The Conservative Group spokesperson expressed the view that it would be more appropriate for the Committee to consider matters related to budget proposals following the budget meeting of the Cabinet, in order that the Committee could make then make representation, if it was considered necessary, to Budget Council on 1 March 2011. Accordingly –

It was moved by Councillor Keeley and seconded by Councillor McCubbin –

“That the Committee stand adjourned to a date, to be agreed by the group spokespersons, following Budget Cabinet and prior to Budget Council”.

The Chair commented upon the terms of reference of the Committee and considered that the matters on the agenda fell within its remit. He believed that Members should have the opportunity to gain information in relation to the budget but accepted that it may become necessary at some point for the meeting to stand adjourned to a later date.

The Labour Group spokesperson referred to the custom and practice for Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be able to discuss budget proposals, before the budget was set, and to the action by the Council on 13 December 2010 to suspend the relevant parts of the Constitution. In response, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management explained that the rationale for the suspension of the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rule 2 was that the Cabinet, at that time, had not made budget proposals and that the Procedure Rule was not applicable in December, but had been suspended for the avoidance of doubt.

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Gilchrist and seconded by Councillor Brighouse –

“(1) That this meeting remain in session to consider aspects of the budget being prepared and consider such information as members consider relevant at this stage.

(2) That having considered this information the Committee will then adjourn, to reconvene on a date to be agreed by the group spokespersons, once Budget Cabinet has outlined its proposals”.

The amendment was put and carried (6:4)

The amendment, then becoming the substantive motion was put and it was:

Resolved – (6:4) (Councillors Johnson, Keeley, McCubbin and Williams voting against) –

(1)  That this meeting remain in session to consider aspects of the budget being prepared and consider such information as members consider relevant at this stage.

(2)  That, having considered this information the Committee will then adjourn, to reconvene on a date to be agreed by the group spokespersons, once Budget Cabinet has outlined its proposals.

Members are asked to consider whether they have personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they are.

Members are reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Members were asked to consider whether they had personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they were.

Members were reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

No such declarations were made.

This Special Meeting of the Committee has been called, in accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, by Councillors P Davies, J Stapleton and A McArdle, in order to give consideration to matters concerned with budget proposals, set out in the attached document.

The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management reported that the meeting had been called, in accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, by Councillors P Davies, J Stapleton and A McArdle, in order to give consideration to matters concerned with budget proposals. Councillor Davies advised the Committee that the meeting had been convened in the light of –

·  the failure of the administration to refer any budget savings to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny committees for proper scrutiny;

·  the decision taken by Council on 13 December 2010 to suspend the relevant part of the Constitution in order to avoid any such scrutiny;

·  the lack of any detailed Cabinet reports setting out the details of the budget savings, and their consequences;

·  the lack in particular of any explanation of the impact of the loss of over 1300 posts, the restructuring necessary to protect services, the costs of that restructuring, and the costs of the EVRs themselves; and,

·  the lack of any report on increases in fees and charges.

Councillor Davies set out those matters he wished the Committee to investigate and advised Members that, with the agreement of the Chair, he had invited Diane Kelly, Assistant Branch Secretary of Wirral UNISON to attend the meeting, in order to assist the Committee in its deliberations. The Conservative Group spokesperson commented that whilst he did not object to the attendance of Ms Kelly, he expressed his concern that Members had received no advanced notice and had not been given an opportunity to formulate questions. Ms Kelly advised Members that she was also the union’s North West Regional Convenor and had 37 years experience of labour relations at all levels, both within Wirral Council and across the North West region.

In response to questions from Members, Ms Kelly commented upon the detrimental impact of large numbers of staff, and managers, leaving the employment of the authority as a result of EVR/severance, within such a short timescale. The loss to the Council of experience and knowledge was a cause for concern, as was the impact of staffing reductions on morale. UNISON members had also expressed their concerns in relation to the stress that had been caused as a result of the difficulties in maintaining the current levels of service. She commented also that frontline services were not always easily defined and indicated that reductions in the numbers of ‘back office’ support staff were having a severe impact on the ability of ‘frontline’ workers being able to do their jobs. In response to further questions in relation to the impact of staffing reductions on morale, Ms Kelly stated that, in addition to the uncertainty with regard to further job losses, UNISON members were particularly concerned about increased hours being worked and further detriment to their terms and conditions. She emphasised that consultation with the trade unions was vital to ensure service delivery.

At the request of the Chair, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management provided up to date information in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Following on from minute 122, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management circulated the Budget Proposal agreed by the Cabinet at its Budget Meeting held on 21 February 2011 (minute 327 refers). The Labour Group spokesperson indicated to the Committee that he wished to examine a number of matters contained within the budget in relation to –

·  Early Voluntary Retirement (EVRs)/Voluntary Severance

·  Restructuring

·  Specific Grants

·  Inflation

·  Adult Social Care

·  Solar Energy

In response to questions from Members, the Director of Finance provided information in relation to the funding of EVRs/Voluntary Severance and, in particular, the capitalisation through prudential borrowing of the statutory redundancy element of £6.4m over 2010/2011 and 2011/2012., based upon approximately 1100 members of staff leaving the authority, on a voluntary basis, between December 2010 and June 2011. The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management commented also that an additional 212 people, who were materially affected by the Council’s proposals, had subsequently been given the opportunity to apply for EVR/severance. Of those, approximately 100 had expressed an interest and were in the process of being evaluated. However, no savings assumptions had been made in relation to those posts and the Director of Finance confirmed that if they were to leave, the saving to the Council would exceed the cost of severance.

The Labour Group spokesperson expressed his concern that no evidence had been provided, in advance of the Budget Council meeting, to demonstrate to Members how services would be provided following 1100 members of staff leaving the Council and he sought clarification as to how the figure within the budget proposal of £2m for restructuring and retraining had been arrived at. In response, the Leader of the Council indicated that the figure represented the totality of assessments that had been undertaken by all Chief Officers, who had also been required to prepare an appropriate business case that would be considered by the Strategic Change Programme Board, for funding from the Efficiency Investment Budget. The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management commented that at the present time, the various restructure plans were in various stages of completeness, given that in some areas, significant numbers of staff would not leave until June 2011. He envisaged that plans would be made available for scrutiny, once they had been completed.

In response to a question from a Member as to how the budget process this year differed from previous years, the Director of Finance suggested that the fundamental difference was a loss of £51m in Government grants to the Council. He commented that, of that sum, there had been a loss of £10.1m in Specific Grants. In response to questions from Members, as to the impact of the loss on Council services, he commented that the main loss related to Early Intervention Grant (£4.8m). However, no overarching analysis had been undertaken and individual Chief Officers would be better placed to evaluate the impact on services. Although there had been a grant funding shortfall of £10.1m, there had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.