Will 9 councillors tonight recommend better scrutiny of Wirral Council?
Will 9 councillors tonight recommend better scrutiny of Wirral Council?
Tonight, it’s a special meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (yes Wirral Council and standards in the same sentence does cause most people to smile). So what’s it about?
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee (which was one of the scrutiny committees abolished last year) held on 15th June 2016
Well last year, Wirral Council decided to save money by having less scrutiny (reducing the scrutiny committees by one). Considering the £millions extra that had to be spent to put a sticking plaster on matters as a result of poor scrutiny and the OFSTED report (which amplified some milder criticisms in the peer review), one wonders with hindsight whether it was both a false economy and a lost opportunity to move towards a better system of scrutiny.
Interestingly the result of that First-tier Tribunal was that the judiciary decided there that Mr. Tour’s decision-making was flawed.
If you read that decision and the OFSTED report together, I wonder if the outcome of the First-tier Tribunal hearing would’ve been different had I had the benefit of that OFSTED report at the time.
Tonight’s meeting, the papers are on Wirral Council website tries to remedy a theme that runs through that First-tier Tribunal decision, the OFSTED report and that that was raised by opposition councillors last year when Labour proposed and then decided on less scrutiny.
I will also make an educated guess that the Improvement Board (which doesn’t appear to meet in public or publish its minutes as far as I can see) decided that the issues expensively identified by Anna Klonowski Associates have never been addressed in any sort of permanent way.
In fact it’s telling that the parting recommendation of the previous Improvement Board (a recommendation endorsed by many of Wirral Council’s committees) for more independent scrutiny, was then vetoed by Cllr Phil Davies. Interestingly his rationale was that Wirral Council would have a combined audit & auditor panel committee, then… yes you’ve guessed it for cost reasons councillors decided later not to!
If I remember correctly, the government are making it a legal requirement that the Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee is chaired by a councillor from a different party, yet Wirral Council has for a number of years considered that scrutiny of Labour councillors is best done by committees chaired by yes it doesn’t take much guessing Labour councillors.
So what is tonight really about?
Well the decision taken last year by Labour councillors is now seen as flawed in light of the OFSTED report.
Labour now propose doing a U-turn and splitting the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee into two new committees. The two new committees will be the Adult Care and Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the Children and Families Overview & Scrutiny Committee.
It looks likely that the Children Sub Committee and Health & Care Performance Panel will both be scrapped.
Whether the new scrutiny arrangements will work or whether I’ll be writing next year about a further change to Wirral Council’s scrutiny arrangements who knows?
In the great tradition of Wirral Council, councillors will meet and make no decision tonight, only a recommendation (effectively to all councillors) to then make a decision next month.
Which means nothing will change for at least a further 3-4 weeks.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Decision on controversial planning application APP/16/00985 (Saughall Massie Fire Station) delayed as councillors call for change of venue, site visit, special meeting & more transparency
Decision on controversial planning application APP/16/00985 (Saughall Massie Fire Station) delayed as councillors call for change of venue, site visit, special meeting & more transparency
Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting held on the 10th November 2016 was standing room only because of the planning application about a fire station at Saughall Massie (APP/16/00985)
Updated on 30th November 2016 and the 11th December 2016 by JB: The site visit is scheduled for 11 am on the 13th December 2016. Contrary to what was said at the Planning Committee meeting reported below, the Planning Committee will then meet in the Civic Hall (1st floor) at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED on the 15th December 2016 starting at 6.00 p.m. in order to decide on this planning application.
Last night’s Planning Committee at Wirral Council was another event in the long running political saga that is the attempts to start a new fire station at Saughall Massie and close Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station.
Committee Rooms 1 and 2 which were the venue for the Planning Committee at Wallasey Town Hall were both full (standing room only as you can see from the picture above) and Committee Room 3 in another part of the building was being used as an overflow.
Dan Stephens QFSM (Chief Fire Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service/Chief Executive for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) was looking very smartly dressed in what I will describe as his ceremonial uniform. He was there with what I will describe as an entourage of people from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service including Ria Groves (Trainee Solicitor) and Colin Schofield (PFI Project Manager (part of his job is to manage the Saughall Massie Fire Station project)). Dan Stephens QFSM and his entourage stood near the door.
Also present were the three local councillors for Moreton West and Saughall Massie ward (Cllr Chris Blakeley, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Bruce Berry). They have opposed this planning application along with groups such as the Saughall Massie Village Conservation Area Society and the Wirral Society.
