Wirral Council paid Nigel Lawrence QC £27,185.90 to prosecute Meyer Group Limited for X-raying its employees
Wirral Council paid Nigel Lawrence QC £27,185.90 to prosecute Meyer Group Limited for X-raying its employees
This invoice is for a successful criminal prosecution by Wirral Council of Meyer Group Limited in the Liverpool Crown Court. Meyer Group Limited pled guilty.
This case started in 2012 and ended in 2013. Known court dates at Liverpool Crown Court for this case are below:
30th October 2012 (preliminary hearing) 24th January 2013 (plea and case management) 26th April 2013 (for sentence) 4th July 2013 (for sentence) before His Honour Judge Morrow QC
Representing Wirral Council was a barrister called Nigel Lawrence QC of 7 Harrington Street Chambers, Liverpool.
This invoice is for the small sum of £27,185.90. The breakdown is:
A: Travelling expenses
Car parking (on the 24th January 2013) *note this was for the plea and case management hearing at Liverpool Crown Court* £7.00
VAT on car parking (£7 * 20%) £1.40
Total £8.40
B: Legal work
Work from 24th June 2012 to 10th July 2013 (129 hours 25 minutes @ £175/hour = £22,647.916 rounded up to £22,647.92)
VAT on work done: (£22,647.92 * 20% = £4,529.584 rounded down to £4,529.58)
Total: £27,177.50
Grand Total: A (£8.40) + B (£27,177.50) = £27,185.90
When Wirral Council supplied me with the invoice for £27,185.90 as part of the 2013/14 audit, they deliberately blacked out the name of the defendant Meyer Group Limited. I supply the original invoice and partially unredacted one below.
Wirral Council V Meyer Group Limited redacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown CourtWirral Council V Meyer Group Limited partially unredacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown Court
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A letter to Wirral Council about the 29 ways they allegedly got the Lyndale School decision wrong
A letter to Wirral Council about the 29 ways they allegedly got the Lyndale School decision wrong
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Below is a copy of a letter emailed to Wirral Council’s Surjit Tour, the nine councillors on the Cabinet that took the “decision” and Julia Hassall.
Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
Wirral Council
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
Wallasey Town Hall,
Brighton Street,
Wallasey,
Merseyside,
CH44 8ED,
England
8th September 2014
By email
Surjit Tour surjittour@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Phil Davies phildavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Tony Smith tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk
Julia Hassall juliahassall@wirral.gov.uk
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
Proposed claim for judicial review
1. TO
SURJIT TOUR
Legal and Member Services
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
Wallasey Town Hall,
Brighton Street,
Wallasey,
Merseyside,
CH44 8ED,
England
2. The claimant
MR JOHN BRACE
Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
CH43 7PH
3. Reference details
Amended Cabinet recommendation of 4th September 2014 with respect to Lyndale School (agenda items 4&5)
4. The details of the matter being challenged
What is being challenged is the decision of Wirral Council’s Cabinet on the evening of the 4th September 2014 to make the amended recommendation which is copied below. More specifically the details of the matter being challenged are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 and 2.1 of the recommendation.
“CABINET – 4TH SEPTEMBER 2014
THE LYNDALE SCHOOL
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School.
1.2 Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, is it recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
Elleray Park Special School
Stanley Special School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
1.3 That the Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of the Lyndale School are completed by the 31st October.
2.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Having looked at all the options, and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is our opinion that, while we recognise the special place that The Lyndale School has in the affection of parents and children, the continued operation and maintenance of a school of this size will not meet the future educational needs of the children, nor is a financially viable option, especially when there are good alternative options available.
The Council has a responsibility to ensure for the sustainable future provision of education for the pupils of The Lyndale School. In addition, we have to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population.
This has been a difficult decision to make, and we would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the families and the children affected, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.”
5
The issue
Brief summary of facts:
Wirral Council’s Cabinet made a key decision on the evening of 4th September 2014 at a public meeting to proceed to a second round of consultation on the closure of the Lyndale School. The recommendation agreed by nine councillors is outlined above.
Why it is contended to be wrong:
It is contended to be wrong because:
(a) The notice requirements before the meeting were not met.
The actions specified to be taken in advance of the Cabinet meeting in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 specifically Regulations 9-11 weren’t met. More specifically the document specified in Regulation 9 wasn’t published 28 days before the meeting or the notice in Regulation 10(3)(b) or the notice in Regulation 11(2)(b).
