At the full council on the 7th December, the council voted that the next meeting should be held in Ormskirk, despite it having been held there for the past three years. The council put forward a report saying that future meetings should be held at the Ormskirk Civic Centre or other similar venue. Since their argument was that the Civic Centre was the only suitable venue, then it would mean that the meeting would always be held in Ormskirk.

Ian Duffy put forward an amendment to remove this unreasonable proposal, which surprisingly was agreed. So the venues will be debated at the March meeting. Hopefully we’ll see Skelmersdale hosting the 2007 “Council meeting as an assembly” show.

My speech to the council is below…

Madam Chair, the constitution of this council states that the meeting as an assembly should be rotated around the district. First in Ormskirk starting in January 2004, then in the northern parishes and then in Skelmersdale.

This issue was first raised with me last month when the letters from the leader went out to partner organisations asking for topic suggestions for the meeting.

I was asked why the meeting wasn’t being held in Skem and so started digging around the constitution to see what should have happened.

I’m pleased to see that those enquiries have led to Mrs Rowe’s report, because it confirms my first thoughts about this that the decisions that led to the meeting being held in Ormskirk, for a fourth year running, were wrong and run contrary to the constitution.

This report is simply trying to correct a situation where the council has acted against its own rules.

So I’ve got to ask, whats the point of the constitution if youre going to ignore it when it doesnt suit?

Worse still, what’s the point of a constitution if, when you break the rules, and its exposed, you try to change the rules retrospectively?

So I sought independent legal advice. I spoke to a lawyer specialising in local government, who told me:

That the rules in the constitution have the force of law.

And that the decision to spend public money on holding the meeting, or any decisions that might be made at that meeting, could be liable for judicial review.

Thats the reason we have the report tonight. Because without it, putting it bluntly, we’d be breaking the law. And why? Because its inconvenient sorting out displays and lighting in a school in Skem?

I dont think that’s a good enough reason.

My amendment can be summarised quite simply as: Lets do what it says in the constitution.

Lets hold the meeting in Skem.

The council prides itself on its ability to respond to change, act decisively. To “push the envelope” and “think outside the box”.

A council that can build a contact centre in a few months, and can implement a successful call centre in a matter of weeks, can surely move a meeting for a couple of hundred people down the road from Ormskirk to Skem.

It might seem like I’m fussing over a small thing, but it means a lot.

It means that the council is listening to people around the district, not just to those who make it to Ormskirk.

And it means that the council recognises the many important and exciting changes that are taking place in Skelmersdale.

We’ve got 3.7 million pounds coming into Digmoor, Moorside and Tanhouse to help build Safer and Stronger Communities.

We’ve got the Skelmersdale Town Centre vision which could bring massive investment and could transform the modern centre of our town.

And we’ve got the possibility, or not, of LSVT and the challenges that that will bring to people across the district particularly in Skelmersdale.

So if this isnt the time to be holding the meeting in Skem, then when is? Maybe never.

And maybe thats the heart of the issue. No matter how compelling the reasons, and regardless of what the constitution says, the council leadership doesnt want to go to Skem.

I think it should, and the constitution says it should.

Madam Chair, I move my amendment.