Category: 2012 Budget

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 24/11/2011 Part 7 Budget Projections 2012-2015, Insurance Fund Budget (2012-2013), Annual Children’s Services Assessment 2011

Motion on Item 3 Projected Budget Proposed Cllr Steve Foulkes Seconded Cllr Phil Davies Cabinet recognises that, although the projected budget gap is diminishing, considerable work is still required to set a balanced budget in March. In order to avoid any undue delays as proposals are explored, Cabinet authorises the Chief Executive, in consultation with … Continue reading “Cabinet (Wirral Council) 24/11/2011 Part 7 Budget Projections 2012-2015, Insurance Fund Budget (2012-2013), Annual Children’s Services Assessment 2011”

Motion on Item 3 Projected Budget

Proposed Cllr Steve Foulkes
Seconded Cllr Phil Davies

Cabinet recognises that, although the projected budget gap is diminishing, considerable work is still required to set a balanced budget in March.

In order to avoid any undue delays as proposals are explored, Cabinet authorises the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, to undertake any appropriate consultation, in addition to the broader consultation already carried out, as required in order to allow the Council to meet the budgetary challenges it is facing.

The motion was agreed by all councillors on the Cabinet.

Cllr Foulkes then moved the meeting to agenda item 4 (Insurance Fund Budget 2012/2013).

Ian Coleman said for 2012/2013 there was a small impact on costs and savings. The report was agreed.

Cllr Foulkes then moved to agenda item 5 (Annual Children’s Services Assessment 2011) which he described as welcome news. A two-page letter was handed out in relation to this agenda item.

An officer said that David Armstrong sends his apologies as he was with headteachers in Anglesey. The officer said Wirral’s children’s services had performed excellently and were graded four out of a possible four. The report detailed how the assessment had been made as well as their strengths in educational standards and safeguarding. The officer referred to “Howard [Cooper]’s strong steer” and David’s role as acting director and the activity that was underway referred to in the report.

Cllr Ann McLachlan said it was excellent news, “fantastic” and referred to the letters sent to all staff in the Children and Young People’s Department.

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 24/11/2011 Part 6 Gas disruption (Leasowe and Moreton), Budget Projections 2012-2015

Cllr Steve Foulkes said the debrief should include lessons learnt and a critique. He said he had been there on Friday night and said people had been "working hard" and that it was a "huge National Grid operation". Cllr Foulkes said they had been lucky the weather had been relatively mild.

He referred to Cllr Jeff Green’s earlier comments about the Serious Fraud Office investigation. Cllr Foulkes referred to an email which referred to a letter being received.

Jim Wilkie said he had emailed all three party leaders (Cllr Foulkes, Cllr Green and Cllr Harney) last Friday [18th November] over a conversation. However Jim Wilkie said the letter had not yet been received. He had intended to speak, but he understood the letter would arrive this week.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said it had been reported that the Serious Fraud Office was investigating. He referred to Frank Field but said it would be “difficult to break a confidence”. In order to discuss it further they would have to go exempt session to seek legal advice.

Cllr Jeff Green expressed the view that he wanted it dealt with sooner.

Ian Coleman introduced report 3 on the Budget Projections for 2012-2015.

He said it was an update, but this would be the last time the Cabinet received the report in this format, as in the next few weeks they should get the provisional local government financial assessment. They were not making provision for price inflation.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said there were still a number of days to go for the budget simulator. He referred also to Neighbourhood Plans. They were waiting to put it together, to give leeway on the issues to be resolved. He read out a proposed resolution of Cabinet on this agenda item.

Cabinet 3/11/2011 Part 1 Motions (Inflation, Projected Budget & PACSPE call-in)

The agenda and reports are here.

There were three motions at last week’s Cabinet meeting. They are all below.

Agenda Item: Provision for Inflation 2012-2013

Cabinet agrees all the recommendations, Cabinet asks Chief Officers to contain any price inflation costs within their existing budgets, as it notes that the long term Government assumption of inflation costs is set at 2% which is the amount contained within the projected budget, and that this will equate to a savings of £4.2m at a time when the Council is facing serious financial pressures.

Agenda Item: Budget Projections 2012-2015

Cabinet notes, with dismay, that the projected budget gap is likely to rise by 2014/15 to nearly £47m as a result of likely changes in the Local Government Resource Review and the implications of new legislation.

Cabinet recognises that these are projections based on what is known or anticipated at the moment on a pro rata basis between authorities, and could perhaps be even worse than anticipated when the direct impact on Wirral is calculated.

Cabinet expresses its grave concern that potential cuts at this level will be extremely damaging to Wirral’s services and to the people of Wirral at a time when the country’s economy is facing a slide into depression and poorer areas will once more be those which are hit the hardest.

Agenda Item: Parks and Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE) – Outcome of Call-In

This Cabinet has considered carefully the resolution submitted to it by the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

It recognises the detailed work that went into the procurement process and the Gateway Reviews that were carried out as part of that process and does not question the thoroughness of those Reviews or the dedication and ability of those carrying out those Reviews;

However, the Cabinet believes that this does not alter the fact that detailed unit costs and specific activity levels, which would have allowed for full comparator costs to be available to check against the tender specifications, were not available and that this would have left the Council open to the same criticism on the PACSPE contract that was levied against the HESPE contract:

  • Cabinet recognises the seriousness of the qualification by the District Auditor of the Council’s Value for Money statement and of the warning to Members that they should be aware of the increased risk of letting a ten year contract if there is only very limited information on the costs and activity levels of the existing service because there is nothing to monitor against when assessing whether or not letting the contract has delivered better value for money.
  • Cabinet further considered the position that the cost of contractual inflation over a period of three years at current CPI levels would erode any savings delivered by outsourcing the contract and in subsequent years could increase costs to the Council.
  • Cabinet was further mindful that this decision was being taken when a highly critical Corporate Governance report had just been published which pointed in general to weaknesses in the Council’s commissioning, managing and where necessary dismissing failing contractors and suppliers.
  • Cabinet, therefore, re-iterates its decision taking on 22 September 2011 and re-affirms the full content of the resolution passed, as stated in Cabinet Minute No. 117, including its confidence in the ability and commitment of the workforce to deliver an excellent service, with proper support and good management, over the next ten years.