The vocal and public disagreements about this political issue between Cllr Chris Blakeley and Dan Stephens QFSM are mainly already on the public record, well documented and have been reported on by myself before and others, so I’m not going to rehash in detail the rather long history of the matter here.
I will briefly state however that Wirral Council withdrew its offer of land for this at Greasby which is what led to Saughall Massie being proposed. The effect of that is it has given some people hope that people power can overturn the previous cross-party political consensus behind it.
Also I had better point out that there was a rather long running First-tier Tribunal case in which I was the Appellant about the financial breakdown of expenditure for the new fire station first at Greasby, then Saughall Massie.
Present at the Planning Committee was Alan Rundle who had exchanged letters with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about a proposed judicial review before the Greasby plans were abandoned for very similar issues to those that the First-tier Tribunal (in case EA/162016/160054) covered.
However in summary, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have estimated £300,000* to pay Wirral Council for the land and an estimated £550,000 from the sale of the fire stations at Upton and West Kirby. To build a new fire station will cost an estimated £3.7 million (I’m not including the figure for the land in that), with £1.5 million offset by a government grant. The complete capital cost breakdown was not made public prior to the two twelve-week consultations (first on Greasby, then on Saughall Massie) that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service ran on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s behalf.
* estimates were made for sale and purchase prices in 2015
For those who were turned away from the Planning Committee meeting (which was also what happened at some of the consultation meetings) video I took of last night’s Planning Committee meeting is below. However as the Saughall Massie Fire Station planning application has attracted a certain degree of public interest I include a transcript of what was said at the meeting on the matter below too.
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.
The discussion starts at agenda item 3 (site visits) which starts at the 4m:26s point in the video above.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, are there any requests for site visits? Steve?
CLLR STEVE FOULKES: Errm Chair, sorry with your indulgence and err errm with some trepidation, errm I’d like to move site visits on two sites errm.
The least err controversial one I think might be item 13 which is err Pipistrelle Rise which is well-known to Planning Committee and has one with a varied planning history, it’s a very unusual site given it’s site levels. So I’d therefore request that we have a site visit before we make any decision on that matter.
[5:00]
The next one is errm item 9, which is the err fire station, as you referred to Chair. I think it’s fairly obvious to any elected Member the level of concern and the public interest in this debate and I think it would be better for all elected Members who are making that decision to be forewarned, forearmed with an actual site visit and the layout of the area.
Secondly I think it will be plenty of time for us to get arrange as they said in Jaws, “I think we need a bigger boat!” Err, I think we need a bigger room, if we can arrange that in time for the next err meeting it would make it better for the public to engage with us.
I don’t expect people to be in a standing position for any length of time, I find it errm, it is of a matter of great public interest that we do have a site visit. I’m hoping errm, if we have brought you out on a winter’s night for to no avail, but it’s not unusual that applications of this type to have a site visit, so I will move a site visit on that matter.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Chair?
[6:00]
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, can I take you first?
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Chair, I endorse what Councillor Foulkes has said, but particularly in terms of where we have the meeting next time to discuss the fire application, can I suggest that we try and find a venue in Moreton/Saughall Massie to allow as many people as possible in that area to attend?
*LOUD CHEERING AND APPLAUSE*
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Can I explain why Chair just for a moment? Clearly the number of people here tonight would be you know they’ve come along to take part in the democratic process to see how they make a decision.
There will be other people in that area, who haven’t been able to get here.
To drag everybody, these people again late December, can I propose we try and find a venue nearer to the site to consider this application, as an exceptional application?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): I think you know the only thing that I would say you know and I totally agree with what you’re saying there and if we can do that we should but in terms of we need to have the right systems in place, wherever it’s going to be.
We need to have the visual and the sound system, if we could find a venue
[7:00]
that will support that, then I’m happy for it to be there.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: OK, thank you very much.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): We may actually need to consider whether it’s a one item agenda,
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Yes, ok.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): as well so we will look into that. So we’ll see if we can find a venue, that is suitable and if we can then we will move it to that area.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: OK, thanks Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): David?
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: Yeah thanks Chair, just to endorse I totally support it, the move to
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: We can’t hear you!
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: controversial development, which will give a full opportunity for people to see
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): David, David, sorry David could you start again?
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: Apologies for that, errm I totally endorse the move by Councillor Foulkes to have the site visit for number nine. It is essential that we get the widest possible publicity and transparency in making sure we end up with the right decision. So I do endorse that.
