Tag: Wirral Metropolitan Borough

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20/10/2011 Part 1 (PACSPE call in)

The agenda and reports for the meeting can be found here. Apologies Cllr Stuart Wittingham substituted by Cllr Denise Roberts Cllr Pat Hackett substituted by Cllr Ron Abbey Present: Conservative councillors Cllr John Hale (Chair) Cllr Don McCubbin (Vice-Chair) Cllr Steve Williams Cllr Adam Sykes Labour councillors Cllr Denise Roberts (substitute for Cllr Stuart Wittingham) … Continue reading “Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20/10/2011 Part 1 (PACSPE call in)”

The agenda and reports for the meeting can be found here.

Apologies
Cllr Stuart Wittingham substituted by Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr Pat Hackett substituted by Cllr Ron Abbey

Present:
Conservative councillors
Cllr John Hale (Chair)
Cllr Don McCubbin (Vice-Chair)
Cllr Steve Williams
Cllr Adam Sykes

Labour councillors
Cllr Denise Roberts (substitute for Cllr Stuart Wittingham)
Cllr Ron Abbey (substitute for Cllr Pat Hackett)
Cllr Jerry Williams
Cllr Chris Jones
Cllr Joe Walsh

Liberal Democrat councillor
Cllr Bob Wilkins

Labour Cabinet member in attendance (who is not part of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee)
Cllr Chris Meaden (Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure)

The Chair, Cllr John Hale welcomed people to the meeting. Something about the Serious Fraud Office was mentioned and a wish to “close without session”.

Cllr Ron Abbey suggested ten minutes of the meeting in closed session.

Cllr John Hale mentioned something about the press and an inquiry being another matter.

The legal advisor to the committee said it had been brought to Wirral Council’s attention, but the level of information was limited. He appreciated the Labour councillor’s suggestion.

Cllr Bob Wilkins said he failed to see the evidence, but agreed with the Labour councillors to hold it in closed session for ten minutes.
Cllr John Hale said as it was a majority view of the committee, that press and public would have to leave until they were invited back in.

Due to the large numbers of people present it took some time for the room to clear. Some people went home, others waited in the lobby to go back into the meeting.

=============================================================================================

In the interests of openness, John Brace lives opposite Bidston Hill which is covered by the PACSPE contract.

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20th October 2011 PACSPE Call-in

Tonight’s meeting was as the Cabinet decision of the 22nd September 2011 on the PACSPE contract had been called-in by Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr David Elderton.
At the end of a 3 1/2 hour meeting the voting went as follows.

Labour Amendment to Conservative motion

This amendment upheld the original decision.

Votes For         : 5 (Labour councillors)
Votes Against : 5 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Abstention       : 0
Casting vote of Conservative Chair: AGAINST

Votes For        : 5 (Labour councillors)

Votes Against: 6 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote
Abstention     :  0

AMENDMENT FAILS

Conservative Motion

Votes for          : 5 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions   : 0

Casting vote of Chair: For

Votes for:          6 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions:  0

MOTION PASSES (Proposed Cllr John Hale, seconded Cllr Don McCubbin)

Text of Motion:

This committee notes that:

    • The Cabinet appeared to ignore, and did not even mention, the findings of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews that the Parks & Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE) had been subjected to.
    • No attempt was made to publically question officers from the Finance Department, the Legal Department and the Procurement Unit who were members of the PACSPE Project Board as to whether the “risk” identified by District Audit, and made such play of in the Cabinet resolution could or had been satisfactorily mitigated.
    • No discussion was had by Cabinet Members of the risks of not awarding the contract.
    • No mention or discussion took place regarding stakeholder management or the views of key stakeholders about the benefits of clear quality improvements that were built into the procurement exercise. In fact, other than the view of the Council’s Trade Unions, the results of the consultation and the views of the park users and user groups were not even mentioned in a single Cabinet meeting.
    • No reference was made to the new post of Community Engagement Manager to work with Friends, stakeholders, user groups, and local Area Forums or the new key performance indicators developed through PACSPE to reflect the change to a more customer and community focused service.
    • Insufficient account seemed to have been taken of the reduction from costs of £8.1 million per year to £7.4 million per year already achieved by the PACSPE process with the potential to reduce costs by a further circa £500,000. Indeed, it is hard to understand how the Leader of of the Council characterised a £1.2 million per annum potential saving arising from PACSPE to be sufficiently marginal to be ignored.
    • No effort appeared to be made by Cabinet Members to discuss or evaluate the additional costs to Council Tax Payers of purchasing what has been accepted as worn out equipment requiring immediate replacement (circa £2.5 million) or the TUPE costs of bringing current contractor staff into the Council workforce and pension scheme, per annum or over the 10 year period.
    • No mention was made of the training and development programme for staff and volunteers or the three to six new apprentices to be created as part of PACSPE.
    • No explanation was given at Cabinet regarding the opposition to a 10 year contract that would reduce annual costs by circa £1.2 million and improve the quality of our parks and countryside, other than the expressed need contained in the resolution to reduce spending by £85 million over three years.
    • Therefore we believe that the decision to refuse to award the PACSPE contract would see the ever decreasing quality of a service starved of investment by this administration which is already characterised by going for the quick fix instead of making the difficult but necessary strategic decisions in the interests of Wirral residents.

