Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 28th January 2011

Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 5

Cllr McLaughlin continued that it would be interesting to see if it had no impact. When it was extended there would be cost implications if the service cough an’t be provided. She disagreed with the report as she said it was “not quite right” as there would be a continuing cost to the authority,

Cllr Holbrook said he assumed the cost was budgeted for.

Cllr McLaughlin said she disagreed.

The answer given by an officer was that it was an ongoing cost to departments. Cllr Green said he had asked a question at the last meeting about the implications of stopping or extending and carrying on. One option was once the tender process had gone through they accept the contract. The sad thing was about partnering with a different organisation. Unfortunately they were not able to yet. Regarding Merseyside authorities the contract can be extended to included different authorities and was relatively straightforward. There was an overall value to the contract. A large proportion of those signposted were from schools. Any work done would have to take into account whether schools were making use of the contract and the implications of academies. Academies could buy in being charged the full cost of recovery or there would just be fewer numbers which would drive the value down.

The director of Education said that 2/3rds of schools had replied. Schools were not looking elsewhere and it would be discouraged. Academies had responsibilities to their employees so the decision rested with them.


Categories