Regulation 9(1) makes it quite clear that if these requirements are not met that “that decision must not be made)
(b) The key decision was made by the wrong people.
In addition to the Cabinet between four and nine other people should’ve been included in the decision. Specifically these are:
between 2-5 parent governor representatives,
a representative of the Catholic diocese and
a representative of the Anglican diocese
These people should have all had voting/speaking rights and been invited to take part in the Cabinet meeting.
Normally Cabinet would not be required to have such representatives on it as it has oversight by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee and Coordinating Committee.
However as a representative of the Anglican diocese has not yet been appointed to the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee or the Coordinating Committee due to this lack of oversight the Cabinet was required to have them take part in the decision making on this matter.
This legal requirement is outlined in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 c.31/ s.499 of the Education Act 1996 c.56 and the underlying regulations such as Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Committee System) (England) Regulations 2012 and regulation 5 of The Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999 and other underlying regulations.
(c) Human Rights issues
Wirral Council have to make decisions that are compatible with the Convention Rights (s.6(1) Human Rights Act 1998 c.42). Specifically these concerns are about Protocol 1 (Article 2), article 2, article 3, article 11 and article 14.
The concerns are briefly outlined below:
Protocol 1 (Article 2) “right to education” as closure of the school would interfere with the parent’s right to “ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions”
Article 2 “right to life” as closure of the school would possibly cause the death of one or more of its current pupils
Article 3 “prohibition of torture” as closure of the school would be “degrading treatment or punishment” of the parents and pupils
Article 11 “freedom of assembly and association” as closure of the school would interfere with the rights of the pupils, staff and parents to associate with each other and none of the requirements in 11(2) are known to be met
Article 14 “prohibition of discrimination” as:
(a) the school is for severely disabled children therefore closing (whilst not making known closures elsewhere) could be classed as discrimination
(b) the political views of the parents are that the school should not close which has been widely expressed in the media prior to the meeting in opposition to the stated views of the Labour administration at Wirral Council
(c) many of the severely disabled children at the school were born that way
(d) Equality Act 2010 c.15 considerations
Section 13 – the Lyndale pupils (person B) have a protected characteristic (disability). They would be treated less favourably if the school closed as less money would be spent on their education. Furthermore many of the approximately thirty staff have protected characteristics (who will be out of a job if the school closes)
Section 15 – this relates to discrimination arising from disability. The pupils at the school are disabled. Wirral Council would have to show that the treatment is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” which has not yet been demonstrated
Section 19 – this relates to indirect discrimination of the parents and family members of the Lyndale pupils
Section 26 – “harrasment”, the closure plans have resulted in a violation of dignity of those with protected characteristics and have intimidated staff, parents and pupils at the school. One example of this would be that the headteacher has left.
Section 27 – the parents have threatened legal action which is a protected act
Section 85 – these plans force the Lyndale School to breach s.85(2)(f) as it subjects pupils and their parents to detriment
Section 86 – this relates to victimisation of the pupils for the conduct of their parents. The parents have petitioned, campaigned and lobbied against closure. The siblings and parents of the children at the Lyndale School are being penalised for this
Section 112 – the way Wirral Council behaved (for example making a false public statement that if the school was closed that staff would be redeployed during the consultation) is aiding contraventions of the Equality Act 2010
Section 149 – “public sector equality duty” Due regard to 149(a), (b) and (c) by Wirral Council has not been given. The same goes for the duties under 149(5)(a) and 149(5)(b). These relate to the proteted characterists of pupils, staff and parents at the school.
Section 150 – “public authorities and public functions” – the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Council is a “district council” in England as defined in Schedule 19, therefore 150(3), 150(4) and 150(5) apply to it.
Section 158 – “positive action: general” the pupils of Lyndale school have needs that are different from the needs of person that are not disabled. Those that have PMLD (which is a protected characteristic) are a disproportinately low proportion of the school population. The Lyndale pupils are at this school because it’s a special school that caters for the needs of disabled pupils with PMLD. Therefore they will suffer a disadvantage if the school closes. The level of education they receive will change if the school closes and it is alleged that this new provision will not meet their needs.
