Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

                            

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

On Monday evening the issue of the future of Lyndale School was debated by Wirral Council councillor for about forty-five minutes. I’m going to try and sum up what was said and decided in a short blog post so inevitably I will be leaving some things out.

The notice of motion by the Conservatives and Labour’s amendment to it is already covered here. The response from the Lyndale parents is here, in addition to that there were a further ninety or so responses to the consultation.

Cllr Paul Hayes (proposing the motion to keep the school open) started by referring to the consultation response by Lyndale parents and the passion and “strength of feeling” he’d observed at a recent consultation meeting (which you can listen to in full). He said he hoped all councillors had received a copy of the consultation response.

The Mayor Cllr Steve Foulkes said that some councillors had received it on the day of the meeting and that he didn’t believe they could be expected to read it in full as they hadn’t had time to digest it.

Cllr Paul Hayes continued by referring to an earlier consultation on Kingsway Primary School and the similarities between the two. He was critical of an officer chairing the Lyndale School closure consultation meeting and said that as well as the majority of people feeling that the officer wasn’t neutral, he also described him as “rude and dismissive”. He described the consultation process as “farcical”.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked whether Labour’s amendment should be ruled out of order as it was negating the original motion. Labour’s motion deleted all paragraphs in the original motion bar one line. He said surely the same effect could be achieved by voting against the motion?

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said he would allow a legal opinion, but it had been a difficult decision on his part to allow the notice of motion on Lyndale School to be debated. From his point of view he felt that Cllr Stuart Kelly “didn’t have a leg to stand on” with regards to the [Labour] amendment being ruled out of order.

Surjit Tour said that the notice of motion referred it to the Cabinet as the final decision rested with te Cabinet. The amendment also did exactly the same in referring it to a special meeting in September. Therefore in his view the amendment was lawful.

The Mayor said that points of order was not the way he wanted to open the debate and asked the mover of the amendment to speak.

Cllr Phil Davies said that it had been agreed some time ago that they need to have a special Cabinet meeting and that there had been a very detailed consultation exercise, the results of which they had not yet seen. In his view the consultation responses were a “hugely important piece of evidence” which the Cabinet needed to consider before taking a view. To take the clear view expressed in the Conservative notice of motion before the special Cabinet meeting was “premature” as they would be making the decision now in advance of the special meeting. He was also very concerned that if the notice of motion was agreed then they would fall foul of predetermination. He thought it was a shame that Cllr Hayes had said that officers were not neutral.

He continued by referring to his time as Cabinet Member and again referred to the claim that officers were not neutral. Cllr Davies said that the amendment asked that they take no action on the motion tonight but refer it. Again he said that he was worried if they agreed the motion it would have predetermined the outcome before the Cabinet had considered the evidence, but there was no question that Lyndale School provided a “unique and caring environment”. He had visited the school but it was essential he had an open mind and considered all the evidence. He worried that if they made a decision tonight then they would be completely ignoring important evidence that they had not yet seen.

Cllr Andrew Hodson referred to his daughter who had learning difficulties, despite being in her 30s she had a mental age of nine. He considered himself lucky that she had her full health, but that the children at Lyndale had complicated health needs. Although his daughter lived in an establishment she still had her independence in fact [Cllr] George [Davies] had been at the opening.

He referred to the Corporate Plan about protecting vulnerable people and how Lyndale School was an essential service that met people’s complex needs. The staff at Lyndale were geared up to making sure that while receiving an education the children were safe and well cared for. He was perplexed by the decision as the Council would not benefit financially from the closure of Lyndale School so why do it? He finished by making a plea to keep the school open.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said that the Childrens and Young People Department had told him they had received ninety response and that he had had time to read the documents. He knew that members of the Council had been concerned about the future especially [former] Councillor Tom Harney. He referred to the document received at the weekend and referred to the reference in it to a working party.

