Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.
The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.
What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children.”
Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”
“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.
One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”
The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:
Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:
Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers
So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?
The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”
How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?
Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?
What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?
Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-
This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”
Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.
A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:
The need for stability
The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.
These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.
Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.
The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.
24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.
Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.
Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:
No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.
This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”
A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:
Please let me know if you would like further details.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours sincerely
Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338 andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk
This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Cabinet agree to Wirral Council using £100,403 grant to increase voter registration in “deprived wards”
Cabinet agree to Wirral Council using £100,403 grant to increase voter registration in “deprived wards”
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
However, Councillor Jean Stapleton the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel addressed Cabinet on the subject of individual electoral registration (the other panel members were Councillor Moira McLaughlin, Councillor Denise Roberts and Councillor Steve Williams whose mug shots can be found on at the bottom of page 14 of the report). Cllr Jean Stapleton explained what officers had told them they were doing to prepare for individual electoral registration.
In case you are wondering what individual electoral registration actually means, at the moment each year a form goes out to each household annually to confirm who is registered to vote there. However there will be a change (although not until after the next set of elections in May) and voters will be expected to register to vote on an individual, not household basis.
Councillor Jean Stapleton said that officers had told them that based on their test of matching data on the electoral roll with other information held by Wirral Council such as Council Tax information, that it was estimated (across the whole of Wirral) that 89% of people would be transferred to the new register automatically. However this percentage was lower in the “deprived areas” (and although she didn’t explicitly say it the wards that return Labour councillors at elections). She wanted Wirral Council to actively target these areas to maximise the numbers of registered voters and to use the additional funding they had been given this financial year by the Cabinet Office of £100,403 with a further unknown amount expected from the Cabinet Office in 2014/15.
She felt that it should be a high priority in 2014 as she felt that the public were virtually unaware of this change. She said that non-IER registered voters would remain on the register for the 2015 General Election (originally the change was planned to be in place for the 2015 General Election but proved too contentious) and said that once the new register was published on the 1st December 2015 that these non-IER registered voters would be removed. She asked Cabinet to accept the recommendations.
Councillor Phil Davies said, “Ok thanks Jean. I mean I think it’s an excellent piece of work, I think you’ve highlighted I think a key issue really in the report which is about those areas of the Borough where there’s a need to do some targeted work to increase registration. Just to explain a little bit about what form that targeted work might take out of interest?”
Councillor Jean Stapleton said that there would be opportunities to target particular areas, even to drill down to postal districts “within a deprived ward”. She said it was a fantastic opportunity for Wirral Council to go round “knocking on doors”. Cllr Stapleton said that they pass “swathes of doors” where people weren’t registered to vote and she said it was an opportunity to talk to those people. She said she was “delighted with the opportunity” but that the real worry she had was over the register used at the 2016 elections.
Councillor Ann McLachlan, Cabinet Member for Governance and Improvement said, “Yes, thank you Chair. I mean first of all I’d like to say how I welcome this report and I’d like to start by congratulating the members of the panel on a really excellent piece of work. When we set up the policy and performance committees, this is exactly the kind of work that we hoped would be done as scrutiny work.
Thanks Jean, Councillor McLaughlin Moira McLaughlin and Denise Roberts and Councillor Steve Williams for plodding through and it really is an excellent piece of work. The report it does really highlight you know the areas of deprivation that we are going to target them and I’ve noticed that there is issues around possibly using local media, radio, ICT and of course you know the key role of elected Members is in highlighting .. you know those crucial tools to ensure that we want to make sure people are retained on the register because although there’ll be this changeover to the new register, people are going to be asked for additional information. Where that information around National Insurance numbers and dates of birth is not there, if people don’t respond and react to that they could fall off the register.