Section 19 – Wirral Council provides the service of education to the disabled pupils at the Lyndale School. If the school is closed the current (and potential future) disabled pupils would find it “impossible” or “unreasonably difficult” to use the school. Although Wirral Council is a “local education authority in England” and therefore a “relevant body” as defined in s.19(6), it remains to be seen whether education & transport are services that fall under s.19(5)(a) or not.
Section 21 – The adjustment required would be to fund the running costs of the Lyndale School, whilst it is appreciated that Wirral Council is a “local education authority in England” and therefore a “relevant body”, this duty of providers of services to make adjustments could/could not apply to Wirral Council
Section 21B – Wirral Council is a “public authority” and is discriminating against disabled people in carrying out its functions.
Section 21D – Wirral Council is failing in its general duties to:
(1)(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful
(1)(b) the need to eliminate harrassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities
(1)(c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons
(1)(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons
(1)(e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons
(1)(f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life
Section 28A – “Discrimination against disabled pupils and prospective pupils” This relations to 28A(2) and 28A(1)(a) as Wirral Council is “the local education authority” defined in Schedule 4A. Wirral Council is proposing altering its admission arrangements which discriminate against the current disabled pupils at the Lyndale School. Closure would result in the current pupils being excluded permanently.
Section 28B – Lyndale pupils are being treated less favourably because of reasons realted to their disability/ies. It is unreasonable to assume that Wirral Council does not know they are disabled as it is a special school
Section 28C – “disabled pupils not to be substantially disadvantaged” The Lyndale pupils are being put at a substansial disadvantage compared to persons who are not disabled with regards to the admission arrangemnts.
Section 28F – There has been a failure of the duty of the education authority not to discriminate, it is unknown at this stage what prescribed function this relates to (if any).
Section 49A – In carrying out its functions, Wirral Council is not having due regard to
(1)(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful
(1)(b) the need to eliminate harrassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities
(1)(c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons
(1)(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons
(1)(e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons
(1)(f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life
Section 2 – This section inserted 21B in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (see arguments above for s.21B of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005)
Section 3 – This section inserted 49A in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (see arguments above for s.49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005)
(g) statutory guidance
Statutory guidance has been issued which includes the application of a test to such proposals known as the “SEN Improvement Test” to such decisions. Wirral Council claims that its plans for closure meet the SEN Improvement Test. The Claimant disagrees that the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test have been met to the preferred option (which is closure of the Lyndale School). This is because:
(i) it would not lead to improved access to education and associated services
(ii) it would not lead to improved access to specialist staff
(iii) it would not lead to improved access to suitable accommodation
(iv) it would not lead to an improved supply of suitable places
(v) there seems little clarity that the host schools mentioned in the decision (Elleray Park and Stanley School) are willing to receive pupils with communication and interaction needs
(vi) there is confusion as to how the proposals will be funded and the planned staffing arrangements that will be put in place
(Set out the date and details of the decision, or act or omission being challenged, a brief summary of the facts and why it is contented to be wrong)
6
The details of the action that the defendant is expected to take are:
(a) to make a written undertaking not implement the decision as an interim measure until a new Cabinet meeting happens,
(b) hold a further meeting of the Cabinet to make a decision that complies with:
(i) the notice requirements for the meeting (SI 2012/2089 Regulations 9-11) and
(ii) the other legal issues addressed in this letter
(c) to carry out a review of the matters raised in this letter and inform the Claimant of the outcome of that review
(d) to inform the Claimant if the decision is implemented and if so from what date
(e) to respond to this letter before the proposed reply date in section 12
(f) meet with Mr. John Brace before the proposed reply date so that these issues can be explored in depth in the hope that litigation can be avoided.
7
The details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim
N/A
8
The details of any interested parties
Cllr Phil Davies phildavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Tony Smith tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk
Julia Hassall juliahassall@wirral.gov.uk
9
The details of any information sought
Details of information sought:
(a) a request for a fuller explanation of the reasons for the decision being challenged beyond those that form a part of the recommendation at 2.1
(b) statistical information on staff at the Lyndale School with reference to all protected characteristics
(c) statistical information on Wirral Council’s workforce with reference to all protected characteristics
(d) statistical information on current pupils at the Lyndale School with reference to all protected characteristics
(e) three year projected financial information about the Lyndale School projected budgets supplied to Wirral Council by the Lyndale School governors including total projected expenditure, total projected costs and total projected income
(f) earlier drafts of report titled “Report detailing the outcome of the consultation on the closure of the Lyndale School”
(g) earlier drafts of the report at Appendix 1 titled “The Independent Consultant’s Report”
10
The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary
(a) The consultation responses. These are considered necessary as they are referred to in 1.1 and 1.2 of the decision. Although I have already published some, I am unsure whether it is a complete set of consultation responses.