Cllr Gilchrist referred to the space that children using wheelchairs need, children with epilepsy, those require oxygen and those who required time consuming feeding. He had attended two of the consultation meetings and concurred with Cllr Paul Hayes’ description. He referred again to the parents’ response to the consultation quoting from it and that it may be September by the time the issue was resolved. He said that the high needs budget for 2013/14 was £31.7 million.

After being given extra time, he referred to the strain on families, the SEN Improvement Test and said that if they wished, councillors on the Cabinet could choose not to vote on this notice of motion (and amendment). The notice of motion was about Council’s view.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that the way the process worked was that councillors who stood were indicating that they wished to speak in the debate and that if no Labour councillors stood up then councillors who wished to speak should still be allowed to address the Council. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he had no objections.

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said that if that was an early test, that he would decide what goes on, who was asked and which councillor would make a contribution.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that he’d pick up on the point made by Cllr Paul Hayes at the start. He too had been surprised at the way the presentation had been presented by officers to the parents and that the parents knew what was required and that the parents were the ones who should be listened to. Cllr Mitchell recommended that councillors read every page of the parent’s response to the consultation and absorb every part as it “rips to shreds” the proposal [to close the school] and deals with the real issue which was the children.

Cllr Mitchell continued by saying that it had nothing to do with the schools formula funding as it was all there set by the government and had never been taken away. This was not the case with education funding and the way the funding was divvied out was decided by Cabinet. One of the problems that concerned him with the consultation itself was the way parents had asked questions to officers and had no responses till the last day of the consultation.

Cllr Pat Williams objected to the Mayor refusing to let her speak. She said she was being deprived of her democratic right and that she’d been elected by the people of Oxton to speak.

The Mayor [Cllr Steve Foulkes] changed his mind and agreed to let her speak after all.

Cllr Pat Williams said that during the consultation period it was made abundantly clear that the appropriate place was to let the children remain at Lyndale School. She referred to the petition against closure of nearly 11,000 signatures which demonstrated how much Lyndale School was valued as a unique asset. She like other councillors referred to the parents response to the consultation and wanted the profound and complex needs of the children fairly reflected in the funding.

She had visited the school and was always most impressed by the caring an dedication of the staff and when she was Mayor had had the pleasure of formally opening the sensory garden. The consultation had ended and it was overwhelming apparent that Lyndale School should stay. She asked councillors to take note and resolve that Lyndale was to remain open.

Councillor Pat Cleary (the new Green Party councillor) said that he wanted to make a brief point. He said that Lyndale School doesn’t have to be closed and he appreciated the sincere feelings. He was disappointed as he didn’t understand the Labour councillors not engaging.

One issue he wanted to raise was that 18 months ago there had been a letter from the Leader of the Council during the What Really Matters consultation about whether local elections should only be held once every four years. It had been said that the reason the proposal was being brought forward was that early analysis of the consultation results had shown 91% supporting this change. In that instance a recommendation had been brought forward before the consultation was finished, he wanted to know why the current situation was any different?

Cllr Tony Smith said that he agreed that the uncertainty about Lyndale School must be resolved and had been an ongoing concern for a number of years. The consultation had been undertaken, but reducing numbers of children on the school roll, changes in funding arrangements and questions about the future viability of the school were the reasons behind the consultation. He stressed that the consultation was not about the quality of the education.

He continued by saying that any decision about future provision would be informed by individual needs and make sure people’s requirements were fully met. The government required the [SEN Improvement] test to be undertaken to show that the proposal was as good as or better than the children’s current provision. He said that they would make sure they had an up to date understanding of each child’s needs.

They had undertaken a consultation and there was oversight from the [Wirral] Schools Forum. The original decision had been called in and it was made clear then at the outset that the process should be open and transparent over the twelve week consultation.