So it’s really key that we ensure that we you know as elected Members, but as Council play a role in that and I hope that some of that work that we’ll do in you now using the money that’s being fully funded, is being fully funded by the government I hope we’ll use that work in terms of making sure that we use you know ICT, use local media to ensure that we do update, to ensure that people aren’t but I notice as well in the report that you highlight the work and preparation that the Council has already done and in terms of data matching we came out quite above the average really on the work that’s been done so far and we’ve got in place an electoral management system and I think we’re working closely with other authorities on this, you know … Merseyside wide authorities so there’s some kind of project plan for the media to ensure that when the Electoral Commission fund and launch their campaign that we’re running with our campaign locally.
So you know I think as I said this is an excellent piece of work, a fully funded piece of work. I fully endorse the report and completely accept the recommendations that are there which I’m sure we’ll want to do and a fabulous piece of horizon scanning work so you know we need to pass on our thanks to the members of the panel and I’d like that recorded thank you.”
Cllr Jean Stapleton responded to Cllr Ann McLachlan’s comments. Cllr Phil Davies referred to recommendation three in the report that “Chairs of constituency committees are requested to include IER
as a topic for discussion as part of their forward planning in the New Year”. He said that they would have to pass this request on as not all constituency chairs were councillors.
Cllr Phil Davies went on to describe it as an “excellent piece of work” and congratulated her and the team behind it. Cllr Jean Stapleton congratulated the officers and Cabinet agreed to endorse all the recommendations.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Cabinet agrees school meal price hike to £2.30 from September; government makes meals free for first 3 years of school
Cabinet agrees school meal price hike to £2.30 from September; government makes meals free for first 3 years of school
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) on the far left of the photo explains to Wirral Council’s Cabinet about the changes to the cost of school meal cost and what universal free school meals means
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The item on changes to the price of school meals starts at 2:09 in the video above and the report to Cabinet and its appendix are available on Wirral Council’s website by following those links.
One of the decisions made at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting was to increase the price of school meals to £2.30 from September 2014. This will increase the price of school meals at three nursery schools, sixty-four primary schools and thirteen special schools on the Wirral.
Just under half (48%) of school meals are however provided free. Families on means tested benefits such as income support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, receiving support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit (providing the person working is not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and has an income of less than £16,190), Working Tax Credit run on and Universal Credit may be entitled to free school meals.
The increase in the school meals cost is however the bad news, but there is good news. From September (as part of the reforms the government are bringing as part of the Children and Families Bill) there will be a legal requirement that school meals will be free for all children (not just children from families on the means tested benefits mentioned earlier) in reception as well as years 1 and 2. This will have effect from September 2014.
To cope with the increased demand that Wirral Council predicts will happen once there is a free school meal entitlement for all children in reception as well as years 1 and 2, Wirral Council are starting a recruitment process to hire a further eighty to a hundred people to work in school kitchens preparing the extra meals. Wirral Council will be receiving extra money from the government to pay for this extra free school meals entitlement.
The price increase and putting in place arrangements for the start of universal free school meals for infants from September were both agreed by Cabinet. However the topic will also be discussed at a future meeting of Wirral Schools Forum.
Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) had this to say about it at the Cabinet meeting, “This report is in two parts Chair, part one is to increase the price of a paid meal in schools from £2 to £2.30 with effect from September 2014. The second part is to implement government policy with the introduction of universal free school meals for infant aged children.
I’ll just take the first one free school meal policy. Metro provide to the authority meal service for eighty schools, nursery, primary and special and has a turnover in excess of £4 million. Food costs are increasing and unit costs remain historically in excess of £2.80. With a charge of £2 for each meal there is a significant subsidy. Decision about the price of a main meal is taken by government bodies taking account of local authority costs.
Many other authorities in the area that we’ve looked at currently charge in excess of £2 per a meal although none charge £2.30. Can I just say we haven’t got the figures from other local authorities for this year so we’re talking about what the charges were last year and some of those are in excess of £2?
The increase recommended that some, not all inflationary pressures over the period to help the Metro trading account achieve and maintain a balanced position. The cost of meal production will be reviewed and an expansion of the service will provide greater economies of scale through better financial monitoring.
