Serious Case Reviews & Extraordinary Council Meeting. Introduction (1 of 9)

Introduction
This has post has been a couple of days in the writing as I decided that I would explore not just the Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) but the wider issues involved – as it was not possible to cover all this in the council meeting (and the Presiding Officer would not have allowed me to anyway). I don't apologise for it being long, but for ease of reading, I have split it into 8 different sequential posts:

• The Council Meeting
• The Background
• The SCR reports, divided
• • Publication
  • Editing
  • Style & Content
• The children's circumstances
• Accountability
• Recommendations

However, they should all be considered as a piece.
You will also note that my usual sardonic tone is absent. I don't apologise for that either.

Read the reports yourself here Serious Case Review reports

Also of interest the Western Mail editorial here

Serious Case Reviews – The Extraordinary Meeting (2 of 9)

The meeting

It was not an accident that there was no formal motion before the Council – not even the usual catch-all that the "Reports should be noted". I believe it was anticipated what would have happened had there been an opportunity for amendment or a vote. The reason given for the absence of any motion, was that they were not the Authority's reports and Council therefore could do nothing with them. We had had them "For Information only" and that was the only basis on which the Council could be called.

This was not adequate and was not what I wanted when I pressed for the meeting. Yes, we got an opportunity to discuss it, but not in any meaningful democratic sense. I was frustrated and angered by this outcome, which meant that no action could be taken.

I had hoped that Thursday night's Extraordinary (i.e. Special) Council Meeting about the Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) would at least have prompted contributions from the Administration's members – which the debate on latest CSSIW report the previous week had so signally failed to do. But I was disappointed, as they refused to be disturbed from their usual indolence. Not even the added spark provided by the story in Wednesday's Western Mail (WM) about the alleged 'doctoring' of certain passages in one report (lessening or removing criticisms), could light their fires. They seemed indifferent to the possibility that they might have been mislead.

It was left to the Opposition to make the running on questioning the detail of the reports. For the Administration, John Newbury read out a prepared speech that was at least about the subject under discussion. Audrey Clement however, provided a self-justification, apparently seeing the very mention of her name as some sort of criticism that had to be responded to. Apart from these two I cannot recall anyone on the Administration side saying anything at all. No that's not strictly true, as over in the 'wild man' corner, the usual sotto voce grumblings, groanings and mutterings were audible, particularly when I tried to continue with my questions and was forced to sit by the Presiding Officer. Indeed, it was the intervention of Rene Kinzett that made her retreat and allow me to follow up a supplementary to the Director of Education.

Her behaviour was scandalous and if there were any doubts remaining about her fitness to continue as Chair of Council, she comprehensively disposed of them. Prior to the meeting, I had questioned the appropriateness of Cllr Fitzgerald chairing this Council, given that these children died during her occupation of the Social Services portfolio, that got nowhere. Cllr Fitzgerald was completely out of touch with the mood of the meeting or, indeed, the necessary sensitivity required to handle what was going to be an emotional meeting anyway. Huw Rees would have done this entirely differently. The Acting Deputy Monitoring Officer (if that is the role she had), provided no guidance and Cllr Fitzgerald's manner was so bad, that the Chief Executive had his head in his hands at several points. Indeed, I was given an apology after the meeting was over – not from Cllr Fitzgerald, of course.

This was not a good Council meeting, and did not show the Council at its best, wholly engaged with an important issue, unlike the discussion that followed the screening of A Swansea Love Story the night before.

Serious Case Reviews – Background (3 of 9)

Background

This meeting nearly never happened (as with last week's to discuss the latest CSSIW (Care & Social Service Inspectorate for Wales) report into Swansea's Children & Family Services, where only 2 out of 14 measures were shown to have improved and they were to do with political and corporate leadership, rather than the actual services themselves). From the outset, there was no intention to have a full Council debate on either of these serious matters. It was only considerable pressure from me (with RK's support), that they took place. Even so, the allowed extent (the remit) of both meetings was unsatisfactory and limited.

Councillors first saw the CSSIW report just before they arrived in the Chamber for the meeting, which meant that most members had about 10 minutes to read it before the Inspectors' presentation. (Entirely fortuitously, I got just over an hour to read it). I had already objected that this procedure, insisted on by CSSIW, was not only contrary to the law, in that it did not allow the three days publication of papers required by the Local Government Act & the Council's Constitution, but was also entirely unreasonable. I can speed read (loads of practice), many can't. Most Members would only be able to read (and comprehend) the report after the meeting was over and, if they then had questions, would be unable to ask them. I had sought to get the CSSIW Inspectors to return to Council. I asked them directly when we met the Minister and later at their presentation. They refused. In fact, the Chief Inspector over-ruled one of his Inspectors who had already accepted an invitation to attend the Scrutiny Board, on the grounds that 'that was not the way they did things'!