(b) Those documents outlined in section (9) specifically (e) to (g) (financial information and earlier drafts of reports)
(h) details of consultation with staff and relevant trade unions
(i) details of consultation with the governing body at Lyndale School
(j) Principal Educational Psychologist’s report
(k) detail as to how Wirral Council think the preferred option of closure meets the “SEN Improvement Test”
11
The address for reply and service of court documents
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
12
Proposed reply date
24th September 2014
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A stranger rides in to Wirral Town in a thrilling Wild West tale about gold, greed, horses, the law and a land grab
A stranger rides in to Wirral Town in a thrilling Wild West tale about gold, greed, horses, the law and a land grab
John Wayne as the sheriff in Rio Bravo
The following is a work of satire.
Deep in the dusty, hot West was a town called Wirral. This tale is about a land grab, a common theme in these parts as some townsfolk had let greed enter into their hearts.
Outside of town were about ten acres of farmland known as Fernbank Farm where all day the pony club offered rides to the local children. Everyone had fun there and the pony club had been there for as long as people could remember and paid rent for the use of the land to their landlord. Everybody was happy.
Little did the pony club know then, but their landlord wanted them off that land. At first they thought everything was going as it had in years gone by as their landlord even sent them a new lease to sign, which they returned back thinking everything would be just as it was in the past.
However they didn’t know that the local politicians had had a meeting and at this meeting they had changed the rules so a hundred houses could be built on the land. This was deliberately kept a secret from the pony club on the instructions of Tony Simpson.
Once a deadline had been passed and a new lease had deliberately not been agreed (while telling the pony club they would happily agree to a new lease), the landlord went to Surjit “the Sheriff” Tour, who worked for the landlord to ask him what to do. He told them that he couldn’t turf the pony club off their land yet and in order to evict them he’d first need a judge to agree to it.
The pony club were surprised by this move and got Kirwan (a lawman and former politician to help them), he did his best but the pony club soon ran out of gold coins to pay him and asked for help from Lewis instead.
The pony club’s day in court came and in the judge’s chambers in the town’s courthouse a Judge explained to all (including two curious journalists from the local reservation) that it would have to go to a proper trial where everyone would have their say. Reluctantly the landlord agreed to this.
The day of the trial came and another Judge was in charge. The landlord had hired expensive help from far, far away. The Judge said he was very sorry, but that he had no choice but to sign a possession order to turf the pony club off the landlord’s land. His hands were tied, he felt he had no choice but was very apologetic. If their landlord hadn’t been so underhand he said, he would have granted the pony club a new lease, but now unfortunately his hands were tied.
Once again the two curious journalists from the local reservation were there including a large number of the townsfolk who wanted the pony club to stay. The journalists wrote down what happened, told the local people and a story about the trial appeared in the town’s newspaper.
The husband of one of those put on trial felt the whole thing was unfair and complained. The landlord read his complaint but (surprise, surprise) said he didn’t agree. One of the two curious journalists from the local reservation even asked a question at a meeting of the politicians (it took a month for the politician to answer).
The landlord wasn’t entirely happy with these two going off the reservation at all, as well, these two were known to have caused trouble in the past but they also knew the townsfolk would really start kicking up a fuss if a large number of braves on horseback rode into the town because of how badly it had been handled. You see those on the reservation quite liked horses and didn’t like as it tended to be translated “white man speak with forked tongue”.
It wasn’t the done thing anymore for the landlord to label people (even those from the reservation) they saw as troublemakers as “crazy”. They’d done just that and ending up having to pay many, many, many (and probably a few more) gold coins to a Mr. Morton (a former employee) after he’d raised a big stink about their past skullduggery and a large amount of gold coins that the landlord had stolen accidentally removed in one of their “mistakes” and had said that they wouldn’t pay back (later changing their mind).
