Prior to the motion on Whistle-blowing being debated, the Chief Executive made a statement to the Council and referred to his advice which had been circulated to all Councillors advising caution when it came to discussing individual cases. The advice was as follows:

“I would like to firstly advise a note of caution to all Elected Members when it comes to discussing individual cases. The Council in this instance has been requested to deal directly with Mr Morton’s solicitor to seek a resolution to the outstanding issues. We are keen to reach a resolution at the earliest opportunity and have corresponded with Mr Morton’s Solicitor to that effect. 

I must also draw Council’s attention to the recent judgement by Mr Justice Hughes in the first-tier tribunal between the Appellant and the Information Commissioner. Judge Hughes upheld the Information Commissioner’s decision to uphold this Council’s refusal of personal information relating to the Officers alluded to in this question. This followed his appraisal of the AKA report and all relevant information provided.

In particular it is important that Members note the following conclusions:

The information which the complainant has asked for is detailed information on personnel matters relating to the individuals concerned. This goes much further than a request to detail of any severance payments made to the individuals. It is also about the terms under which they left the authority. The public interest in knowing whether appropriate policies and procedures were followed or whether the council acted inappropriately in terms of the events outlined in the report has been served by the disclosure of the report.

The individuals identified within the report had not been convicted of any crime. Public accountability for failing is within the Council's practices and rests with the Council as a whole rather than with individual officers.

He concluded by finding that while there was a legitimate public interest in understanding how the Council had reacted to the report; this information would not help with that process and a balance had to be struck with respect to the rights of the individuals concerned. He found that:

Any pressing social need for greater transparency on the Council's reaction to the report would not be met by a disclosure of this information. He therefore considers that it would be unfair (and given the implied confidentiality of the employer/employee information, unlawful) for the purposes of the first data protection principle for that information to be disclosed.

In the light of the above judgement we do not consider that it would be lawful or practical to allow a further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the departure of the two Officers in question.”

The Chief Executive also reported to the Council that that afternoon a first claim had been received at 2.50pm from Mr Morton’s solicitors which would now allow the Council to proceed to reach a settlement with Mr Morton.

It was then –

Proposed by Councillor Green

Seconded by Councillor Rennie

(1)  Council notes that on the 19 June 2013 the CQC published an independent report into its registration and oversight of University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust where up to 16 baby deaths and 2 maternal deaths could be attributed to poor quality of care. A significant part of this report focussed on the ‘11 questions’ raised by Care Quality Commission (CQC) whistle-blower Kay Sheldon.

(2)  Mrs. Sheldon, a non-executive Board Member of the CQC, had previously given evidence to the Francis Inquiry concerning high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Within her evidence Kay Sheldon states that the final straw for her to contact the inquiry was that she had been trying to raise concerns for quite sometime and the Chair of the CQC had been trying to undermine Mrs. Sheldon by suggesting she was mentally unstable.

(3)  Council further notes the recent publication from the National Audit Office “Confidentiality clause and special severance payments” where the Head of the Audit Office stated “it is important that compromise agreements do not leave staff feeling gagged or reward failure either of an employee or an organisation.”

(4)  Council believes that Martin Morton would be able to draw parallels between Mrs. Sheldon’s experiences at the CQC and his own experiences at Wirral Borough Council where he blew the whistle on Wirral Borough Council that led to the ordering of the AKA investigation and subsequent report which found that the abnormal had become the norm.

(5)  Martin has received no justice – his life has been ruined and both the AKA report and Martin Smith reports vindicated him. Let us not forget that Martin stood up for those vulnerable adults who couldn’t stand up for themselves and was hounded out of his job for doing so. Council is therefore extremely dissatisfied that, over two years on from the publication of the Martin Smith and AKA reports, the Administration have been unable to find an acceptable resolution with Martin Morton.

(6)  Council is further disappointed to note that, along with the public, it has never received an adequate explanation into the sequence of events that allowed two senior members of staff implicated in the Martin Morton whistle-blow to leave, under compromise agreements, less than 1 working day prior to the publication of the AKA report and exactly what role the then leadership of the Council had in that decision.

(7)  Council therefore requests the Chief Executive to:

(a)  brief the three party leaders about the current state of discussions with Martin Morton and produce a timeline for resolution;

(b)  conduct a review of all the circumstances surrounding the decision to allow two senior members of staff implicated in the Martin Morton whistle-blow to leave, under compromise agreements and present that review to the three party leaders at the September Leaders’ Board prior to full publication.

An amendment was then submitted in accordance with Standing Order 12(1) and (9) which had been circulated around the Chamber.

Proposed by Councillor Phil Davies

Seconded by Councillor George Davies

“In paragraph 7 delete (b) and replace with the following –

(b) provide a report to both the Improvement Board and Audit and Risk Management Committee detailing the actions taken in response to all findings detailed in the external reports the Council has received in recent years.”

A further amendment was then submitted in accordance with Standing Order 12(1) and (9).

Proposed by Councillor T Harney

Seconded by Councillor Pat Williams

“In paragraph 7(b) delete the last four words, ‘prior to full publication’ and insert, a final sentence, ‘Any investigation to be conducted into issues which are legally allowed and those parts of the report which are allowed to be legally published are published.”

To enable consideration of this further amendment and for the political Groups to received legal advice:

The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8.50pm for 10 minutes.