In regards to the SCRs, the Social Service Department's view was not to have a Council meeting at all. It was concerned about the effect that dragging this all up again in public would have on the families and that there would be disclosure of the children's identities. The first argument might just about stand for Child E (Chloe), but not for the others – Mother and sister in prison for causing the death of Child B (Carly) and given away by the mother and generally ignored by his carer (and everyone else) Child D (Kyle). It seems to me that any 'rights' the families might have had, had been sacrificed. In any event, should these rights over-ride those of elected members in being able to arrive at an informed judgement? What was the purpose of these reports being published if the elected representatives of the people of Swansea were not allowed to debate them? I expressed the view that the only way to deal with issues such as these was to be full and frank. If we (the Council) accepted the conclusions, if we had nothing to hide, then full and frank disclosure was the only way to proceed. To do otherwise would be, at least, to play into the hands of those who would allege a 'cover-up'.

Under Cllr Fitzgerald's tenure, as Cabinet Member, she had had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into providing any information on the SCR or circumstances surrounding the death of Aaron Gilbert. It was only Labour motions that got anything before Council – and even then her behaviour bordered on the contemptuous. Readers may need reminding, that Cllr Mrs Fitzgerald denied absolutely that Swansea Social Services had any involvement in Aaron Gilbert's death, even though a Social Worker had been suspended and disciplinary action initiated. That she misled Council seems beyond doubt.

Therefore, following Cllr Fitzgerald's sacking and Nick Tregonning's appointment, I discussed with him how he would deal with future cases. I was pleased that he agreed with my analysis and with his assurance that he would not try to hide anything and that such matters would be quickly brought before Council. I was therefore particularly disappointed when, following the initial presentation on the SCRs to Council, Nick seemed to waver and be inclined to resist a meeting/debate.

Considerable backstage negotiation then went on, which resulted in yesterday's meeting, although the ground rules were restrictive and were still being negotiated up to the meeting. I understand that not having a meeting was not a view shared across the Corporate Management Team and it was good that Nick Tregonning subsequently changed his mind. I was pleased that common sense won out over the Department's wish for anonymity being maintained with the children being referred to by letters. I thought this wrong – we had failed these young people, and the very least we could do was remember that they were real and use their names and not treat them as statistics. Not least, as their identities had already been made public anyway.

Serious Case Reviews – Publication (4 of 9)

The Reports - Publication

The full Serious Case Review reports are never made public, only the Executive Summary. As a result councillors have to take the Summaries on trust. I find that inadequate. That's not about distrusting our officers, it's about confidence in the system. Confidence, that we have identified what went wrong and that we know what we need to do to put it right. I am not sure that these reports give us that.

The first big issue is the considerable delay in publishing these reports, why they were published when they were and why they were published together. These children died in 2007 & 2008. A clue to how long they have been around is in the anonymisation. Child A was Aaron Gilbert (who died in 2005) – these three reports are for Child B, D & E. (Child C has not been published for reasons that, in the information I have been given, I entirely accept as valid). I accept that where criminal prosecution is likely/pending or the judicial process is in train, it could be difficult to publish certain information. However, of these three specific cases, only one gave rise to criminal proceedings (Child B - Carly). Although it seems certain that proceedings would have been considered in Child D (Kyle), in the third case (Child E – Chloe) they don't seem relevant at all.

So a more reasonable publication order would have been E (Chloe), almost immediately after her death in 2008, followed by D (Kyle) after decisions had been taken on proceedings, and finally Child B (Carly, who had died in early 2007) after the whole judicial procedure, including appeals, had been dispensed with. But no, the three reports were published together in March 2010. No satisfactory explanation has been given for this. Council was told that the reports were only finalised the day before publication. That is entirely unconvincing.

Why then were they all published together? Council was assured that this was just a co-incidence. Again, unconvincing.