The second part is on universal free meals. I think this has been adopted by the Deputy Leader in the last week or so. This is a new national policy initiative backed by legislation to provide all infant age children in schools with a free meal. Plan for this change, some additional equipment and alterations is needed. A capital grant of £623,802 has been allocated and should be included within the capital program.
Schools will be paid £2.30 by the government for each additional meal produced. It’s anticipated that Metro meal volumes will increase by 80% in September with an ongoing grant in the full year for schools of £3.5 million. The additional revenue and this is good news again funding will fund additional food production and the need for more staff in kitchens. We’re talking about eighty to a hundred posts in Metro kitchens.
At this time proposals have not been considered by the Schools Forum and the headteachers groups although this will happen prior to implementation. I’ve got three recommendations, that one that the price of a paid school meal is increased to £2.30 from September of 2014 in primary schools where their services are provided by Metro services and that this increase is recommended to governing bodies of primary and special schools.
Two subject to Council approval, that the capital grant received will implement universal free school meals for infants in maintained schools totalling £623,802 is included within the capital grant for 2014-15 and is used to progress a range of schemes described and thirdly that Metro school kitchen staffing numbers are increased to take into account the additional meal numbers with costs funded by schools and the Department for Education revenue grant based on £2.30 per an additional free meal served. Thank you Chair.”
Cllr Phil Davies replied, “OK, thanks very much, can we agree those recommendations?”
Cabinet agreed the recommendations.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders on Wirral Council
Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Phil Davies’ (Labour Leader) budget speech starts at 6:27. Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative Leader) speech on the budget begins at 20:00 and carries on into the next video.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Jeff Green’s (Conservative Leader) budget speech starts at 0:01. Cllr Phil Gilchrist’s (Lib Dem Leader) speech on the Lib Dem budget starts at 1:20.
Cllr Phil Davies said, “Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr Mayor, we need tonight to set our budget for next year in perhaps the most difficult set of circumstances this Council has ever faced. Mr Mayor in his five years in power David Cameron will have cut funding to local government by 40%, by the end of 2016 this Council’s main revenue grant will have been cut by over 50% since 2010. This is a huge reduction and the government has hit the most disadvantaged areas the hardest, Mr Mayor this is a scandal.
The most deprived areas are shouldering the greatest reductions in government funding while some of the wealthiest areas will find themselves better off. Mr Mayor this financial year the Prime Minister’s own local authority of West Oxfordshire, one of the least deprived areas in the country actually received an increase in its spending power while some of our most deprived areas on Merseyside are dealing with the most significant reductions.
The consequences of this policy have been devastating. Local services decimated, massive job losses, councils predicting imminent bankruptcy, some actually saying that they may be unable to guarantee their ability to provide even statutory services and at a time when so many people are struggling with rapidly escalating energy bills, prices rising faster than wages and benefit cuts David Cameron is refusing to rule out cutting the top rate of tax yet again. This
affair is absolutely shameful.
If the last four years have taught us anything it’s surely that we need a government which governs for the many, not the few and in terms of local government we need a government that distributes funding in a fair way and a Secretary of State that treats hard working councils and councillors who do their best to serve their residents with respect not contempt.
Mr Mayor, when my party took over the administration of this Council in May 2012 we faced a hugely challenging set of circumstances. We inherited a set of bad budgets and bad debts culminating in a £17 million overspend inherited from the previous administration.
Government cuts of £109 million over three years cut off a third of our net revenue budget. Growing demand for many of our services as a result of demographic change, factors such as an aging population and an organisation with poor corporate governance, weak management and a silo mentality.
Mr Mayor, I’m proud that through the hard work of Members and officers supported by external experts on our Improvement Board Wirral is one of the fastest improving councils in the country and we’ve put the Council’s finances on a firm footing to such an extent that the latest financial monitoring statement from the Director of Resources reports that the Council has an underspend of £982,000.