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20th October 2011 PACSPE Call-in

Tonight’s meeting was as the Cabinet decision of the 22nd September 2011 on the PACSPE contract had been called-in by Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr David Elderton.
At the end of a 3 1/2 hour meeting the voting went as follows.

Labour Amendment to Conservative motion

This amendment upheld the original decision.

Votes For         : 5 (Labour councillors)
Votes Against : 5 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Abstention       : 0
Casting vote of Conservative Chair: AGAINST

Votes For        : 5 (Labour councillors)

Votes Against: 6 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote
Abstention     :  0

AMENDMENT FAILS

Conservative Motion

Votes for          : 5 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions   : 0

Casting vote of Chair: For

Votes for:          6 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions:  0

MOTION PASSES (Proposed Cllr John Hale, seconded Cllr Don McCubbin)

Text of Motion:

This committee notes that:

    • The Cabinet appeared to ignore, and did not even mention, the findings of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews that the Parks & Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE) had been subjected to.
    • No attempt was made to publically question officers from the Finance Department, the Legal Department and the Procurement Unit who were members of the PACSPE Project Board as to whether the “risk” identified by District Audit, and made such play of in the Cabinet resolution could or had been satisfactorily mitigated.
    • No discussion was had by Cabinet Members of the risks of not awarding the contract.
    • No mention or discussion took place regarding stakeholder management or the views of key stakeholders about the benefits of clear quality improvements that were built into the procurement exercise. In fact, other than the view of the Council’s Trade Unions, the results of the consultation and the views of the park users and user groups were not even mentioned in a single Cabinet meeting.
    • No reference was made to the new post of Community Engagement Manager to work with Friends, stakeholders, user groups, and local Area Forums or the new key performance indicators developed through PACSPE to reflect the change to a more customer and community focused service.
    • Insufficient account seemed to have been taken of the reduction from costs of £8.1 million per year to £7.4 million per year already achieved by the PACSPE process with the potential to reduce costs by a further circa £500,000. Indeed, it is hard to understand how the Leader of of the Council characterised a £1.2 million per annum potential saving arising from PACSPE to be sufficiently marginal to be ignored.
    • No effort appeared to be made by Cabinet Members to discuss or evaluate the additional costs to Council Tax Payers of purchasing what has been accepted as worn out equipment requiring immediate replacement (circa £2.5 million) or the TUPE costs of bringing current contractor staff into the Council workforce and pension scheme, per annum or over the 10 year period.
    • No mention was made of the training and development programme for staff and volunteers or the three to six new apprentices to be created as part of PACSPE.
    • No explanation was given at Cabinet regarding the opposition to a 10 year contract that would reduce annual costs by circa £1.2 million and improve the quality of our parks and countryside, other than the expressed need contained in the resolution to reduce spending by £85 million over three years.
    • Therefore we believe that the decision to refuse to award the PACSPE contract would see the ever decreasing quality of a service starved of investment by this administration which is already characterised by going for the quick fix instead of making the difficult but necessary strategic decisions in the interests of Wirral residents.

The Committee recommends to the Cabinet

*Editor’s note will have to check rest of resolution due to noise preventing taking it down*

My guess is that the rest of it is “reconsider the decision”.

=============================================================================================

In the interests of openness, John Brace lives opposite Bidston Hill which is covered by the PACSPE contract.

Wirral Council Cabinet 13/10/2011 Child Poverty Strategy Action Plan – Progress Report Part 3

Cllr Ann McLachlan said [the Child Poverty Strategy Action Plan] was an “important piece of work” whose “natural home is the Children’s Trust Board”. She said she wanted to move a motion.

Cllr George Davies mentioned Cllr Sheila Clarke and Cllr Mark Johnston. He said that they “owe it to the people of Wirral” and the “statistics are frightening”. He talked about a Tranmere Community Project which had welcomed people from the United States of America to share views. He said certain parts of the Wirral had not altered in the areas of unemployment, housing and deprivation. He said, “Talking has to stop, action has to start.”

Cllr Steve Foulkes referred to the conference and the will to tackle the issue as well as recent press coverage. He also talked about the governance priorities, trends going forward into the future and the last paragraph in which it was declared to be a Budget priority. He said in light of the consultation exercise, he would prefer to call it a “key priority” as it was premature to fit it in the Budget. He said the last paragraph reflected that they would make it a key priority for 2012/13.

Cllr Ann McLachlan said she recognises the issues and welcomed the Action Plan. She emphasised the extreme urgency and referred to an Institute for Fiscal Studies study and referred to 600,000 in child poverty by 2012/13 which would mean the 2010 targets would be missed. She asked Cabinet to agree the recommendations. She thanked people and wanted to make tacking child poverty a key priority. Cllr Steve Foulkes seconded the motion which was agreed.