My quick reason for speaking at this time of course is to ask for a site visit on item twelve, which is Stone Hive, Darmonds Green, West Kirby. That is it looks a simple site in
[8:00]
terms of the application agenda we’ve got but it’s far more complex than it would appear on paper. So no doubt we will benefit from having a site visit for that particular development before we make a decision to approve or refuse it. Thank you Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, are there any others? OK, if I could just read those three out that have been requested and get Committee’s approval?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Excuse me, can I ask a question?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Sorry no you can’t ask.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It’s just about site visits.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): If I don’t cover it, then I’m sure we’ll get someone to cover the answer for you, but I may very well cover it in a moment for you.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Can I just mention the site visit, …
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): I’m sorry, I’m sorry, if, I’m sorry can I, can you just listen to what I’m about to say and then if it’s not covered then we’ll get somebody to cover it for you.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: OK.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Agenda item 9 which is land adjacent to Saughall Massie Road, errm agenda item 12, which is Stone Hive, Darmonds Green, West Kirby and agenda item
[9:00]
13 Pipistrelle Rise, Noctorum. Are the Committee happy to have all those as site visits?
COUNCILLORS: Absolutely.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): can I suggest that we have a site visit on Tuesday 13th of December? And we’ll meet at the Town Hall at 10 am?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: What time?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): There’s, we will be meeting at 10am and then going to the various sites, so there will be a different time allocated for each of these sites. It’s normally twenty minutes to half an hour for each site, depending on how long we’ve got to travel, but it will be publicised and the agents will be advised of exactly what time that will be.
And the ward councillors will be also be advised.
CLLR CHRIS BLAKELEY: Chair, can I just raise a point to raise what’s been raised by Councillor Lewis, if you’re going to use a one item agenda for the fire station at a err location nearer to the site, in Saughall Massie, will the site visit
[10:00]
still be on the 13th? And will the meeting then, when will the meeting be?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Err, well we don’t know all of that detail at the moment so, Councillor Blakeley because we don’t know whether we’ll be moving the venue, whether it will be a one item agenda, so as soon as we are aware of that we will make it known.
CLLR CHRIS BLAKELEY: Thank you Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, thank you. As the lady was asking the question, has your question been covered?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Can I, I think if we do have a meeting whether here or Saughall Massie, we’ll be doing comparisons with the Upton fire station and I don’t know about West Kirby, but certainly it refers to Upton so maybe we should consider visiting both of those, if you’re able to ..?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): We can only consider the one application, which is before us I’m afraid.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: OK.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Thank you for your comment. Anybody who would like to leave now, please feel free to do so because we will not be discussing those items this evening and thank you for your attendance.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What do disasters, Wirral Council, Wirral Waters, an MOT, Snowden and America have in common?
What do disasters, Wirral Council, Wirral Waters, an MOT test, Snowden and America have in common?
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX
I thought it was time I wrote a piece to explain to readers why there haven’t been as many blog posts this month (bear in mind there were only six last month).
After all a lot has been going on. So where do I start?
Firstly, a bit of internal news. As people know I record a lot of video of public meetings and thanks to the slow internet speeds here on the Wirral (there’s not enough competition on high-speed internet yet unfortunately) a lot of strain had been put on the main hard drive of my laptop. Just as a quick bit of commentary, Wirral Council did at one stage have money set aside for high-speed internet access on the Wirral, but decided to spend it on something else apart from a small amount still earmarked for high-speed internet access to the Wirral Waters area.
Although I’m close enough to Wirral Waters to probably benefit, sadly there is a lack of competition on the high-speed internet front meaning prices are still high.
Those who know me, know I used to fix computers and have a disaster recovery plan in place for this scenario and backups. Thankfully IT disaster recovery (yes I realise it is rare for management for have an IT background) runs smoother here than it has in the past at Wirral Council which has had its fair share of IT fiascos.
However to cut a long story short, the internal hard drive can no longer be used (it’s too unreliable and error prone) and has being replaced by an external 1 terabyte hard drive connected via USB.
Yes, it would be nice to have replaced the faulty internal hard drive, but due to the age of the laptop I’m concerned that opening it up to do so could finish the laptop off completely. This means effectively the laptop is no longer portable and stays in my office (which is basically a spare bedroom).
However my routine had been to write blog posts elsewhere in the morning. That’s tricky now as the external hard drive and USB cable need to be somewhere flat. I will eventually replace the laptop. Public meetings held in the morning (such as the Wirral Council Cabinet meetings held on Monday morning’s) also break up this routine.