I know that the Authority was expecting to get major headlines and the national news with at least one of the cases. So was it 'managing' the release to mitigate the damage? Well, it would be surprising if it didn't, but again Council was told that wasn't the case. Did the Authority want them out of the way before what they hoped was a good (or at least not too bad) CSSIW report? Again, that would not be unreasonable. Again Council was told that was not the case. What role did CSSIW have in governing the publication date? The Chief Inspector's dissembling and rather ill-tempered responses to my questions on this subject at Council, just created more suspicion – whether it is warranted or not I simply have no idea. What is clear is that what was always going to be a difficult period for the Authority was made worse by the way it was handled. The Authority probably couldn't believe its luck when Birmingham published just before Swansea and captured all the headlines. Or was that known? And was it that that dictated the publication date? We have still to get to the bottom of all of this.

Serious Case Reviews – Editing (5 of 9)

The Reports – Editing

It was my questions that elicited the admission from the Director of Social Service, that the passages quoted in the WM article about the Kyle SCR were accurate. (I take no particular credit for that – it was just the advantage of being first. Someone else would surely have raised it, if not me). I think the Director was quite open about it. However, I do not accept his reasoning; that it was to make the report easier to read and that the report remained critical of Social Services. He did not seem to accept the point of the significant difference of emphasis between the earlier draft and the published version.

For example, that;

"...over several years ...social work staff...and their managers failed to apply the law, appropriate procedure or elementary standards of professional practice..."

is considerably more critical (and a great deal more concerning) than

"...between 2002 and 2005...social work staff and their immediate managers failed to apply the appropriate procedures or standards of professional practice...".

And then there is the complete excision of the "at least" 15 occasions that various agencies referred information to Social Services regarding Kyle's;

"persistent involvement" in "risky and criminal behaviour, self-harming or drug and alcohol abuse and inadequate parenting from the age of 12...they (the agencies) expected action to be taken.

The review found no evidence that the failures identified...were due to ...staff being overwhelmed with work...

Management and supervision... had not picked up these issues over many years

(Kyle's) circumstances were not known to senior managers ...until his death".

which becomes

"Referrals were not properly considered or acted on...Judgements were not properly reached and assessments of risk were inadequate or not carried out. No enquiries were carried into the child's presentation...there was no proper consideration of Child D's circumstances and his needs... Information shared with social services...did not lead to any appropriate assessments of Child D's needs"

Yes both versions are critical, but placed side by side, I believe that the differences are stark. They might say substantially the same thing – but they don't certainly mean the same thing! Whilst the published version is damning, the draft version is considerably more so.

These are the ones I know of, thanks to the WM and the InsideOut blogsite. Are there others? Of course, I don't know. I have written to the Authority seeking the release of certain information that would clear all this up. I have already been told that some of the information I seek is confidential, and was provided to the SCR on that basis. I have two means to access information, one in my representative capacity and the other as an FOI. Negotiations on both continue. Of course someone could always send me the draft!

Serious Case Reviews – Style & Content – (6 of 9)

The Reports – Style & Content

The three reports themselves were entirely different in size and scope. The first (Carly) was very detailed, properly numbered, logical in its layout and easy to read (in the stylistic sense). The second (Kyle) was similar (it was written by the same person) but would have benefited from a more consistent layout. The third was simply inadequate. If I had produced a report like this when I was working for Coopers & Lybrand I would have had it thrown back to me and been told to do it again. Let's not forget the authors of these reports are getting paid for writing them.

I found it surprising that there was not a standard format, so that one report can be compared to another and that the ground they cover can be seen to be consistent.

The layout of all three reports is different. Report B is 23 pages long, and gives a clear picture of the circumstances that lead to Carly's death. Report D is 13 pages long, is not quite as clear on the circumstances of Kyle's death and contains 3 and half pages of recommendations. Report E (Chloe) is none of these things.

It is only 8 pages long (and that includes the title page) and has slightly more than half a page of recommendations. And of those scant pages only four short paragraphs are about Chloe herself. Four! Seven sentences and one of those was about the Coroner's verdict and another about her family being known to various agencies. One sad life (and even sadder death) disposed of in 142 words.

The whole tone of this report (read to me) as that summary suggests – as cold & dismissive. As 'care less' as the response of the agencies it reports on to the obvious screams of a child in distress and her mother desperately seeking to understand what she could do. This is best demonstrated by quoting two paragraphs;

9.7. "With hindsight, it is possible to speculate that a holistic, child-centred assessment of the family during this period, taking the full history into account, might have led to a clearer understanding of the degree to which the mother was struggling to meet Child E's needs and a more intensive and better coordinated preventative support plan. However, the lengthy history and complex nature of the factors in Child's (E) life mean that this may not have resulted in a different outcome."