So what was the landlord to do? They asked a stranger from far away to come into town. The stranger did come into town, he talked with the pony club and he talked with the landlord.
Not quite understanding the rules of the game* Mr Aspin (the stranger) was from a far away town called Rochdale. He was not a lawman, but a surveyor but he did not like all he surveyed. Phrases such as “this is not an appropriate action for a Local Authority landlord to take”, “accusation of dishonesty”, “gnawed at his professional conscience” and “unfortunate sequence of events” ran through his report as a series of criticisms as to how the landlord had behaved.
*rules of the game referring to the landlord’s rule in that they preferred “independent” people to agree with them as if they didn’t it would mean no more gold coins from the landlord for them.
The stranger recommended they send an immediate written apology to the pony club, pay them them the gold coins they had paid to Kirwan and allow them to stay rent free as well as finding them somewhere else to move to.
Oh dear, what was the landlord to do? Sooner or later those two pesky reservation journalists would start writing about it (although on the plus side the landlord thought it might stop them writing about another of their dastardly schemes to try and close a local school called Lyndale) and then their mistakes would end up in the newspaper again which would mean all the townsfolk would know. Oh dear! How could they stop the press writing about it they thought? Let’s release the report on a Saturday they decided, the press won’t be at work then.
As no politician wanted to associate themselves with such an unpopular issue, they got the big cheese and well-known troubleshooter Mr. Burgess to apologise. “We apologise for the distress”, “the site is on of the three most valuable council-owned development sites”, “savings targets” and “we should have communicated better” he wrote as well as making the same commitment his boss had Councillor Phil Davies to find the pony club somewhere else.
Mr Burgess even went a little too far in some people’s minds in his enthusiasm and wrote things like “the independent investigation”… “found that the Council acted legally throughout possession proceedings” when the investigator’s report in fact stated “I am satisfied that the Council followed the correct procedure in the preparation and issuing of Court proceedings. It is outside my remit to make further comments in this regard as a legal process subsequently followed resulting in the Court granting permission.”
So, one of the two journalists on the reservation saw what went on and wrote this tale and here it is. A partial victory for the pony club, but it seems that the fight will carry on.
Tune in for next week’s thrilling episode about the Wild West Town of Wirral to hear how about the landlord continues to get into hot water in its efforts to “evict” disabled children from the local school called Lyndale in another tale of communication problems, politicians, apologies but this time (as far as we know at this point) not involving horses.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Merseytravel discuss the Open Golf & free trips over the Silver Jubilee & Mersey Gateway bridges for Halton people
Merseytravel discuss the Open Golf & free trips over the Silver Jubilee & Mersey Gateway bridges for Halton people
Outside Merseytravel’s headquarters, the (usually busy) main road was closed to traffic and crowds gathered.
Crowds outside Merseytravel headquarters
Just across the road from Merseytravel’s headquarters, souvenir programme sellers were selling “official souvenir programmes” for £5 each.
Souvenir programme sellers outside Merseytravel headquarters (25th July 2014)
The world’s media had descended on Liverpool for an event referred to as the “Giants”. However this is not about the giants outside, but instead the giants of Merseyside politics inside Merseytravel’s headquarters that met on Friday afternoon.
Merseytravel meeting (25th July) Right Cllr Les Rowlands, centre background Cllr Steve Foulkes and Cllr Ron Abbey
The Chair (Cllr Liam Robinson) thanked people for attending and apologies were given for Councillor Friel and Cllr Fulham. No declarations of interest were made and the minutes of the AGM were agreed.
Cllr Liam Robinson said, “Steve you just want to make a point?”. Cllr Steve Foulkes replied, “Chair, I don’t know where else on the agenda it would fit, other than possibly the minutes but I think speaking on behalf of all the Wirral Members [councillors] and anyone who’s involved in the Open Golf Championship recently on the Wirral.
I think it needs to be recorded somewhere that the coordinated transport approach from obviously Merseyrail, from Merseytravel, from Stagecoach and all of the people involved in it. Particularly given that we did have some inclement weather and we had a joint you known tee off time when lots of people arrived and left all at once. I think you know, given the circumstances around that I think we need to be recording our thanks as a committee to everyone involved in the organisation and particularly our own staff who were part of the big band structure of the event.
