Members are asked to consider whether they have personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they are.

Members are reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Members were asked to consider whether they had personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they were. Members were reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

No such declarations were made.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March, 2009.

Members were requested to receive the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5 March, 2009.

The Chair suggested that in respect of minute 51, third paragraph of the preamble, the first sentence be moved so it becomes the second sentence, the paragraph would then start, “A Member suggested…..”

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March, 2009 be approved as a correct record, subject to the amendment of minute 51.

Following the Committee’s request at its last meeting for a report on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, this report, which has been considered by the Chief Officer’s Management Team and is being considered by the Standards and Audit and Risk Management Committees and Cabinet, is submitted for the Committee’s information.

Following the Committee’s request at its last meeting (minute 51 refers) for a report on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management submitted a report, which had been considered by the Chief Officer’s Management Team, Standards and Audit and Risk Management Committees.

At the request of the Chair, an amended version of the report, which was being considered by Cabinet on 9 April, was circulated to the Committee. The Chair stated her unhappiness with the report in that the appendices were confusingly numbered and the report was not in plainer English. She suggested that the meeting could be adjourned if the Committee so desired but the Committee agreed that the meeting should continue.

The Director apologised for any confusion caused and stated that he was happy to take on board any constructive criticism. An amended version of the report had been circulated to the Cabinet which took account of comments made by both the Standards and Audit and Risk Management Committees at their meetings earlier in the week.

The Director then explained the contents of the report. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) governed how public bodies used surveillance methods. Wirral Council, like other local authorities might use directed surveillance where doing so was in the public interest for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder.

The Office of the Surveillance Commissioner (“OSC”) was responsible for overseeing the operation of RIPA. The Council had to account to the OSC on an annual basis on its use of RIPA and had also been the subject of 2 inspections by the OSC in July 2003 and July 2007. The Council’s use of RIPA was also the subject of a recent review by the Internal Audit Section.  One of the recommendations of that review was that the Council’s Policy and Procedures on the use of RIPA be updated. The Internal Audit review was appended to the revised report.

There had been much debate in the last 12 months around the use of surveillance powers by local authorities. The Home Office had announced an intention to consult on the use of RIPA powers by public authorities in early 2009. Unfortunately there had been a large degree of misreporting of the subject of surveillance in the media. The Home Office had published on its website a document on some of the misconceptions and this was appended to the report.

The Council had used directed surveillance to support its enforcement activity since the passing of RIPA and, in the year 2007/8, the Council had granted 45 authorisations. These related to cases investigated by the Wirral Anti-social Behaviour Team (36) and the Trading Standards team (9). The use of these powers has assisted in legal action to tackle rogue traders and to obtain court orders to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Council had used surveillance evidence in numerous court actions and its use had never been challenged.  In some cases surveillance evidence obtained by the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Following the Committee’s request at its last meeting (minute 51 refers) for a report on building maintenance, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management submitted a report on the current situation regarding the repair and maintenance of the Council’s building stock.

Ian Brand, Head of Asset Management, introduced the report and explained the figures in the appendix including the indicators A and B and the definitions of condition categories and priority levels. He apologised that no explanation of the indicators had been provided.

At its meeting on 19 March 2009 (minute 408 refers) the Cabinet had received a report regarding Property Performance Management. That report, in an appendix, had advised that the number of buildings surveyed had been increased from 148 in 2007/08 to 387 in 2008/09. This figure did not include any of the schools estate. The total maintenance backlog, in respect of structural elements only (not mechanical and electrical) was now approximately £5.8 million. As a rule of thumb guide, where £6 of expenditure was needed on structural repairs, a further £4 was likely to be required to address mechanical and electrical repairs. 

In the corresponding report to Cabinet on 13 March 2008, the total maintenance backlog figure, including M & E costs, was estimated to be £9.89 million. There were only 14 more properties to be surveyed and once that information was included, the figures now reported would confirm this estimate, based on more detailed and accurate information.

The Chair expressed her dissatisfaction with the report in its lack of clarity and with the inaccuracies in the appendix.

The Director stated that a re-written report would be circulated to the Committee members by the end of next week. He informed the Committee that an annual property maintenance plan would be considered by Cabinet in June.

Responding to further comments, the Director clarified that the figure of 387 buildings surveyed in 2008/09 was a cumulative total.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs Wood, seconded by Councillor Smith, it was -

Resolved – That this Committee recognises that a planned maintenance report would be submitted to Cabinet in June and a report be brought to this or its equivalent scrutiny committee in June also.

As it was the last ordinary meeting of the municipal year, the Chair thanked all the members of the Committee and the officers for their work over the past year.