The Civic Mayor noted that apologies were received from Councillors Jim Crabtree, Leah Fraser, Robert Gregson, John Hale, Andrew Hodson and Pat Williams.

In relation to Councillor Pat Williams, the Civic Mayor on behalf of the Council wished her a speedy recovery.

RESOLVED:

That the Council’s best wishes for a speedy recovery be extended to Councillor Pat Williams.  

Councillor Jeff Green declared a Personal Interest in Item No. 6 – Council Budget (in relation to the Schools Budget) by virtue of his Wife’s employment.

To receive the Civic Mayor's announcements and any apologies for absence.

The Civic Mayor indicated that this was the Budget Council meeting and he understood that feelings would be running high but asked Members to be respectful and indicated that he would not tolerate personal attacks and comments and that he would interject if it was needed.

To approve the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 14 December 2015.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 14 December 2015 had been circulated to Members and, it was –

Resolved – That the minutes be approved and adopted as a correct record.

If a petition relates to the setting of the Budget, the member who presents it will be given the opportunity during the main debate to speak to it, in order that the Council can take account of it in that context.

A.  To receive petitions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 21.

B.  The following petitions are referred to the Council for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 34 (1) –

(i).  A petition of 3,195 signatures, submitted by Wirral Change opposing the proposal to decommission the BME Health Improvement Service as a result of proposed budget savings.

The front sheet of the petition is attached and, in accordance with the Petition Scheme, the petition organiser has been invited to address the Council for up to five minutes. The Council should debate the matter for a maximum of 15 minutes before deciding how to respond to the petition.

(ii).  A petition of 3,054 signatures, submitted by Wirral UNISON opposing the closure of Girtrell Court Respite Residential Home for People with Learning and/or Physical Disabilities, as part of budget savings proposals.

The front sheet of the petition is attached and, in accordance with the Petition Scheme, the petition organiser has been invited to address the Council for up to five minutes. The Council should debate the matter for a maximum of 15 minutes before deciding how to respond to the petition.

A.  In accordance with Standing Order 21, the Mayor received petitions submitted by –

(i)  Councillor Phil Gilchrist on behalf of 20 signatories, regarding parking issues in Mendell Close

(ii)  David Halley on behalf of 1180 signatories, opposing the proposed closure of Girtrell Court.

B.  The following petitions were referred to the Council in accordance with Standing Order 34 (1), having exceeded the threshold of 1500 signatures to trigger a Council debate, in accordance with the Petition Scheme –

(i)  A petition of 3,195 signatures, submitted by Wirral Change, opposing the proposal to decommission the BME Health Improvement Service as part of the budget savings option.

Prior to the Council meeting, notification had been received from the lead petitioner of their intent to withdraw the petition.

(ii)  A petition of 3,054 signatures, submitted by Wirral UNISON opposing the proposed closure of Girtrell Court Respite Home for People with Learning and/or Physical Disabilities, as part of budget savings options.

Paddy Cleary, UNISON, addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioners.

On a motion by the Civic Mayor, seconded by Councillor P Davies, it was then -

RESOLVED:

That Mr Paddy Cleary be thanked for his presentation and that his petition along with the petition submitted by Mr Halley be noted and considered during the course of the debate on the Council Budget 2015/2016.

The Budget Debate will only consider:

(i)  the Cabinet’s Budget Recommendations/Minutes, which shall include any additional paragraphs/ recommendations (e.g. those relating to precepts), together with any other recommendation(s)/minute(s) from the Cabinet meeting to be held on 22 February 2016 (and/or any other relevant Cabinet meeting) that require approval by the Council; and

(ii)  any Alternative Budget Proposal(s) or Amendment(s) to the Cabinet’s Budget Recommendations/Minutes referred to at (i) above duly lodged with the Head of Legal & Member Services on or before 12noon on Monday, 29 February 2016.

(iii)  Budget Debate shall be conducted in accordance with the Budget Debate Process (pages – ).

The minutes of the Cabinet (Budget Meeting) held on 22 February, 2016 are (to follow in the Council Supplement) and the following reports / documents are attached:

The Cabinet Budget Resolution 2016/17 which was presented at the Cabinet meeting held on Monday 22^nd February 2016 (Attached) (Pages - )

A  Revenue Budget and Council Tax Levels 2016/17

    (Pages  –)

B  Capital Programme and Financing

    (Pages  –)

C  Medium Term Financial Strategy

    (Pages  –)

D  Schools Budget

    (Pages  –)

E  Carbon Budget

  (See Cabinet Resolution of 22 Feb, 2016)

In accordance with the agreed Budget Council Procedure, as amended, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Phil Davies, moved the Cabinet’s recommended Budget to Council set out in Cabinet Minute 99 from the  22 February 2016, duly seconded by Councillor Ann McLachlan (Deputy Leader)

(i)  Minute 99 (Cabinet – 22 February 2016)

Council Budget

RESOLVED:

That the following Budget Resolution be agreed and recommended to Budget Council:

BUDGET RESOLUTION 2016/17

Cabinet notes the following:

NATIONAL CONTEXT

1.  The 2016/17 Budget is being prepared against the most difficult financial backdrop this Council has ever faced. Local government is under attack from the Conservative’s austerity agenda. We believe their vision is of a country where residents in every borough are left to fend for themselves. 

2.  Their policy of removing the Local Government Revenue Support Grant in its entirety is, in the opinion of this Cabinet, akin to the Government telling every Wirral resident – “don’t call us, you’re on your own”.

3.  We believe this policy makes a mockery of the Conservative election campaign slogan “We’re all in this together”. It shows no understanding of, nor concern for, the plight of those for whom local services are an important and often vital part of life. Those who rely on carers, are looking for safe affordable housing, value our libraries and leisure centres, or enjoy our parks and beaches. Rather than bringing us closer together, this Cabinet contends that this policy simply widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

4.  Conservative Council leaders across the country, seemingly fearful of the electoral backlash in May, warned the Government of the danger of its actions. Even backbench Tory MP’s spoke about their unease with this policy. The Prime Minister’s own mother joined the protest at the cuts to local grants in her community.

5.  It is worth noting, however, no such concern or support came from the Conservatives in Wirral: no campaign, petition or lobby from them – it’s always somebody else’s responsibility to clean up their mess and the irresponsible £17million overspend we inherited.

6.  The Government did indeed respond to the outcry from across the political spectrum, but in a way that only further proved to this Cabinet how indifferent to the needs of the country they really are. The Government announced a £300 million Transitional Fund sweetener – in the words of the minister – “To help Councils transform from dependence on central government grants to greater financial autonomy” - but almost exclusively targeted it at Conservative-run Councils, including those containing Mr Cameron’s seat in Oxfordshire and the Chancellor’s constituency in Cheshire East.

7.  Where is Wirral’s share? Where is the estimated £2million per year that Wirral should have been entitled to, based on other funding formulas? Where is the money that could have gone towards tackling anti-social behaviour, improving skills and training for our young people, money to support vital services? Cabinet has received no support or heard of no concern from the local Conservative party to challenge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.