Prior to the consultation starting, there had been a meeting with parent governors of Lyndale and throughout the consultation six public meetings. Eighty-five people from the community had turned up to these, with some attending more than one. Wirral Council had commissioned an independent person to consider each of the published options and any new options and consider the application of the government’s [SEN Improvement] test. All councillors had also been invited on an escorted bus tour which included Lyndale School. Twenty-two councillors had taken part in these visits on the 16th/17th June. He made the assurance that all information relevant to the consultation would be made publicly available prior to the Cabinet meeting to inform the decision making when the Cabinet would be taking all factors into account such as the needs and welfare of each individual child.

Cllr Jeff Green (seconder to the Conservative motion) reminded people that when Cllr Tony Smith spoke that closure is a preferred option. He reminded people why it was called in and referred to the speeches of Cllrs Hayes, Gilchrist, Mitchell and others (as well as congratulating Cllr Cleary on his maiden speech). He said a maiden speech was normally held in silence but the response from Labour councillors was because he’d beaten them in an election.

Cllr Green said that Lyndale was unique and incredibly special and that that needed to be safeguarded.

Continues at How did 62 Wirral Council councillors vote on Lyndale School?.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

                                         

The Cheshire Cat from Disney's Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version)
The Cheshire Cat from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version) which seemed about the only image that seemed ideal for this story about Lyndale School and Wirral Council

First, if you’ve been away on holiday the past two months a recap on what’s happened so far in a saga that’s seems to quickly becoming as complicated as the plot to the Lord of the Rings.

It starts with a proposal to Wirral Council’s Cabinet by Wirral Council officers to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting Wirral Council’s officers also proposed introducing a new system for funding “high needs” students where from 2014-15 extra funding to schools would be determined by which one of five bands that school’s pupils were categorised as being in. There was an emotional plea made to councillors on the Cabinet by Dawn Hughes (who has a child at the school) not to agree to consult on closure of Lyndale School (which was reported on this blog). However Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to both agree to consult on closing Lyndale School and also the banding proposals too.

It’s important at this stage to state the reasons given back in January for consulting on closing Lyndale School by Wirral Council officers, which are detailed both in the minutes and the report.

Here are some quotes from the report (although at this point in time some of these purported facts have been found to be factually incorrect).

“The closure of the Lyndale School is proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll, which both contribute to a difficult financial position.”

“In 2013-14 the school has set a budget for the year based on School Funding of £761,733 with a small deficit of £3,647. This was achieved using all accumulated balances brought forward of £51,707. The latest position indicates there will be deficit at the year end of £15,667. This has resulted from changes in staff costs and support services.”

“In 2014-15 the school forecast, before any corrective action, is that there would be a deficit of £72,000. This deficit has the potential to increase to in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.”

“This means that for 2014-15 the shortfall the school may experience will be approximately £72,000 for the year based on the number currently on school roll. This is approximately 9% of their budget.”

What this report in January didn’t mention at all (which was a pretty glaring omission at the time although a report to the same meeting did mention it but that other report didn’t specifically refer to Lyndale School) was this was all dependent on the assumption that Wirral Council would have its application to the government that the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% wouldn’t apply to it approved. The minimum funding guarantee is a legal requirement on Wirral Council found in Regulation 19 of The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013 not to reduce funding to a school for its 2014-15 financial year (based on its 2013-14 budget allocation) by more than 1.5%. However the regulations allow the Secretary of State for Education to agree to requests from local councils to a different minimum funding guarantee.

Wirral Council did at some point make an application to the Education Funding Agency for the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% not to apply to it in 2014-15 (although I’m waiting for this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency to be answered as to the details on that). On the 27th January 2014 Cllrs Tom Harney, Phil Gilchrist, Jeff Green, Ian Lewis, Cherry Povall and Pat Williams called in the two Cabinet decisions.

These two decisions then went to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 5th February 2014 to be looked at again. However the Coordinating Committee didn’t have the required parent governor representatives and Diocesan Body representatives that they were required by legislation to have when making decisions on educational (or school) related matters. So the meeting of 5th February 2014 was adjourned and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on the 25th February 2014 so that the parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives could be added to the Coordinating Committee. This was agreed at a meeting of the full Council on the 25th February 2014.

