is turned down (whether in part or in full) you can ask the same public body for an internal review.
If at the internal review there is still information withheld and you feel that they shouldn’t have withheld the information you can appeal the internal review decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
If either the public body or the person making the FOI request disagree with the decision notice, they have 28 days to appeal the decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber.
Appeals can then be made of decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) on a point of law only to the Upper Tribunal.
The consultation is proposing that if someone (whether the public body or the person making the request) wishes to challenge an ICO decision notice by appealing it to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) that there will be a charge of £100 if the decision is made on the papers and £500 if a hearing is required.
So what do readers think about this proposed change? Most of the appeals to ICO decision notices to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) are by litigants in person, who unless they fall into one of the categories of people who don’t have to pay fees a fee of £100 or £500 may make them think twice before appealing a decision.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3
Above are three photos of Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton taken on the 29th June 2015. Over the busier summer holidays this car park will be full.
Future Council Wirral logo
As part of the Future Council consultation last year Wirral Council consulted the public on £2.5 million of budget cuts. In the end only £2.4 million of cuts were agreed because of savings that resulted from the extended Biffa contract.
Last year as part of that budget consultation, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on the 4th November 2014 where councillors discussed the budget option for charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park.
You can watch that discussion in the Youtube video below which should start at the point about the Fort Perch Rock car park.
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.
At that meeting Cllr Jerry Williams (Wirral Council’s Heritage Champion and a Labour councillor) tried to move a recommendation that the budget option of charging at Fort Perch Rock car park be removed from the budget options. However the solicitor advising the Committee said that it couldn’t be removed, so instead it was watered down to a recommendation to Cabinet that the budget option wasn’t adopted. The recommendation was seconded by Cllr Robert Gregson (also a Labour councillor representing New Brighton ward). This is what the recommendation stated:
“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Anita Leech (Labour), Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour), Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour), Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour), Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative), Cllr John Hale (Conservative), Cllr Jerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) voted in favour of the recommendation.
Two councillors voted against that recommendation (Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem) and Cllr Mike Sullivan (Chair, Labour)).
On the 9th December 2014 Cabinet (which is ten Labour councillors including one for New Brighton Cllr Pat Hackett) met. They didn’t agree with the recommendation from the Policy and Performance Committee and instead voted to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton. The minutes of that meeting state “We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.” .
This Cabinet budget proposal then formed the Cabinet’s proposal for Labour’s budget to the 2015/16 budget meeting of all councillors held on the 24th February 2015.
All the Labour councillors on the 24th February 2015 present at that meeting (including those who had three months earlier voted for a recommendation to Cabinet not to start charging for parking at Fort Perch Rock) voted for the Labour budget apart from Cllr Steve Foulkes (who was Mayor and Mayor’s traditionally abstain from votes on party political matters). You can see which way each councillor voted on the Labour’s budget here.
Earlier this year Wirral Council had a formal consultation on introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park. You can see the public notice (which has more detail as to how much they could charge for parking) for that consultation below. That consultation ended on the 3rd July 2015.
So what happens next? In September there will be a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider objections people have made to introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.
The Chair of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel is Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative). Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) are the rest of the panel. This panel meets during the day and if any of the three councillors can’t make it to the meeting they can send a deputy in their place.
When the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in September, it will make a recommendation on whether to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park to the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee meet in public on the 15th September 2015 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee can alter any recommendation they receive from the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.
The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee then make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation Cllr Stuart Whittingham who then makes a formal decision on the matter which is published on Wirral Council’s website.
Such a large petition also grants the petition organiser for five minutes to explain their petition at a meeting of all councillors, which then triggers a debate of a maximum of fifteen minutes. However as the next meeting of Council is on the 12th October 2015 (probably after all this will be decided) this is a moot point.