9.9. "There are many young people who suffer a difficult childhood and adolescence, but who have sufficient resilience or have developed coping mechanisms which allow them to make a successful transition into adulthood."

In other words, more might possibly have been done, but it probably wouldn't have made any difference. And anyway other young people have got over it. So that's all right then!

My response to this report was one of anger. All the findings are vague, superficial and lack detail. If you were searching for clues as to why the various agencies failed to prevent Chloe's death, you won't find them here, other than they didn't seem to talk to one another, but we are assured they, "...did their best...".

Clearly their best wasn't good enough.

Serious Case Reviews – Children’s circumstances (7 of 9)

The children's circumstances

It is inevitable that you have an emotional reaction to reports like these. Reading the details of the death of a child is always a harrowing experience. Not just at the waste of a life – but (in two of these reports) on the presentation of a life whose sheer dreadfulness is difficult to comprehend.

Carly's personal circumstances were desperate from very early in her life, with her Mother and sister both being heroin addicts. She seemingly became an addict around 14, being supplied by her mother and sister. All this was known to all the agencies involved and yet, after a spell in secure accommodation where she got 'clean' she was returned to her mother and within days was dead from heroin allegedly supplied by her family, whilst an agency worker knowing she had gone back on heroin said nothing.

However, the most harrowing was Kyle's report. I was really upset by this one – still am. It is difficult to conceive of a life so hopeless (in the sense of being devoid of hope) or so appalling. It reads like the favelas of Brazil – but this is Swansea today! Given away by his mother to a neighbour immediately after birth, he never went to school from the age of 10, but became involved in criminal activity from the age of 11. Thereafter he was repeatedly involved in substance abuse (alcohol and an enormous variety of drugs), violence, petty criminality, inappropriate sexual (potentially paedophilic) activity, was seen unkempt and smelly, picked up, arrested and imprisoned. He had involvement with many agencies over nearly all his life – being referred to Social Services at least 15 times. Yet in 2007 he disappeared off the radar, but nobody asked why. It was known where he lived, yet it seems no-one went to check on how he was doing. The following year he's found dead.

What kind of life was this? What view did he have of the world? His mother didn't care for him at all and his carer didn't care enough and for 17 years no-one else seemed to either. I am sure that some did (well I must trust that they did) but if they did, they didn't care enough, so he grew up without either love or hope.

There was no doubt that this child was 'trouble', but Kyle was a child. It seems from reading the report that that was what all the agencies forgot. They saw the 'problem', but not the child and so countless opportunities were missed.

I have been approached by concerned individuals wanting an independent review of these latest deaths. I am not convinced of the need for that as yet. When I have seen (or not) the information I have requested, I will look at this again.

Serious Case Reviews – Accountability (8 of 9)

Accountability

It is difficult not to conclude that the failings of all the agencies involved were inexcusable.

The Director of Social Service (as the Chair of the Safeguarding Children Board) has apologised for failing these children. As has Swansea's Head of Service for Child & Family Social Services & the Police Chief Superintendent. We have been assured that lessons have been learnt. These are sincere expressions of regret, but they inevitably sound glib and inadequate. But what of the myriad other agencies involved? Very little (if anything) publicly has been heard from any of them. Chief Superintendent Mark Mathias on behalf of the Police has been a notable exception. It seems that the view of these agencies is lie low and let the Authority take the flak – but in at least two of these cases the principal causes lay outside the Authority.

And Swansea Council has been public about these reports – they could and should have gone further – but they have gone much much further than anyone else. And that's because local government has a way of dealing with these situations – and publicly. The others do not. Last year, we saw how the NHS Trust flatly refused to attend the Scrutiny Board and how other agencies reacted to questioning in regards to their involvement in Children's Services. This is not good enough. There has to be some way for these agencies to be made publicly accountable.

It is of course very easy to criticise. I saw that the new head of the family courts, Lord Justice Wall, has said that social workers have a "legal duty to unite families rather than separate them". But in Carly's case it was doing precisely that, that led to her death. But who would be a Social Worker – as the judge said, "damned if they do and damned if they don't". I am deeply disturbed merely by reading these reports, what about the social workers who deal with this day after day? My ward colleague, the Lord Mayor, Cllr Allan Lloyd, has led a life of political activism not just here in Swansea but across the world. I was given thought by comments he made at the recent opening of the Anne Frank exhibition, when he asked whether, in difficult and threatening circumstances, he would still have been prepared to stand up and take action. Like the rest of us, he hoped he would. But in this context, if we were the social workers, what would we have done? Would we have been able to save these children?