Last week, my wife’s car went it for its MOT (bear in mind a lot of the public meetings are held at times when public transport is just not possible). As we both use the car for work purposes, I cover the cost of this as a business overhead. Ultimately though when the car is unavailable, considering the criticism I’ve levelled at politicians for getting taxis (at the taxpayer’s expense) to public meetings, I didn’t want to rely on taxis and decided not to go the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee meeting last week (also in part because of my birthday later on in that week). In a slight twist of fate that meeting I missed was about taxis.
The cost of the MOT plus repairs, VAT etc came to about £740. As that’s a one-off expense, I have had to concentrate on commercial work (basically an advertising deal to cover the overhead).
Another factor to consider is that my original plan for this blog had been long-term to run Google Adsense ads on it. At one stage with another website I was running I was earning about £60 a day over the Christmas period from such advertising. These days however the other side of the dot com bubble, advertising rates are much, much lower.
You may have noticed this blog has minimal advertising on it. Those who keep abreast of information law, will know that the Max Schrems legal case (following Snowden’s whistleblowing revelations) led to the EU US Safe Harbour agreement being ruled as legally invalid. Although it was later replaced by the EU US Privacy Shield, it’s only recently that Google have gone through the process necessary that data can be shared with them (such as running their ads on this blog).
There is also a long running story I’ve been writing about for years that for legal reasons, I can’t write about due to legal restrictions until an outstanding matter in it is decided.
Having had a birthday (indeed this blog is now around 6 years old) and a fortnight to think about the future of this blog, feedback (including emails I get) have told me that people find the videos of public meetings useful and the publication of documents revealed during citizen audits.
There are literally boxes of information I have from the 2015-16 audits of various local public bodies (including a lot of unpublished files on councillors’ expenses), but Wirral Council still owes me a number of contracts and other documentation (an employee went on leave which seems to be the usual standard reason why in an organisation of thousands of employees work grinds to a halt when somebody goes on leave).
So, the upshot is that I’ve not vanished off the face of the earth, or got another job and just because there may be a lack of published blog posts doesn’t mean there aren’t blog posts written and yet to be published (for example I wrote one on my birthday last week about Monday evening’s set of three Wirral Council meetings that is awaiting the final touches (photo, headline etc)).
My aim is to concentrate on topical, but in-depth investigative journalism, but bearing in mind there is just myself and Leonora here, to do a good job on such matters can take years of patient reporting.
This would be made easier if certain people in the public sector locally didn’t act in the title of a book a reader kindly sent me a while back titled “Not in the Public Interest”. My job is made considerably more difficult to do and time-consuming by certain people on salaries that look more like phone numbers in politically restricted posts, who seem to get it into their head that I’m on some personal crusade to actually get them to do their job properly.
Therefore they see me as a threat and their raison d’être becomes making life difficult for me.
I’ve seen many public sector managers come and go, it’s not personal, I’m not out to get you or cause chaos.
Yet have a bit of sense and don’t deliberately go out of your way to abuse your power in ways that are unethical.
I never like having to go down the route of getting the judiciary involved, not just because it polarises matters but as it always leads to a can of worms coming out (that there are no restrictions on reporting on in the interests of open justice). As a court reporter I know how the public sector always treats judicial processes like a game, lies through its teeth, lies under oath and has for a long time abused the court and tribunal processes to get what it wants knowing there aren’t going to be consequences for doing so.
My immediate family (before retiring) worked in the criminal justice system and as a child I was told about the systems of justice in this country. I realise it may be old-fashioned to expect the public sector to adhere to the rule of law and even odder to expect councillors and local government officers to explain why they did what they did to the judiciary.
I also realise that coming from a foreign background and being married to a foreign national that my views on openness and transparency are somewhat different to what seems to be accepted as a cultural norm here (yes I was born in this country but sometimes it seems to be completely different to the one I grew up in)!
However, I would be keen to hear your views (in the form of comments) on what level of advertising you’d find acceptable (or whether you think a different way of funding running costs is better) and whether you think long form more in depth journalism is what you want to read (along with data journalism such as the publication of documents) along with any other thoughts you may have.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Council’s Children’s Services branded “inadequate” by OFSTED
Wirral Council’s Children’s Services branded “inadequate” by OFSTED
Cabinet 17th December 2014 vote on Lyndale School closure L to R Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr George Davies, Cllr Ann McLachlan
I’ll declare at the outset that I was the Appellant in the First-Tier Tribunal case referred to later.