Mr Mayor our approach to the budget setting has been to use our overarching goals attracting jobs and investment, protecting vulnerable people & communities and narrowing the gap in inequalities as our key priorities in shaping our budget. I am proud of the fact that we’ve listened to our residents in framing our budget proposals. The What Really Matters exercise we conducted last year, one of the largest consultations in the country genuinely influenced our decisions on budget options that we proposed to Council last December.
However I will not deny that we’ve had to make some difficult decisions £48 million of cuts this year, £27 and a half million next year. I’ve said many times that I did not come into politics to make cuts and if I was given a choice of course I would not wish to cut any services. However given that 85% of our incomes comes from central government we are in the invidious position of having to make these decisions in order to set a legal budget. But let me make one thing clear Mr Mayor in spite of what the opposition may say, responsibility for these cuts that we’ve had to make on this Council lies squarely at the door of this Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government and the parties opposite should be ashamed of what they’ve done to Wirral and this country.
Mr Mayor if I can now turn to our budget proposals, I’m pleased there is consensus around at least a number of items in the Labour Budget. The £7.6 million of growth in measures to support older people, younger people with learning disabilities and adoptions and special guardians. £1 million to enhance early intervention, £2 million invested in upgrading Europa Pools, Guinea Gap and West Kirby. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to use £400,000 from the waste development fund to reinstate monthly cleansing of entries and I’m also pleased that we’ll be continuing our funding commitment to constituency committees over the next year.
I’m pleased that we’ll ensure the Williamson Art Gallery can operate while the action group which has been looking at new ways of delivering this valued facility and finalising its business plan and I’m also pleased at being able to provide reassurance that no funding will be withdrawn from school crossing patrols where agreement cannot be reached with schools.
With regard to our staff I’m pleased that we were able to maintain a generous voluntary severance scheme, I’m also pleased that under this Labour administration this Council became a living wage Council last year and I now want to go further and I want Wirral to become a living wage Borough.
Mr Mayor I think it’s a shame that yet again the Conservative Group in their amendment is attacking our staff by deleting the funding for full time trade union officials. I have said many times that trade unions play a vital role in achieving good industrial relations and working with trade unions in partnership is the sign of a progressive organisation.
Mr Mayor with regards to next year’s council tax I’m pleased to announce that we will freeze the council tax in 2014/15. Providing the government doesn’t change the rules we also aim to freeze the council tax in 2015/16. We’ve been able to do this because the government have been forced to change its policy in response to the lobbying that this Council and others that the freeze grant should be built into the base budget.
Well let me make it clear Mr Mayor the freeze grant of £1.3 million whilst welcome, pales into insignificance against the £120 million which this government has cut from Wirral Council’s budget and if the government is really serious about helping councils like Wirral they should reimburse the lion’s share of this £120 million.
Mr Mayor, the council freeze will I believe will help all residents of the Borough. We will not impose an extra burden on council tax payers, hopefully for the next two years. We will continue to provide a discount to the vast majority of pensioners and we are putting £300,000 into the budget to ensure the poorest in our communities don’t pay more following the government’s disgraceful cut to council tax benefit.
Mr Mayor, these measures are important, but in contrast to the Tory amendment which proposes a series of largely short-term one off spending commitments, this administration is also proposing a £1.5 million house building program funded by a mixture of in year underspends and borrowing to kick start housing in those areas of the Borough which have lost out after the housing market renewal program was so callously cut by a stroke of Eric Pickle’s pen, an absolute disgrace.
Mr Mayor, the leader of the opposition is wrong to claim that Magenta Living could fill this gap. Official projections indicate we need to build around about six hundred new houses each year for the next five years. Magenta’s program will only be sufficient to meet a small proportion of this need and much of their new build will be a need to replace units that they have demolished.
Our program will generate a hundred new homes with the potential for substantially more. It will benefit future generations of residents long after this budget has been passed. It will create a significant number of new jobs and apprenticeships for our young people, most importantly because we know there is a strong link between good housing and good health it will contribute to reducing the gap in life expectancy, a key problem which has blighted Wirral for far too long.