The Committee recommends to the Cabinet

*Editor’s note will have to check rest of resolution due to noise preventing taking it down*

My guess is that the rest of it is “reconsider the decision”.

=============================================================================================

In the interests of openness, John Brace lives opposite Bidston Hill which is covered by the PACSPE contract.

Wirral Council – Wirral Council 23rd May 2011 – Part 9 – speeches (Cllr Dave Mitchell & Cllr Chris Blakeley) on leader motion/amendment

Cllr Dave Mitchell (Deputy Leader, Lib Dem Group) said he had stood up against his own group regarding the library fiasco. No fingers had been burnt but soon he hoped it would be put to bed. The last administration had brought benefits to the people of Wirral. However we needed to look into the reality of the election and where [the Lib Dems] sit. He agree with Cllr Harney that they were now the smallest group. He said it was a cheap shot of the Conservatives as when they had been in opposition as the largest Group there had been all party support for a minority administration but they had turned it down.

Dave said they needed to move forward and the electorate had spoken. A tsunami had hit the Liberal Democrats, who were affected badly and had lost councillors as had the Conservatives. The Labour Party had fought on national issues not local issues. The Lib Dems would be making sure they were doing the right thing.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it was an honour to be the last speaker. He said he won’t repeat what people have said. He thanked Cllr Green and the support from the Liberal Democrats. He said they had moved things forward in change local government as well as removing more items from exemption. They hadn’t waived as many call-ins. He said he was confused by the Lib Dems who had stated they were proud of their achievements over the last twelve months, but said there was a lot more to be achieved. He considered a Labour administration as a backward step.

Reminding people of the Strategic Change Programme, the Care Quality Commission report, swimming pools he pointed out that 60% of people hadn’t voted. If this was added to the people who had voted it was a mandate. He wanted to let people know about the FoulkesWorld Twitter account and said if this motion was agreed Wirral would go into Foulkes’ world.

Wirral Council – Wirral Council 23rd May 2011 – Part 8 – speech (Cllr Stuart Kelly) on leader motion/amendment

Cllr Stuart Kelly said he had heard what the Conservatives were saying. However it was frankly not enough to address and debate, when this should’ve been done in the closing weeks of the local election campaign. The points that had been made should’ve been put to the people. However the people had spoken. He thanked Cllr Ian Lewis for not mentioning him. Cllr Dave Mitchell also thanked him too. Cllr Kelly said that people vote for a raft of reasons. He said it was said many people voted for reasons that were not linked to success or otherwise but that was the way democracy was. The voters however knew best.

However, there were two critical things, the number of votes and the number of seats commanded. If they [Labour] had slightly more seats then they would have the critical seats needed for the formula. On both counts the Labour Party was the party with the most votes and seats. Wirral Council had invited the public to tell us and they had said No to AV and that they prefer FPTP. He said they must respect this. He referred to the Localism Bill and pointed out the opportunity to reconsider local government structure. He said a “strong leader [model]” was not for us and doesn’t work with a balanced Council. There was the option to reform the committee system to involve more councillors in the issues that had all-party support. He said he had not been in the Cabinet very long, but recognised its achievements and the way forward.