The meeting resumed at 9.05pm

Councillor Bill Davies suggested that Standing Order 9 be suspended to allow debates on the two motions referred for debate. It was agreed that Standing Order 9 be suspended and the Mayor informed the Council that he would limit the debates to movers and seconders and a right of reply.

The Chief Executive informed the Council that the amendment proposed by Councillor Harney was legal but impractical as it would be difficult to compel or request former officers of the Council to provide information to an investigation.

The Head of Legal and Member Services also reminded members that the Council had entered into legally binding agreements with certain individuals and would run the risk of legal action if the Council failed to honour its contractual obligations. The Council also needed to be mindful of the judgement it had been provided with.

Councillor Gilchrist referred to a number of clauses in the Information Commissioner’s letter and the Chief Executive stated that he would respond in writing.

The Mayor then requested the movers of the motion and amendments to speak to their proposals followed by the seconders.

During his right of reply, Councillor Green referred to the former Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion, Councillor Moira McLaughlin and to the former Leader of the Council, Councillor Steve Foulkes, and that in his opinion the claims being made at the time by Martin Morton, ‘were too quickly dismissed’. Both Councillors Moira McLaughlin and Steve Foulkes strongly objected to the statement made by Councillor Green on the grounds that it was inaccurate and unjustified.

The Head of Legal and Member Services stated that no findings of wrongdoing had been found against any Councillor regarding these matters.

Councillor Green stated that he was not suggesting that there was any wrongdoing but there were issues which needed to be resolved.

Referring to the videoing or recording of the proceedings by members of the public, the Head of Legal and Member Services stated that it was not possible for the Council to monitor or manage recordings in the public domain.

The amendment proposed by Councillor Harney was put and lost (24:35) (One abstention).

In respect of the Labour amendment, Councillor Green along with five Conservative Members, asked that a ‘card vote’ be recorded. Responding to an intervention from Councillor Bill Davies, the Head of Legal and Member Services clarified that a ‘card vote’ could be taken as Standing Order 9 had been suspended. The Council then divided as follows –

For the amendment (35) Councillors RL Abbey, P Brightmore, J Crabtree, G Davies, P Davies, WJ Davies, P Doughty, S Foulkes, P Glasman, RJ Gregson, S Hodrien, AER Jones, C Jones, B Kenny, A Leech, ARC McLachlan, M McLaughlin, Mrs C Meaden, B Mooney, C Muspratt, S Niblock, T Norbury, D Realey, DE Roberts, J Salter, H Smith, PA Smith, W Smith, J Stapleton, M Sullivan, J Walsh, S Whittingham, I Williams, KJ Williams and J Williamson.

Against the amendment (24) Councillors C Blakeley, E Boult, A Brighouse, Mrs W Clements, T Cox, DM Elderton, L Fraser, PN Gilchrist, J Green, T Harney, AC Hodson, K Hodson, M Hornby, M Johnston, P Kearney, SE Kelly, I Lewis, SR Mountney, Mrs L Rennie, SL Rowlands, A Sykes, GCJ Watt, Mrs P Williams and S Williams.

One abstention – Councillor D Mitchell.

The Labour amendment was therefore put and carried (35:24) (One abstention).

The substantive motion, as amended, was then put to the vote and it was –

Resolved (35:24) (One abstention) -

(1)  Council notes that on the 19 June 2013 the CQC published an independent report into its registration and oversight of University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust where up to 16 baby deaths and 2 maternal deaths could be attributed to poor quality of care. A significant part of this report focussed on the ‘11 questions’ raised by Care Quality Commission (CQC) whistle-blower Kay Sheldon.

(2)  Mrs. Sheldon, a non-executive Board Member of the CQC, had previously given evidence to the Francis Inquiry concerning high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Within her evidence Kay Sheldon states that the final straw for her to contact the inquiry was that she had been trying to raise concerns for quite sometime and the Chair of the CQC had been trying to undermine Mrs. Sheldon by suggesting she was mentally unstable.

(3)  Council further notes the recent publication from the National Audit Office “Confidentiality clause and special severance payments” where the Head of the Audit Office stated “it is important that compromise agreements do not leave staff feeling gagged or reward failure either of an employee or an organisation.”

(4)  Council believes that Martin Morton would be able to draw parallels between Mrs. Sheldon’s experiences at the CQC and his own experiences at Wirral Borough Council where he blew the whistle on Wirral Borough Council that led to the ordering of the AKA investigation and subsequent report which found that the abnormal had become the norm.

(5)  Martin has received no justice – his life has been ruined and both the AKA report and Martin Smith reports vindicated him. Let us not forget that Martin stood up for those vulnerable adults who couldn’t stand up for themselves and was hounded out of his job for doing so. Council is therefore extremely dissatisfied that, over two years on from the publication of the Martin Smith and AKA reports, the Administration have been unable to find an acceptable resolution with Martin Morton.

(6)  Council is further disappointed to note that, along with the public, it has never received an adequate explanation into the sequence of events that allowed two senior members of staff implicated in the Martin Morton whistle-blow to leave, under compromise agreements, less than 1 working day prior to the publication of the AKA report and exactly what role the then leadership of the Council had in that decision.

(7)  Council therefore requests the Chief Executive to:

(a)  brief the three party leaders about the current state of discussions with Martin Morton and produce a timeline for resolution;

(b)  provide a report to both the Improvement Board and Audit and Risk Management Committee detailing the actions taken in response to all findings detailed in the external reports the Council has received in recent years.