As councillors we have a responsibility as corporate parents, and whilst we cannot deal with each case, we do have a responsibility to ensure that our services are fit for purpose. The difficulty is determining exactly how we do that.

But everyone has responsibility here. Responsibility not just to stand by, but to act, where we see things are wrong. I refer again to Allan Lloyd's words. This is not being a busybody – it is our civic and human duty. Let me be clear, we know of these children, because they are children. Had they lived longer and become adults, over 18, there would have been no Serious Case Reviews, they would have been just another drug related death, just another statistic. And how many of those young adults are victims failed by our 'system'?

The other evening, Council was shown A Swansea Love Story. Whilst in one reading it is an uplifting story of survival against the odds, its back-story is harrowing, painting a picture of moral and family breakdown that most of us would see with horror and incomprehension. Of course, it is not typical – but it is real. And that is the big question, how have we created a society in which we have forgotten or allowed to be forgotten, whole swathes of people, families, not only without hope but (seemingly) without the possibility of redemption or recovery? The creation of generational cycles of dislocation and dissociation, people who have fallen so low that heroin and strong cider are not recreational drugs, but the only coping mechanism they have.

Serious Case Reviews – (9 of 9) Recommendations

Recommendations

It is very important that the public have confidence in the systems that are provided in their name. This cannot have been helped by the considerable delay in publication, by the removal of harder hitting passages and by the fact that the Board is chaired by the Director of Social Service. This is not about lack of trust in our officers or indeed specifically, Swansea's Director of Social Services, it's all about the public perception of independence.

I would suggest consideration of the following for the future:

• All SCRs should have the same format
  
• All SCRs should be published within 6 months
  
• All SCRs should be entirely independent of any of the agencies that provided services. This would probably require the responsibility being taken away from the Safeguarding Children Board.
  
• The person responsible for commissioning the SCR should also be entirely independent.
  

And

• Urgent consideration be given to extending, by law, the Council Scrutiny process to cover all publicly funded agencies operating in the public sphere.
  

PR - Now is the time for review of child death cases to be fully independent

Labour councillors call for review of child death cases to be fully independent.

Swansea Council tonight debated the three recently published Serious Case Reviews into the deaths of young people in their care. The reports have been seriously criticised for taking up to three years to get published and accused of being doctored to remove or tone down significant harder hitting criticisms of the agencies involved.

Speaking after the meeting, Swansea Labour Leader Cllr David Phillips said, “Whilst sincere, apologies, condolences and claims of ‘lessons have been learnt’ sound glib and inadequate in the face of the sad death of young people who died in 2007/8.”

The full Serious Case Review reports are never made public, only the Executive Summary.

Cllr David Phillips said, “It is not acceptable that councillors cannot see the reports themselves and have to take the Summaries on trust. It is not about lack of trust in our officers, it’s about confidence in the system. Confidence, that we have identified what went wrong and that we know what we need to do to put it right. I am not sure that these reports give us that.”

Cllr Phillips said that he had been approached by concerned individuals wanting an independent review of these latest deaths. He said, “I am not convinced of the need for that as yet. However, I am in the process of seeking certain information from Swansea Council and others –I will have to see what that shows.”

He said, “Nonetheless, it is very important that the public have confidence in the system and that cannot have been helped by the considerable delay in publication, by the removal of harder hitting passages and by the fact that the Board is chaired by the Director of Social Service”.

Safeguarding Children’s Boards are routinely chaired by the local Director of Social Service.

Cllr Phillips stressed that this wasn’t about a lack of trust in Swansea’s, Director of Social Service, Chris Maggs. He said, “This is all about the public perception of independence. I welcome the suggestion that such reports should be produced within six months in future. But I would go further, I would suggest it is now time to consider that the whole process should be independent, with an independent chair as well.”Ends

Sent out this evening  after tonights Council meeting. I will be writing more about that tomorrow.

Will she or won’t she

There is a most curious sight down County Hall at the moment, where long lines of people are standing with their ears pressed to the walls of the Administration Group's accommodation, listening to the screams and wails as the 'arrangements' over who is getting what from the trough at the Annual General Meeting are thrashed out – and all the ears are members of the Adminstration (well the unlucky ones, I guess, the excluded). If they want to know what's going on they should just ask the Opposition, officers or indeed the guy who changes the water bottles – as everyone else seems to know. Unless, of course, this is just an elaborate game of double-bluff. But what the hell – it's amusing, even if it isn't true.