Mr Mayor, in conclusion given the background I outlined earlier, this has been perhaps the most difficult budget I’ve been involved in setting. I would remind Council we still have a huge financial challenge ahead of us. We need to achieve additional savings of £44 million over the next two years and the remodelling work which was discussed at the Members’ seminar last week at the Floral Pavilion is essential if we are to deliver these savings and continue to provide good quality services.
Mr Mayor I think it’s essential that we continue to lobby the government to rethink the grossly unfair way in which it distributes funding to councils. I have to say I find the Tory Group’s proposal to withdraw from membership of SIGOMA, an organisation which has spoken loudly in favour of local government to be deeply, deeply cynical.
Mr Mayor although we’ve had to make some difficult I’m proud we’ve put the Council’s finances on a sound footing and we are helping all households with the council tax freeze in 2014/15 and hopefully the year beyond. We are putting extra money into the budget to meet our demographic growth, we are giving additional help to pensioners, the long term unemployed and attracting new jobs and investments. We have listened to and acted on the views of our residents. Crucially our house building program will leave a lasting legacy for future generations.
Mr Mayor this is a budget to be proud of, it’s a budget of a progressive Council with a clear vision for the future and a commitment to social justice and I commend it to the Council.”
Cllr Jeff Green said, “I will of course be brief Mr Mayor.
Mr Mayor, firstly let me say how much I welcome and I’m sure this is shared by the entire Council the fact that the Coalition government’s economic policies are working and the UK economy is now growing faster than any other major European economy. Businesses have created 1.6 million new jobs and unemployment has come down sharply. I’m sure we will also welcome the fact this government has allowed hard working people by amongst other things cutting income tax for the typical taxpayer by £590, giving a saving of £360 on petrol and of course freezing council tax.
Mr Mayor, what a difference to the economic mess the government inherited when they came to power. Labour had maxed out the national credit card, doubled our national debt and taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. They left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world and in our own peacetime history borrowing £1 in every four we spent resulting in payments of £120 million every day just to cover interest.
So Mr Mayor even the local Labour party must now admit bearing down on public spending was and remains an absolute priority for any sensible government. Even if the Leader of the Council over eggs the pudding somewhat by claiming that by 2016 we will have seen our overall budget halved since austerity measures were introduced. I’m sorry Mr Mayor that’s not over egging as I suggested, it is in fact utter tosh.
Mr Mayor let me be clear whilst I regret that sending grant to the government last year I do welcome the fact that the administration have swallowed their pride and have last decided to freeze council tax even if they’ve been brought to this point kicking and screaming.
I am however Mr Mayor disgusted that the only people who’ll see an increase in the direct contribution they have to make to Wirral services are pensioners. Given that the Labour administration have retained their cuts to pensioner discount and removed it completely from some without any recognition of their means.
Mr Mayor this is completely unfair and I’m delighted that if our amendment is passed tonight we will right this wrong. We also note that by their own hands the Labour administration increased the cost of living for the average family by £295.51 since April 2013. Therefore we demonstrate how the cost of living burden can be reduced by reverting to the pre April 2012 car parking charges, reinstating a year round free after three parking initiative, halving the charge for residents for garden waste collection and freezing for one year at its current level Wirral Council tax fees and charges.
We’ve also been able to find resources to ensure that funding meant for the education of Wirral school children is not diverted to pay for the Council’s responsibility to provide school crossing patrols. Now let me just be clear because I did check on this particular point as I do on them all of course and that was made very clear that whatever the warm words of the Leader of the Council no move has been made to put that money back into the budget and that cut remains in place.
Mr Mayor it also allows the street lights back on, increase the level of dog fouling enforcement, invest £1 million for an immediate programme to repair pot holes and improve Wirral’s roads and pavements and maintain our commitment to early intervention and Children Centres in the sure knowledge that failure to support young families in the early years will cost Wirral Council and taxpayers in the long term.