While all this was going on, the Cabinet made its recommendation on the 2014-15 Schools Budget to Council on the 12th February 2014 and Council agreed the Schools Budget on the 25th February 2014 (including matters that were yet to be decided because of the adjourned Coordinating Committee meeting). The issue of the upcoming call ins was raised at the Cabinet meeting and councillors were told that there was a contingency (of £908,900) included as part of the Schools Budget which would mean that whatever the outcome of the call ins were that it could still be funded.

On the 27th February the Coordinating Committee met again to consider the two call ins on the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School and the banding proposals.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School consultation closure call in (adjourned from the Coordinating Committee on the 5th Feburary).

On both matters the draft minutes state that a majority of the councillors plus the parent governor representative present who had a vote, voted to uphold the original Cabinet decisions. It’s worth pointing out that on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision the Conservative councillors proposed instead a review (which was voted against by nine votes to six). On the banding proposals the Conservative councillors proposed the following motion “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” (which was lost by seven votes for the motion and eight against).

The votes on the Labour councillor’s recommendations to uphold the two original Labour Cabinet decisions were on the Lyndale School consultation closure decision nine votes to six (the Labour councillors plus the Lib Dem councillor Cllr Alan Brighouse voted in favour of a consultation on closure whereas the Conservative councillors and parent governor representative voted against). The vote on a recommendation by Labour councillors to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision on the banding proposals was won by a narrower margin of eight votes to seven (the Labour councillors voted for it with the Lib Dem councillor, Conservatives and parent governor representative being opposed to it).

So, what’s new? Well unfortunately I had to go (and as the first call in on consulting closing Lyndale School had taken three and half hours had run out of tape anyway) after the first decision over the Lyndale School closure consultation decision. So I’ve only found out what happened at the second part of the meeting by reading the draft minutes of that meeting were available at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.

Here is what the draft minutes state about the minimum funding guarantee. My comments are in italics underneath.

The first quote is about the explanation of the banding proposals decision by the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.

“Basically, the report had dealt with the banding model and informed how top ups would be made. The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

Well that’s a revelation isn’t it? When did Wirral Council withdraw its application for an exemption from the minimum funding requirement? The minimum funding guarantee was always “affordable” as there was a contingency (in case the application for a minimum funding guarantee exemption was turned down of £908,900). Wirral Council also gets for 2014-15 an Special Educational Needs Reform Grant of £364,135 (see here for the details) which according to the letter linked to the government state that Wirral Council can “choose how to spend the money in order to best meet local need”.

Then this in the draft minutes from the evidence of the Vice-Chair of Governors at Lyndale School (and Chair of their Finance Committee) Ian Harrison.

“Mr Harrison informed that the Lyndale School now had a surplus forecast for 2013/14. It was going to get the minimum funding guarantee. There would be a small surplus in 2014/15.”

So if the original reason for consulting on closing Lyndale School was that an officer (or officers) at Wirral Council thought it wouldn’t have enough money, but the minimum funding guarantee exemption request has been withdrawn so that Lyndale School is now projecting a surplus (at least for 2014/15), why is Wirral Council going to the trouble of a twelve week consultation on closing the school?

“Members then asked Mr Harrison some questions which he answered as appropriate. It was noted that:

  • The Cabinet had received an early estimate rather than one at the end of the period when it would have been more realistic.”

Perhaps councillors were too polite to suggest that the Cabinet had based their decision on an estimate based on an assumption about the minimum funding guarantee (that is that the assumption that it would be approved and not withdrawn) which turned out not to be the case.

  • None of the special schools agreed with the formula that had been approved.

