Feedback from December Copeland Council meeting
Copeland Council met in Cleator Moor civic hall this afternoon.
The meeting began with prayers for those affected by the recent floods and expecially the family and friends of the late Bill Barker.
The following three hours was, to use a football expression, very much a "game of two halves" with two hours of fairly constructive discussion about positive issues during which most people would agree with the vast majority of what was said on all sides, followed by a fairly nasty final hour marred by some unpleasant party political manouvering.
FLOODS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
It was agreed by councillors on both sides of the chamber that the effect of the recent floods shows how badly Cumbria's transport infrastructure needs to be improved. The need to re-trunk and/or replace the A595 was one, and for a Duddon Bridge, were two of the issues raised.
HOSPITALS
Continued progress on the rebuild project for the West Cumberland Hospital was welcomed but it was agreed that councillors need to be involved in engaging with the NHS trusts about this project and to demonstrate cross-party political support.
PARKS
Copeland council's parks department was congratulated on winning a prestigious national award for the second year running
DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS
A number of buildings in a terrible condition have caused real problems in several parts of Copeland from Whitehaven to Millom, and there has been some progress. Two of these are being improved by their owners, while arrangements are being put in hand to prosecute the owners of two others who have refused to respond to requests to do the same.
There was some constructive discussion of this but one of the Labour councillors from Cleator Moor provided the first sour note of the evening by noting that the former Conservative Club in that town (since demolished) had been a derelict building for a while. Gosh, how funny.
CHOOSING TO CHANGE
A report from the cross-party board which is leading on the "Choosing to Change" programme for reform of the council gave a constructive analysis of the issues involved and the steps being taken to get there. There was some debate on the fact that the board meets in private, but given that it's recommendations will come to the full council in open session, most councillors were willing to give this decision the benefit of the doubt. If the meeting had stopped at this point, without the subsequent events which cast doubt on the seriousness of the Labour majority's commitment to cross-party reform, I would have considered it an excellent meeting.
REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Unfortunately the meeting did not stop at that point. Next item was the report of the Independent Head of the Audit committee who has been asked to investigate an incident in which the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees had been amended before going to Full Council without reference to the Chairmen of the Committees.
The report made a number of recommendations to move things forward, which most councillors, including myself, supported. Several speakers however, again including myself, were concerned that a couple of sentences in the conclusion of the report could be taken as criticism of a former officer of the council. Although I was and am satisfied that the report was not intended to read as an attack on the officer concerned, we wanted to make the point that we didn't support any such interpetation of what had been written.
Other councillors expressed a similar opinion rather more strongly, and at this point the Labour administration demonstrated that they are not good at dealing with dissent.
Councillor Brian Dixon, the Overview and Scrutiny Chairman who had originally asked for the investigation was half way through his response to the report. He had strong views on the report and they were trenchantly expressed but his speech contained nothing to justify the Stalinist response it provoked.
Apparently incensed at being required to listen to views he didn't like, a member of the Labour Executive popped up and moved that "the question now be put" - e.g. an immediate vote on the recommendations with no further opportunity for debate and without Brian being allowed to finish his speech.
This procedure exists in the standing orders of most councils to stop filibusters and avoid a situation where the same arguments are being repeated again and again. Neither of these justifications appeared to apply today, and nor was it the reason advanced for the motion to block further debate. The proposer of that motion said it was to stop people wrecking the council. However, the motion to proceed straight to the vote was forced through by all but one of the Labour group (one of their councillors abstained.)
In my view this gratuitous cap on democracy was quite uncalled for and left a wholly unnecessary bad taste in the mouth.
PLAY AREA EXTENSION AT CASTLE PARK, WHITEHAVEN
There followed a debate on a planning application to extend the play area at Castle Park. A number of councillors raised concerns which had initially been put forward by local residents, that this could lead to an increase in problems with illegal parking in the area. There was a mostly constructive debate (I was slightly irritated at being described as having said that the council would be encouraging illegal parking if we passed the proposal, when what I actually said was that an increase in that problem might be a result.) It was eventually agreed that the extra play area should be approved but that a number of steps should be taken for more effective enforcement against illegal parking.
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CHAIRMAN OF PERSONNEL
A motion of no confidence in the Chairman of Personnel was moved by the Leader and Deputy leader of the Conservative group in relation to a series of allegations which he had made against a staff member and several Conservative councillors for which he could not produce a shred of evidence. This motion too was guillotined and voted down by the Labour majority.
The meeting began with prayers for those affected by the recent floods and expecially the family and friends of the late Bill Barker.
The following three hours was, to use a football expression, very much a "game of two halves" with two hours of fairly constructive discussion about positive issues during which most people would agree with the vast majority of what was said on all sides, followed by a fairly nasty final hour marred by some unpleasant party political manouvering.
FLOODS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
It was agreed by councillors on both sides of the chamber that the effect of the recent floods shows how badly Cumbria's transport infrastructure needs to be improved. The need to re-trunk and/or replace the A595 was one, and for a Duddon Bridge, were two of the issues raised.
HOSPITALS
Continued progress on the rebuild project for the West Cumberland Hospital was welcomed but it was agreed that councillors need to be involved in engaging with the NHS trusts about this project and to demonstrate cross-party political support.