It seems that the elevation of Tricky Dicky, the Earl of Gower, to the Lord Mayorship, has provided the excuse to kick him out of his much abused Chairmanship of the Area 2 Planning Committee. Enough it seems is enough! Even thought the numbers of Planning Committees has doubled, TD's name is not on any of them. Less clear is the position of his running mate – the Mountain Man of Mawr – as he prepares for his second chance at the summit. I would think that he should be pretty safe as Chair of one of the Licensing Committees – as he is generally considered to have done a decent (well decent enough) and conscientious job – all the other stuff notwithstanding.

However, what of Milady Fitzgerald? Well the talk here seems pretty consistent, she's not to be the newly minted Chairman of the Authority after all. Here too, it seems, enough is enough. What has seemed to have stuck in a few throats is that in creating this post, no-one (not least the recently departed Monitoring Officer) seemed to have read the provisions of the Local Government Act, which puts this position second only to the Queen (or her representative) in order of Precedence. In other words, up the front before the Lord Mayor! This is undoubtedly going to get changed – but the risk that it might be the Princess of Penllegaer even if only for a few weeks seems a reward too far – not least to the aforementioned Earl of Gower, who considered he was much put upon in his last outing. A bit of public jostling would be amusing, however.

What is less clear, is where Milady goes. There is one team screaming for her to depart hence to the back-benches, where she should have gone before ("and not before bloody time" as one eloquent Admin-er said). Another that she will become the Chair of Planning – it would seem that they are seriously trying to put the nose of their newest member (The aforementioned etc) critically out of joint. However, there is life in the old dear yet as there is a third version ---- that she is working busily behind the scenes trying to shaft one (anyone) in the Cabinet and get back the place that she so properly and rightfully claims as her birthright. (You may have forgotten – or may not be aware, that Milady has never been an ordinary back-bencher. She arrived newly elected and so (obviously) newly minted as non-cannon fodder. She was not to be one of that underclass destined to fight for the light and an SRA, forced to turn to quick fixes of caffeine and free biscuits and a moan in the Members Lounge (I'll have to think of a synonym here. I was going to use the Funeral Parlour – but that was too near an advert for Mervyn)).

The favourite for the knife in the back is her Independent colleague, Cllr Gareth Sullivan. Well it's either him or John Hague – and he's too much of a bruiser, with half a brick always readily to hand in his elegantly tailored trousers!

Time will reveal all, as always.

Update: I was reminded prior to tonight's Council Meeting that there is another candidate that I had forgotten - the Eastside Gaulieter, the BNP supporting steriliser - Herr Allan Robinson (but then on performance, eminently forgettable). Certainly there would be a synergy in an exchange of positions between Milady and the goosestepper as they share very similar views on parenting support. So it seems unlikley that she would want to cuckoo him out of the nest.  I also rather think that he too would put up a fight - and he is rumoured to be much in favour with the Big Yin himself. But would he become the Council Chairman? If anything - he would be more unpopular (and unwanted) that Milady - mind you the prospect of him trying to manage a Council meeting has a certain morbid fascination (I am truly sick!). Whilst he would be politically closer to his Earlship, I still don't think that TD would find the idea of him taking precedence an easy swallow.

Come what May – well not at all actually

Last Thursday's Council meeting began with a completely pointless (and by Milady Fitzgerald – witless) display of chairmanship (see previous post). It was prompted by the non-arrival of the cabinet Member for Housing, Cllr Peter May – the Uplands Uriah Heep.

Now Chris Holley had told me that UH would be late – childcare issues out of town. Given the frequency with which he brings his children to meetings, I thought it more likely to be canvassing, but then I am a cynic! Prior to the meeting he had apparently told others the same thing (arriving late, childcare) – including the Evening Post (which seems a very curious thing to do....). Why say this if you weren't planning to come at all? So it would seem he was coming. The Housing items were the first on the Agenda, as it was known he would be late, why not just defer them until later? And why didn't he arrive?However, the first Housing item was a contentious one – mobility scooters in Gloucester House (see a previous post) and the wider application of his Department's decision to all users in Council sheltered and shared entrance accommodation (and indeed private/Social landlords). Given the imminent election, I had suspected that Cllr Heep would not want to stick his head above this particular parapet – and indeed so it proved.

As the evening wore on and he still did not appear, CH began to look a little desperate. And as the meeting went on until nearly 9.30pm (almost 5 and half hours) UH had plenty of opportunity, but no sign. Indeed, every time the doors to the Chamber opened, one of the wags on my side cried out "Is it Peter May?" – but it never was.