There are eleven special schools on Wirral (Hayfield, Clare Mount, Orrets Meadow, Gilbrook, Stanley, Elleray, Lyndale, Foxfield, Meadowside and Kilgarth). The 2014-15 budgets for each special school would have each been affected by the banding proposals. Had the minimum funding guarantee exemption application not been withdrawn, other schools could have been facing deficits (although Lyndale was the school most affected). The motion that was agreed on this item is stated in the draft minutes as “That the Committee upholds the Cabinet’s decision and it be ensured that consultation is meaningful, informed and transparent”. This is very unclear. Does that mean there’s going to be a consultation on the banding proposals or is it referring to the consultation to close Lyndale School?

So to summarise, Wirral Council officers thought there would be a large deficit in Lyndale School’s budget so recommended to the Cabinet that they should consult on closing the school. This decision was called in and during the call in it was discovered that Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee had been withdrawn. So now there’s a legal requirement that Lyndale School will get at least 98.5% of the amount they got in the previous year. As Lyndale School had looked into reducing costs of non teaching staff to reduce the original estimated large deficit, they now estimate a small surplus in their budget for 2014/15.

However Wirral Council is still going to carry out a twelve week consultation on closing the school based on an estimated deficit in Lyndale School’s budget that now can’t happen because the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% is a legal requirement on Wirral Council.

How much is such a consultation, based on a guesstimate by officers (which ended up being wrong) going to cost? Bearing in mind the above, is it any wonder that people get confused by Wirral Council’s decision-making and politics? Am I missing something vital or is everything I’ve stated here correct?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with Andy Day memorial cup by the Mayor of Wirral

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by the Mayor of Wirral at a meeting of Wirral Council

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

                          

In awarding the cup the Mayor of Wirral said during a meeting of the Council on Monday, “As this is my last full Council meeting,it falls upon me to present the Andy Day memorial cup. I’ve been very impressed by lots of councillors throughout the year, the amount of work that they do as councillors but also throughout their community. I’ve struggled over the last few days to select a particular Member who I believe is worthy of the cup and I’ve come to the conclusion that my nomination for the Andy Day Memorial Cup this year will be Councillor Phil Gilchrist.

The reason behind that is he’s a stalwart within my own particular ward. He’s taken up the mantle with myself being the Mayor this year and he’s taken on a lot more work than he would normally do. Outside of that I do know that he does an awful lot of work within the community. May I present the Andy Day Memorial to Councillor Phil Gilchrist.”

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said receiving the cup was “totally out of the blue”. Video of the cup being presented to Cllr Phil Gilchrist starts at 2:20 in the video below.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

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 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.

YouTube privacy policy

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.

YouTube privacy policy

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.

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

                            

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
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

This is a rather complicated saga, so it’s best to go back to the beginning and have a recap of what’s happened so far in chronological order. Way back on the 16th January despite an emotional plea from a parent, the Labour Cabinet decided to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting the same Cabinet also decided to agree to change how they divide up funding for pupils at special schools (which has an effect on Lyndale School).

On the 20th January I wrote a blog post headlined “Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?” which included two polls. The first poll asked readers if they thought the decision was lawful (so far 92.31% think it wasn’t and 7.69% that it was) as well as a second poll on whether the decision should be called in (75% voted yes, 25% voted no).

The two decisions were then called in by councillors. The decision to consult on closing Lyndale was called in by Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Ian Lewis, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Pat Williams. The decision on allocating funding (called proposals for change to school top up payments for students with high needs) was also called in by the same six councillors.

A meeting of the Coordinating Committee was arranged to consider the call in which prompted a blog post titled Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council Committee? along with another poll that asked whether it should be decided by the Coordinating Committee or the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee along with another poll in which 100% voted that it should be decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.

I wrote a further blog post on the 4th February headlined The Reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee met on the 5th February (covered in “When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…”) and agreed a recommendation to adjourn the call in meeting to the 27th February until after the Council meeting on the 25th so that Council could co-opt the necessary parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives onto the Coordinating Committee.

At this point it’s worth pointing out what it states in Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins (it’s at 35 (3)(b) (page 138) if you wish to check this out for yourself) “(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.”