So on behalf of you know people, on behalf of groups that unfortunately I had to attend the golf on most days. *laughter and mock groans of sympathy from other councillors* Unfortunately it was actually you know and I spent lots of my time talking to ordinary people who were getting to and from it, they were highly complimentary about the organisation and there were no issues about performance. I’d like then just record somewhere our thanks to those involved in that event and I’m sure you know subsequent to today’s events as well, someone else will move that, but that’s from the Wirral point of view if that’s ok Chair?”
Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair) replied, “Yeah, that’s excellent. Thanks very much Steve, I think we all sort of warmly applaud that accordingly. OK, item 4, Tony?”
Skipping ahead to what councillors said at the end of the meeting about the Mersey Gateway Bridge project in Halton.
Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair) said, “John, you just indicated?” Cllr John Stockton (Halton) said, “I’m sorry Chair but there’s been some important information that colleagues may be interested in that we’ve just received, myself and [Cllr] Harry [Howard].
We had a visit this afternoon colleagues from the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to Halton. He’s announced that the government’s going to put forward the money to ensure that all Halton residents will not have to pay for any journeys across both the Silver Jubilee Bridge and the new Mersey Gateway. *groans from some and some heckling of “for goodness sake” from one councillor*
OK? *laughter from some councillors at the heckling* So I hope you might be interested in that. *laughter and more heckling including “Will Wirral try?”* Unknown councillor “I think there must be a General Election on”. *laughter*
The Chair Cllr Liam Robinson replied, “You’d never know would you [Cllr] Harry [Howard]? *laughter* OK, well with all those bits of news if I can thank everybody for attending today and wish everybody a happy weekend with the Giants if you’re coming across them at all.”
Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?
Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?
The information for these tables I’ve used from a Department for Communities and Local Government policy paper which has an explanatory note on how these figures are calculated. Spending power refers to the overall money available for to local councils combining how much they have from Council Tax, business rates and government grants.
Local Authority
2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) (£ million)
2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant (£ million)
Change £ million
Change %
Knowsley
198.784
187.589
-11.194
-5.6%
Liverpool
571.351
540.223
-31.129
-5.4%
Sefton
271.588
260.465
-11.123
-4.1%
St Helens
176.510
168.318
-7.832
-4.4%
Wirral
328.860
315.035
-13.825
-4.2%
Merseyside Fire
67.863
64.048
-2.816
-4.1%
The population covered by each is different though, so here is a table showing the spend by dwelling.
Local Authority
2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) per Dwelling
2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant per Dwelling (£ per dwelling)
Change £ per dwelling
Change %
Knowsley
3,058.35
2,886.12
-172.23
-5.6%
Liverpool
2,636.01
2,492.39
-143.62
-5.4%
Sefton
2,164.67
2,076.01
-88.65
-4.1%
St Helens
2,193.15
2,095.64
-97.51
-4.4%
Wirral
2,250.35
2,155.75
-94.60
-4.2%
Merseyside Fire
107.10
102.65
-4.44
-4.1%
But what about the Shire I can imagine a politician saying (seemingly forgetting that the Shire is better known for being a fictional place inhabited by hobbits in a fictional world invented by JRR Tolkien)? There are five types of shire, shire unitaries with and without fire, shire counties with and without fire and shire districts. The change in their spending power collectively of each type of shire varies from a 1.2% drop (for shire counties with fire) to a 2.9% drop (for shire unitaries without fire). So yes, in percentage terms the cuts to shires’ budgets are less than the drop in Wirral’s spending power.
However it’s important to note that the spending power of shires was to start with much lower per a dwelling to begin with than Wirral’s. These range from £296.22 per a dwelling for shire districts compared to Wirral’s £2,250.35 to an average of £2,028.61 per a dwelling for shire unitaries with fire.
But what about North Dorset (which seems to be the favourite council for certain Wirral politicians to compare Wirral to)? Well North Dorset has about a fifth of the dwellings that Wirral does. Its spending power for 2013-14 is £7.729 million (2.4% of Wirral’s). Its cut is 2.8% of its budget. Personally I hardly think it’s a fair comparison (although I very much doubt that’ll stop Labour politicians using it).
If we compare Wirral Council to other Merseyside councils (plus the fire authority), the cuts to Wirral Council aren’t exceptional or extraordinary. If we rank the cuts as a percentage to the five councils on Merseyside (plus the fire authority) the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget only come out at fourth.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