So Mr Mayor, how are we going to find the resources to reduce the cost of living burden and reverse some of Labour’s more baffling cuts? Well we’ve looked to find savings where any hard working Wirral family who could scrutinise the Council’s budget would expect cutting back on the cost of ourselves, leaning the Council bureaucracy, cutting out duplication and being more ambitious to transform the entire Council.
How on earth can the current administration justify an alternative support to councillors budget, spending £130,000 on paying for trade union officials, a Council press, marketing and design department of twenty posts, spending £1.9 million on items that are duplicated elsewhere in the Borough when cutting children’s centres, school crossing patrols, switching off street lights and making pensioners on fixed incomes pay for the privilege?
I also believe that with immediate action to increase the focus, ambition, discipline, rigour, risk management and improving accountability for the transforming Wirral Council change project can deliver increased cash benefits this year. Although I believe the current approach being adopted by the Leader of the Council does carry the risk of breaking any political consensus around the structural changes required be all Council led.
The fundamental question whose money is the administration seeking to spend? As Conservatives we believe the money earned by hard working people should be spent by them on their ambitions and aspirations themselves alone and only taken from them in council revenue or other sorts of tax when it’s absolutely essential.
Mr Mayor, if this budget amendment is passed tonight it will restore the safety of Wirral’s children and families, result in a 0% Council Tax increase for all Wirral residents, retain the pensioner’s discount in full, directly reduce the cost of living for hard working Wirral families and prevent the Council raising stealth taxes via its fees and charges, improve recycling, start the process of repatriating loans given out at bargain basement levels of interest to other Councils and I believe when that resource comes back it should be used to pay down the current levels of debt and maintain the entire Council’s commitment to a sustainable budget. Mr Mayor I commend our amendment to the Council.”
Cllr Phil Gilchrist said, “Thank you Mr Mayor. Perhaps if I just deal with the last point that was raised because last July I made enquiries about this loans situation and I’ve made more enquiries since. What puzzles me is that Councillor Green has included the whole amount that’s out on loan in his commentary at the same time we actually have earned £482,000 on the loans that have come back and we expect to get £238,000 on the loans that are still outstanding so I am cautious about the claims about the loans.
We have the money, it’s a bit like Father Ted. We have money resting in our account and the Council chose to invest it. We didn’t get as much as we’ve had in the past but at least the investments have produced some income and therefore that is to our health. So I was disagreeing with the interpretation of that.
Now I will turn to other things. I’ll try to be consistent and helpful as ever if I may. In December my colleagues and I welcomed some things and disagreed with others.
We welcomed the fact that we row over the country parks and Council charges, we welcomed new appreciation and concern about gritting among other things, while we continue to highlight our worries about a reduction in street lighting and what we saw as the threat, the idea that schools should pay out of money that they want to spend on education for school crossing patrols which we’ve always seen as a Council service.
Now we’ve highlighted this in December that if a school was running a tight budget or had concerns, we did not wish the school to have to chose between say a teaching assistant or some extra hours for staff and a school crossing patrol. Education was education in our mind and school crossing patrols were a separate service funding by the council payers and not the schools budget. So we continue to raise concerns about that.
I don’t agree with the description about the bad debts and bad budgets. These were things we’ve all known about for about ten or twelve years. It’s just that again year after year when we’ve debated the budget and argued about £2 or £3 million, that underlying problem which was known to senior Members was somehow glossed over and when a total look was taken at it and a clear long look by people who were less close to it, they said this genuinely is a problem and we accepted that and we do agree with the criticisms about us being in a silo culture.
Comments have been made about our Council against others and it is not me that says there’s a problem but Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the Local Government Association who says that the next two years will be the toughest yet for people who use and rely on the vital everyday local services that councils provide. So it’s accepted by Conservatives in local government nationally the problem in the same way that I accept there’s a problem here and I know that the Leader of the Council and I have many warm words to say about North Dorset.