Now I entirely understand that things happen – especially with children. However, this was a scheduled meeting, in the diary for over twelve months – he could claim for the costs of caring (and he often brought his kids with him) – neither he nor his children were ill and his absence seemed apparently planned - so where was he, why had he arranged something else on the evening of a Council meeting when he had items on the agenda – something that doesn't happen too often with his portfolio at the best of times, and no-one was prepared to put the items off until later in the meeting. I believe that politics were being played here. UH has always tried to stay away from anything troublesome in case it harms his slim chances of victory in the election.

Well, whatever his reason was, it was contemptuous of the Council meeting and of the fact that he is getting a large wedge to be the Cabinet Member and for which is not normally called upon to do much in receipt of it.

If anyone saw him around in Swansea last Thursday or knows his actual whereabouts please get in touch.

That’s the way to do it – or not!

First, a bit of background. In an attempt to resolve some of the 'process & procedure' issues the Council has operated for some time, a 'usual channels' confidential committee involving the Leaders & Deputies of the Opposition parties and the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer – the so-called Constitutional Working Group (CWG). Originally, just me, June Burtonshaw, Chris Holley & Gerald Clement (and now John Hague) attended, but were later joined by Rene Kinzett when he had his Cameroonian conversion. The principle reasoning was to sort out non-political stuff away from the floor of the Council Chamber, avoiding tedious, boring (and not just to members of the public) arcane, and to outsiders, incomprehensible debates. In addition, there were ad hoc meetings between the Group Leaders only.

However, these meeting became increasingly pointless due to Chris Holley's inability to deliver his Group on a wide variety of issues. Although I still nurse the suspicion that not everything had been taken to his Group (see my earlier posts on the Planning Committee issue) and this was just a handy unarguable excuse.

In addition, we also had the Scrutiny & Overview Working Group (I think that was what it was/is called) and the pre-Council briefing, both chaired by the Presiding Officer. The first to determine the order of business for Scrutiny and (given that it had a huge in-built Administration majority) control what was actually scrutinised. (It was this that led to the complaint from the Intervention Board – see earlier post). The second was where we sat down and told each other what we were going to do in the meeting. No, we did really. Well not everything – there had to be some surprises.

Anyway, in response to the appointment of Milady Fitzgerald as the Council's Presiding Officer (it was hardly an election – being a golden gag and a seeming reward for her previous failure)and the control freakery of the Administration, who both started refusing to allow their Leader to meet Opposition Leaders on his own and made the CWG 'proportional', ie loaded it with additional Admin members to build-in a majority (for a committee that could take no decisions), in response to all that, Opposition Leaders took 'industrial action' (I guess that Rene would not want to be seen to be on strike!) and refused to co-operate and attend all these useless meetings.

The consequence of this was that the 'workings' of the Council began to grind exceeding slow – and this bothered the Chief Executive. To the extent that he persuaded us to go along with a conciliator (whom I have described as a 'marriage guidance counsellor') to see whether we could find some common ground to reinstate the 'usual channels'. This proved surprisingly productive. And in a 'full & frank' exchange R & I expressed our dissatisfaction with her conduct of the meetings (especially her frequently exasperated expression and body language), whilst Milady accepted that she could do with some training and would do better. SO meetings between Chris and I were re-instigated and Milady's conduct of the last Council meeting was almost ok – certainly much improved.

However, however....all that was not to last.

Last week's meeting was dreadful. Chris had declined to discuss the Independent Remuneration report and refused the suggestion of the Chief Executive (so I am told) to discuss his plans for the revised committee structure (see previous post) – what was he afraid of? – and Milady's conduct of the meeting was abysmal. I would admit that I started the meeting in a bad mood, as I just learnt that agreements (I thought had been secured) as to how certain reports were to be dealt with had been reneged upon. The Leader of Council had told me (prior) that Peter May (the Uplands Uriah Heep), the Housing Cabinet Member would be late to the meeting (see next post). The first couple of items were to do with the Housing Portfolio, so I asked, not unreasonably, for the items to be deferred until he turned up. This provoked a ridiculous row, as neither CH nor Milady would allow the matter to be deferred to later in the meeting, even though it was obvious that Milady Fitzgerald had been advised by the Chief Executive to do so. Milady then refused to allow me to speak even tho' it was a ward matter. One of my colleagues sought to get the matter deferred to the next meeting and Milady refused that as well. She was then countermanded by CH who said he didn't mind if it was deferred, so she changed her mind and deferred it. This was all completely mad and ridiculous and had unnecessarily raised the temperature of the meeting. Points of order flying around, Two Dinners screaming his head off and Milady F looking right royally irritated – to the extent that I demanded that she took that 'damned exasperated expression of her face' – with her response 'How dare you be so rude' and so on and on.

