Fire engine at Liscard Hall after the arson attack

Today’s Liverpool Daily Post runs an article about the decision to grass over the site formerly occupied by Liscard Hall, in Seacombe’s Central Park, following an insurance payment of £117,810 after its demolition.   This magnificent building was torched by arsonists who were able to get in because the security measures in place failed to keep them out.

Readers will recall how local Liscard Tory Councillor Leah Fraser rushed to her pen, scratching off a litany of questions for the Liberal Cabinet Member, Cllr Simon  Holbrook.  She demanded to know what measures he had taken to ensure the Hall’s safety from fire, from vandals, etc etc.   It looked really bad that this seemed not to have been done - but that turned to acute embarrasment when Labour reminded Cllr Fraser that she personally chaired the very Council committee with responsibility for Council owned buildings.  

We asked her whether she had initiated any of those safety precautions she rattled off at Cllr Holbrook.  The Hall was, after all, lost on her watch.  Surprise, surprise, she has never given an explanation of why she did none of the things she demanded of somebody else.  Had she just forgotten that she had that responsibility?  We would love an answer.

Readers will recall that when the Hall first became available her priority seemed to be to gift it to a private school on a peppercorn rent of £1 a year.  That caused a storm of local protest from the people who actually use the Park and wanted it for community use.

Meanwhile it seems like characteristic Tory spin when she is quoted in the ‘Post’ as saying:

“What a shame that it took the destruction of the building to make the council sit up and take notice.”

Seems puzzled about something here.

Err …  Has she forgotten that she is a Member of that Council, which she condemns as though it is something she has nothing to do with?

Err … Has she forgotten that she led the very committee of that Council with responsibility for Council owned buildings?  (Before she chaired it she was the Tory Party Spokesperson.)

Err … What was she doing all that time?

Any hopes of having Liscard Hall as the location for a new Seacombe/Liscard Super Centre for library and related services was in effect removed from the agenda today. 

Seacombe library will in any case remain on its present site for the indefinite future.  But there will be many who view the loss of another great opportunity with reservations.  The Wallasey Tories always argued against the replacement of the existing library, by a new vastly improved Super-Centre, as though it was only a matter of closure with nothing to replace it.   That was simply not true – but when did the Wallasey Tories ever let the whole story get in the way of publishing misleading propaganda?

Adrian argued that we should keep the existing library – and Guinea Gap Baths – until new, more modern, facilities were first built to replace them. 

Labour Cllr Adrian Jones

Adrian’s case for Guinea Gap was heard and the facilities were retained.  His was not the only voice calling for the retention of Guinea Gap Baths but while the Tories conducted a raucous propaganda campaign Adrian put a reasoned case, arguing Seacombe’s corner in writing; and his defence of the Guinea Gap Baths, and Seacombe Library, facilities is a matter of record.    

Tory defector Denis Knowles

So why is it that in sharp contrast Denis Knowles, who now claims (retrospectively) to have been soul searching about it at the time, lifted not a finger to argue a similar case for Seacombe?  If his claim that he was ’soul searching’ is true why did he busy himself declaring publicly in the press that their immediate closure would be ‘For the greater good’?

Yet when Liscard resident Mr Michael McGuire raised some questions in the Wirral Globe about her scrutiny role prior to its destruction Cllr Mrs Fraser was quick to retort that she had only recently become the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee with responsibility for public buildings – including Liscard Hall.  She did not mention that she not only chaired that crucial Scrutiny Committee but she had also been its Tory spokesperson for a long time.

Being an elected representative carries responsibilities.  Looking after the interests of the people you represent should surely take precedence over publicising a litany of questions, to somebody else, that might also be directed nearer home?   Aren’t the public entitled to know whether,  during all that time when she had a leading role, she had herself tabled any of the questions she immediately fired at the Cabinet member?  Questions such as these:

• Did she, in her crucial role as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, raise any questions with Council Officers about the security measures in place to protect the Hall?  If so, where is it recorded for public access?
• Did she question the cost of securing Liscard Hall, on her Scrutiny Committee?  Did she even table it for discussion?  If so, what decisions or recommendations were made and where are they minuted?
• Did she scrutinise whether a risk assessment had ever been undertaken for potential arson attacks?
• Did she contact the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service about the safety of Liscard Hall?  If so will she tell us on whate dates she did so and whether she took the results back to he Scrutiny Committee?
• Did her Scrutiny Committee consider the frequency of Wirral Community Patrol visits to the site?  If not, why not?
• Did she scrutinise the extent of flammable material left in the building?  If not, why not?
• What steps did she take to scrutinise when the Council had last made structural assessment of the building?

She seems, on the face of it, to have thought it a handy wheeze to pop questions like these to the Cabinet Member in a letter she (rather discourtesly, a reasonable person might think) published to the world.   But mightn’t that same reasonable person also ask why she left all of this to somebody else when through her own ScrutinyCommittee she was perfectly placed to oversee and comment on the care of Council owned buildings?

Her reply to Mr McGuire said little more than that she had only recently chaired that committee.  So what?  Wasn’t she the Conservative (Tory) spokesperson on it for a long time before she chaired it, leading its Tory presence?

If she raised no such concerns on her Committee she has only to explain why she didn’t think it necessary - or provide the answers if she did.  But until then should she be condemning others?