In North Dorset they’ve decided to increase Council Tax by 1.99%. Their budget is a fraction of ours, their tax on their ratepayers is £111 in Band D. It’s not the same kind of Council and I have to say that the Lib Dem Leader of that district said that although it’s like putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound, this small increase is our only chance of keeping central service going with further savage cuts to government funding the year ahead will not be pleasant. That’s the Lib Dem Leader of a Council that is run by the Tories.
The picture we present is actually more realistic than this strange portrayal that everything’s wonderful elsewhere. In fact in Surrey the Tory Leader’s talking about a black hole in their finances and he’s putting his council tax up by 1.99% because he believes he’s got a black hole in his finances and North Somerset I looked at, they’ve freezed theirs but they’re talking about the council facing a continued reduction in government funding at least until 2018 and the biggest challenges are yet to come. We too face the biggest challenges yet to come because it get’s more difficult and my colleagues and I understand that. In fact a phrase doing the rounds in our party at the moment is ‘it’s grim up north’ which you’ll probably have more to say in a few weeks.
I didn’t quite catch what the Leader said but there are key things we believe we can fund and replace. We believe that the lighting that should be the subject of an investment program. I go along the roads and I look at the lights that are off, I don’t whether the light’s off because it’s failed, a fuse has been pulled out, the bulb’s gone, Manweb haven’t been able to connect the service up or some other fault and out there the electorate are even more, if I’m confused then people out there are even more concerned and confused because there are lights off in various places and nobody knows really knows whether it’s an official light off that we’re saving money on or one that’s supposed to be on because as I understand it when Members have objected to lights being off an officer’s had to go out and find some other fuse to pull to turn another light off to keep within the savings. So it’s a hit and miss approach which we disagree with and we believe there should be investment.
Finally I do want to look ahead and I know I didn’t catch what Councillor Davies said but I do look around and I look at what Councillor McMahon is saying in Oldham, it’s a few weeks since he said that he was going to have a freeze. He says, ‘On too many occasions we claim to present our case effectively both within our parties and within the media allowing ourselves to be characterised as prophets of doom or advocates of the old ways.’ It’s contained in last week’s councillor magazine which I probably got in the post so I do look at the wider world but I also look at the world as it is, not as the world as I might like it to be at.
I look at the worries that the leaders express, I look at the world Cllr Green describes. Yes I see an improvement in the economy, I see better employment, I see all those things and I think we’ve got to get from now to 2015/16 as we try and get stability and try and improve.
Finally I’ve listened to the upset comments coming from Labour colleagues behind me but I do read this document Labour’s zero based review. There isn’t a promise of you know this hall of plenty, that there isn’t. Mr Balls is saying that there is a problem. He accepts the problem if he’s going to make change if he were there. If he was there, if he was in that situation he’s made it clear not much is going to change from their first year or so. So we need to get from now, building stability, make all those savings that are underway with neighbouring authorities those shared services.
We don’t accept that the Tory target of boosting the £9 to £11 million for shared services is achievable yet. We haven’t seen the way things are going to work in practice. We have reservations about the budget some of which we raised last year about the youth services and youth zone and something squeezed but we have concentrated tonight on the key things that we think things are going wrong that could be readily put right and we think the Council would be wise to accept those changes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.”
When it came to the voting (much later in the same meeting), only Labour’s budget received enough votes to be adopted as Wirral Council’s budget for 2014/15.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?
Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Following yesterday’s blog post Surjit Tour emailed councillors (and myself) with his advice. My two replies to his advice are below. We’ll see what happens next.
from: Tour, Surjit surjittour [at] wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com
cc: “Davies, Phil L. (Councillor)” ,
“Smith, Tony A. (Councillor)” ,
“Foulkes, Steve (Councillor)” ,
“Brighouse, Alan (Councillor)” ,
“Hodson, Andrew C. (Councillor)” ,
“Harney, Tom (Councillor)” ,
“Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)” ,
“Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)” ,
Cllr Ian Lewis ,
“Povall, Cherry (Councillor)” ,
“Williams, Patricia M. (Councillor)” ,
“Burgess, Graham” ,
“Roberts, Andrew D.”
date: 11 February 2014 17:42
subject: RE: Cabinet (12th February 2014) Agenda Item 7 Schools Budget 2014/15 and call in of Cabinet minute 140 (proposals for changes to school top up payments for students with high needs)
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk
Dear Mr Brace
Thank you for your email.
In the event that the Schools Budget is approved at the Council meeting on 25 February, that does not preclude any action that may or may not arise as a result of the call-in hearing scheduled for 27 February being followed through.
“Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.”
The call-in therefore remains a valid issue to be determined.
Yours sincerely
Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
Department of Transformation and Resources
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
That report was published one day after it was decided at Cabinet (minute 140) on the item Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs that “the Special Schools Contingency is used to support specialist provision facing financial difficulties (amendment to the second sentence of recommendation 3)” (a decision that was called in).
Therefore
a) the special schools contingency existed in a report before the item was called in and
b) is part of the decision at the 16th January Cabinet that was called in.
Bearing this in mind, perhaps this explains to you my view that the schools budget report going to Cabinet tomorrow contains elements of a decision that have been called in.
Finally, as the line “Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups” existed in a report to the Schools Forum before this item was called in, it therefore cannot be referring to any decision arising from the call ins or the call in meeting.
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
2nd reply (same recipients plus Emma Degg also copied in)
Dear Mr Tour (and others),
In order to make my views crystal clear I will outline a few different scenarios that will result should the Schools Budget for 2014/15 be agreed by Cabinet this evening and referred to Budget Council on the 25th February 2014.
Scenario 1
All members of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call ins are also members of Council. They each vote on the budget (including the schools budget), voting on an identical budget & policy to the decision which has been called in. This year because of a change in legislation it will be done as a card vote. The press will report how politicians voted and this information will be known by the public on the 26th. Some people will therefore think that when councillors meet again on the 27th that they have already made their minds up and that whatever happens at the Coordinating Committee they will vote the way they did 48 hours previous to the meeting.
It will be seen as predetermination of the call in matters at best and a prejudicial interest at worst. The constitution describes the Coordinating Committee as an overview and scrutiny committee and the Code of Conduct has this to state on such matters:
12. In relation to any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of the Council (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where –
…….
12.3 that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by you (whether by virtue of the Authority’s Constitution or under delegated authority from the Leader):
You may attend a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committees of the Council or of a sub committees of such a committee but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving
evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purposes, whether under a statutory right or otherwise.
In other words, voting at Budget Council two days before the call ins is seen as according to the Code of Conduct as generating a prejudicial interest that would prevent councillors voting at the
Coordinating Committee.
Scenario 2
The Schools Budget is referred to Budget Council. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee declare a prejudicial interest in the vote on the schools budget by virtue of the call in and don’t participate in that part of the Budget setting process.
Scenario 3
The Schools Budget is decided at the reserve budget meeting after the Coordinating Committee decides the call ins (which would seem to be the most sensible option).
Finally, I will point out that officers re tabling identical proposals (that have been called in but not yet decided) is certainly not a good idea as it puts councillors in the difficult position as outlined above. I’ve made my position clear that the constitution states “and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed.”
Do you genuinely believe that the Cabinet making a decision to recommend the Schools Budget to Budget Council, with identical proposals in it to that which have been called in is complying with this part of the constitution? Is the Council’s constitution just being ignored or do you just have a massively different interpretation on words whose meaning would seem crystal clear to me?
I hope you reconsider and to avoid the above scenarios happening and advise Cabinet that the schools budget would be best decided at the reserve Budget Council meeting after the call in meeting has met and reached a decision on the call ins.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