The inspection was carried out in July 2016 and the headlines (these are quoted from the report) are:
“1. Children who need help and protection Inadequate
2. Children looked after and achieving permanence Requires improvement
2.1 Adoption Performance Requires improvement
2.2 Experiences and progress of care leavers Inadequate
1. Leadership, management and governance Inadequate”
The report then goes on to explain the many reasons why and starts with the sentence, “There are widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection in Wirral.” and perhaps even more telling makes this point about senior management and councillors, “Almost all of the deficits identified in this inspection were known by senior leaders.”
And in response to a certain senior manager at Wirral Council who repeatedly states the Council acts in the best interests of children, “Plans to restructure services to respond better to children’s needs were delayed for a year due to competing council priorities.”
However I don’t want you to think I’m cherry-picking negative criticism from the report. If you read the report you’ll find it has very little to state that is positive.
After all this sentence, “Performance management data is widely scrutinised by managers and elected members, but is not yet leading to improvement and is not always focused on the right things.” sums it up. People (whether that be councillors or managers) know about the problems, but seemingly don’t know (or if I’m being more charitable are thwarted from) fixing them.
The infamous report into Wirral Council by Anna Klonowski Associates explained how in years gone by Wirral Council received independent reports similar to these but just carried on (whereas in other councils it would’ve raised red flags and led to major alarm bells ringing).
Of course it remains to be seen what Wirral Council’s response to this is. An Improvement Board has been mentioned (but if it meets in private as the one before did) the public won’t know about the changes Wirral Council is making in response and to be able to hold their political leaders to account.
As I wish to end on a positive note Committee Rooms 1, 2 (and I’m told also Committee Room 3) on the ground floor at Wallasey Town Hall are now able to be better accessed by those in wheelchairs or those with reduced mobility due to changes recently made to the doors to these rooms at this listed building.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why is Wirral Council being charged £49,047.35 a month for VAT on school meals by Edsential Community Interest Company?
Why is Wirral Council being charged £49,047.35 a month for VAT on school meals by Edsential Community Interest Company?
David Armstrong (right) Assistant Chief Executive (a company director of Edsential Community Interest Company) at a recent meeting of the Wirral West Constituency Committee (30th June 2016)
Updated 15#47;8#47;16 following responses by Edsential and Wirral Council
Below is an invoice from Edsential Community Interest Company to Wirral Council for school meals in December 2015 and operation charges from December 2015 to March 2016.
Edsential invoice to Wirral Borough Council 2nd January 2016 Wirral Schools meals and operation charges £404084.10
I’m puzzled as to why the school meals element for £245,236.75 attracts VAT at 20%, when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom’s guidance note on VAT on school meals would seem to (at least by my reading) state that school meals (apart from those to staff and visitors) are exempt from VAT.
Therefore I’m puzzled why this element of the bill attracts VAT of £49,047.35, when surely the amount should be different than this (if it was just for staff and visitor meals)?
However Wirral Council’s paid the VAT on the school meals charge from Edsential. This is per a month (and some of December no school meals will be served because of the Christmas holidays), so over the year it means the VAT could be a few hundred thousand?
This is well below the level of materiality or triviality which is why it probably doesn’t get picked up routinely, after all Edsential is a relatively new arrangement.
But when the taxpayer is funding free school meals, what’s the correct tax situation?
Both Wirral Council and Edsential have been in touch since this article was written and their responses are below.
Wirral Council reclaim the VAT back from HMRC and state that no VAT is charged to pupils for school meals, Edsential claim the VAT they charge Wirral Council is correct.
Updated: 12/8/16 some replies on Twitter state that if Wirral Council was providing these services to schools then the catering services would be exempt from VAT, however the issue of whether schools are exempt from paying VAT on catering services are in related to a limited company owned by two local councils rather than the Wirral Council itself.
Updated 15/8/16:
Ian McGrady (Managing Director) of Edsential has responded with, “As a matter of policy we do not comment on commercially confidential relationships with our customers. However, I can confirm that our management of VAT complies with all HMRC guidance appropriate to our status as a Community Interest Company.”
Peter Molyneux of Wirral Council confirmed that when Metro Catering (an arm of Wirral Council) were providing a school meals service then VAT was not chargeable. Now Wirral Council contract with Edsential, Edsential charge Wirral Council VAT which Wirral Council then claim back from HMRC.
So Wirral Council do pay the VAT, but then claim it back on their monthly VAT return.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