This was a battle that didn't need to be fought, what was being asked for was not unreasonable, but the way it was handled was disastrous. Unsurprisingly, the meeting went downhill from there. It was one of the worst, I think I've been to. Heaven only knows what the public made of it.

Spring is Sprung

I apologise to my many (!) followers who have been deprived of their fix of Scouse wit and wisdom – well you're respite is over – I'm back! Well until the next disaster. I have been off-line as my home computer has been out of action due to some technical conflict problem with the operating software (no doubt my fault). At least that is what I was told – with a sad purse of the lips and the word "Vista" accompanied by a dismissive shake of the head. It went down immediately after I had a conversation with a mate who was trying to persuade me to switch to an AppleMac. So it might have just been a fit of machine pique. Whatever.......
Spring has most definitely arrived as County Hall has seen a frenzy of nest feathering (and the ejection of at least one cuckoo).

I have posted previously about the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales (IRP). Amongst other things, they removed the Special Responsibility Allowances for the vice-Chairman of all committees. Unsurprisingly this was met with wails of protest from the Administration, although this has not seemed to include the Mountain Man of Mawr. Perhaps he had in mind the consequences of his previous outburst over loss of allowances and didn't want to put his forthcoming re-elevation to the Lord Mayorality at risk – but then again he wasn't directly affected. Anyway, I don't want to be churlish as he has been quite nice to me recently and very amusing on the pomposity of the Brilliant Comrade.

Last Thursday's Council meeting saw the Administration's response. After wingeing for years that it was unreasonable to ask politicians to set their own pay, what is the first thing that our illustrious Leader does – politically interfere with the result. Throwing away an important principle for a cheap political stunt – whilst at the same time cynically (and hypocritically) creating a load of new committees with attached allowances for his Administration cronies. It was actually sickening to hear him trying to explain this increase as a direct and necessary consequence of getting rid of hundreds of staff. (No I didn't understand it either!).

The proposal to double the number of area Planning committees was particularly daft – as Swansea has just finished a long-running skirmish with the District Auditor about our having two committees – he wanted one. Swansea had originally had four committees – but in an attempt to speed-up the process had adopted various suggestions from my Group, including reducing the number of committees to two. So now we have gone back to where we were several years ago – I cannot see that the DA will lie down for this.

However, the most cynical manoeuvre, was the creation of a Chair of Council. Erm...this is apparently different to the Presiding Officer, having different and (as far as I can see) less responsibility – but getting paid the same! I have sat in meetings over the past 18 months or so with previous, the current and next Lord Mayors, the Leader, Chief executive and other officers discussing the changing role of the Lord Mayor – the principle part of which was to re-institute the Lord Mayor chairing Council meetings. All had thought this a good idea. I thought that it had been helped along by a letter from WAG as a result of questions from the Intervention Board about the Presiding Officer's involvement in Scrutiny. Apparently not – in an unambiguous two-fingered response, we have created a new post and in order to pay lip-service to the previous discussions created a new form of ceremonial Council that the Lord Mayor will be allowed Chair!

The new Chair of Council is based on an inexcusable (and inexplicable) misinterpretation of the relevant legislation. But I am guessing that the then (and now departed) Monitoring Officer – and how I would like to post something about his leaving – had some involvement in that so perhaps it wasn't surprising. This new post is not to be paid a Special Responsibility Allowance but an amount to cover the expenses of the office – which have been set (entirely co-incidentally!) at the same level as previous - £9,700 or thereabouts.

However, given that there have been no previous expenses of the post – it's difficult to see how anyone is going to get paid – and I am sure that the DA will have a view of this. I understand that the Leader is planning to go to the IRP to argue for this allowances. I'd really like to be a fly on the wall.

In the debate Paxton Hood-Williams castigated the moral bankruptcy of the Administration – many of whom were visibly uncomfortable with having to vote for the changes – but vote for them they did. And in a recorded vote – I feel another advert coming on! Cllr Margaret Smith described the report as a "lactating financial teat...at which they were all greedily sucking" or words to that effect.

Spring is sprung, the grass is riz,

The Admin knows where their pockets iz