PARKS
Copeland council's parks department was congratulated on winning a prestigious national award for the second year running
DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS
A number of buildings in a terrible condition have caused real problems in several parts of Copeland from Whitehaven to Millom, and there has been some progress. Two of these are being improved by their owners, while arrangements are being put in hand to prosecute the owners of two others who have refused to respond to requests to do the same.
There was some constructive discussion of this but one of the Labour councillors from Cleator Moor provided the first sour note of the evening by noting that the former Conservative Club in that town (since demolished) had been a derelict building for a while. Gosh, how funny.
CHOOSING TO CHANGE
A report from the cross-party board which is leading on the "Choosing to Change" programme for reform of the council gave a constructive analysis of the issues involved and the steps being taken to get there. There was some debate on the fact that the board meets in private, but given that it's recommendations will come to the full council in open session, most councillors were willing to give this decision the benefit of the doubt. If the meeting had stopped at this point, without the subsequent events which cast doubt on the seriousness of the Labour majority's commitment to cross-party reform, I would have considered it an excellent meeting.
REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Unfortunately the meeting did not stop at that point. Next item was the report of the Independent Head of the Audit committee who has been asked to investigate an incident in which the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees had been amended before going to Full Council without reference to the Chairmen of the Committees.
The report made a number of recommendations to move things forward, which most councillors, including myself, supported. Several speakers however, again including myself, were concerned that a couple of sentences in the conclusion of the report could be taken as criticism of a former officer of the council. Although I was and am satisfied that the report was not intended to read as an attack on the officer concerned, we wanted to make the point that we didn't support any such interpetation of what had been written.
Other councillors expressed a similar opinion rather more strongly, and at this point the Labour administration demonstrated that they are not good at dealing with dissent.
Councillor Brian Dixon, the Overview and Scrutiny Chairman who had originally asked for the investigation was half way through his response to the report. He had strong views on the report and they were trenchantly expressed but his speech contained nothing to justify the Stalinist response it provoked.
Apparently incensed at being required to listen to views he didn't like, a member of the Labour Executive popped up and moved that "the question now be put" - e.g. an immediate vote on the recommendations with no further opportunity for debate and without Brian being allowed to finish his speech.
This procedure exists in the standing orders of most councils to stop filibusters and avoid a situation where the same arguments are being repeated again and again. Neither of these justifications appeared to apply today, and nor was it the reason advanced for the motion to block further debate. The proposer of that motion said it was to stop people wrecking the council. However, the motion to proceed straight to the vote was forced through by all but one of the Labour group (one of their councillors abstained.)
In my view this gratuitous cap on democracy was quite uncalled for and left a wholly unnecessary bad taste in the mouth.
PLAY AREA EXTENSION AT CASTLE PARK, WHITEHAVEN
There followed a debate on a planning application to extend the play area at Castle Park. A number of councillors raised concerns which had initially been put forward by local residents, that this could lead to an increase in problems with illegal parking in the area. There was a mostly constructive debate (I was slightly irritated at being described as having said that the council would be encouraging illegal parking if we passed the proposal, when what I actually said was that an increase in that problem might be a result.) It was eventually agreed that the extra play area should be approved but that a number of steps should be taken for more effective enforcement against illegal parking.
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CHAIRMAN OF PERSONNEL
A motion of no confidence in the Chairman of Personnel was moved by the Leader and Deputy leader of the Conservative group in relation to a series of allegations which he had made against a staff member and several Conservative councillors for which he could not produce a shred of evidence. This motion too was guillotined and voted down by the Labour majority.
Comments
The guillotining of the debate on the Independent Investigation and on the No Confidence motion in the Chairman of Personnel, made mockery of democracy. This was an abuse of the use of the Standing Order procedure to stifle relevant and intelligent debate and resulted in the gagging of the opposition.
These Stalinist tactics are yet another example of the Labour Group’s inability to cope with dissent. They seem incapable of conducting an argument. Knowing that they can win on votes rather than through reasoned argument or any moral superiority, they resort to dictatorial methods.
I was also appalled when Cllr. Norwood was making an excellent speech, seconding Cllr. Moore’s motion of no confidence, that the Labour Executive were in fits of giggles. During the debate, where Cllr. Dixon was prevented from continuing his address, one of the Labour front-benchers set off a flashing music making Christmas toy, which appeared (from where I was sitting) to be attached to his tie. The Labour Group managed to trivialise and destroy an extremely serious discussion, reducing it to the level of a school common room prank.
Cllrs Norwood and Moore made excellent points about the depths to which politics has sunk. Cllr. Pitt’s defiance of the ninth commandment with regard to bearing false witness, has cast a dark shadow over Copeland. This is an issue of morality and not party politics. It is disgraceful that the Labour group refuse to acknowledge this point.
In my view their opposition to the vote no confidence tarnishes them. They share in common Cllr. Pitt’s lack of integrity when it comes to honourable conduct and fair play.
How much longer must the people of Copeland be forced to endure this farce.
It's time you all woke up, there is no democracy or any accountability in Copeland.
David Moore and Alistair Norwood had jointly agreed that they were going to put this motion forward, and it was always their intention that David would make the proposing speech that Alistair would second. For reasons of convenience it was Alistair who gave the council officers the formal notice required to put the motion on the agenda.
Copeland Council's rules do not insist that the councillors who put down a motion have to be the same people who make the speeches on it, and there is nothing unusual, harmful, or anti-democratic in switching the speakers round.