I’ve added some underlining to emphasise the bit “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed”.

However agenda item seven for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting has an agenda item “Schools Budget 2014/15”, which is officer’s recommendation to Cabinet for the schools budget which will then be recommended to Budget Council on the 25th February.

At 4.3.5 of the report to Cabinet it states the following:

4.3.5 High Needs Block

The make up of this block is complex. It is based on the “place plus” system introduced by the DfE [Department for Education] from April 2013 and includes:

  • Special schools (pre and post 16), school bases and independent non-maintained special schools. All receive a base level funding of £10,000 per place following agreement of place numbers with the Education Funding Agency (EFA).
  • Alternative Provision Bases and WASP. This provision is funded at £8,000 per place.
  • Additional funding over and above that provided for places will be paid in the form of “top ups”. These will be provided on a per pupil basis. The top up, or “plus” element of funding, is based on the agreed assessed needs of pupils and is paid by the “commissioner” responsible; this may be Wirral Children’s Services, a school or another Local Authority. In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.
  • The costs of all education and training for post 16 specialist and LLDD provision (top ups) to colleges and private providers.
  • The Hospital Schools budget

Compare the above to the report titled Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs which went to be decided by Cabinet on the 16th January, resulted in Cabinet agreeing the proposals and was then called in (quoted below).

2.2 “with each school receiving an amount of £10,000 per place and an additional top up based on individual pupil needs.”

2.4 “Top Up funding (ie the “Plus” element) reflects the additional support costs in excess of place funding for individual pupils and students and takes into account factors such as the pupils individual needs and facilities / support provided.”

“This is a significant piece of work that has been undertaken with Wirral’s Schools Forum’s SEN Finance Steering Group, the outcome of which has resulted in a banded approach to top ups for:”

“Students in post 16 provision with element three costs; Further Education Colleges, Sixth Forms and Independent Specialist Providers (ISP);

Basically the proposals mean the same (but written with slightly different words). If these recommendations from officers on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 are agreed by Cabinet, it will become recommendations to Budget Council on the 25th February (and recommendations to Council can’t be called in). If that’s the case then the call in decision by the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February on the top up payments for students with high needs becomes a fait accompli as the decision on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 will have been made already by Council on the 25th February.

I pointed this out by email to the Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith), Cllr Phil Davies (who chairs Cabinet meetings), the Chair and spokespersons on the Coordinating Committee, the councillors who called in the decisions, Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer), Graham Burgess (Chief Executive who has a role in the call in process) and Andrew Roberts (the officer who wrote the report to Cabinet) which outlined what had happened and contained the following four questions.

I know there is a reserve Budget meeting set aside for the 4th March. Therefore my questions are:

1) Would it not be better to consider the schools budget on the 4th March as by this time the decisions reached by the call in meeting on the 27th February will be known?

2) Bearing in mind the constitutional requirement that “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed” can either the Cabinet on Wednesday recommend a schools budget (when an element of that budget being proposed has been called in) or Council on the 25th February decide on a schools budget (for the same reasons) without being accused of making a decision in breach of Wirral’s constitution?

3) If the schools budget is to be decided on the 4th March, will an extra Cabinet meeting be required between the 27th February and the 4th March to consider any recommendations arising from the call in
meeting?

and

4) In order for these decisions to be made according to Wirral Council’s constitution does this require the budget council procedure (agreed by Cabinet on the 16th January) to be altered so that the
schools budget is dealt with as a separate matter to the rest of the Budget?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I look forward to either hearing a response to these questions at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting or receiving a formal response by email before then.

So far I’ve received responses from two councillors. One just stated “Thank you for the information”, the reply from the other councillor stated that they’d follow up my query with the report author Andrew Roberts.

So what’s really going on? The line written in the report “In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.” makes it sound like the outcome of the call in is being predicted by an officer before it’s even taken place! So what’s really going on? Does anybody really know or is this just the uniquely strange and peculiar way that Wirral Council makes decisions?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.