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 to the numbers of staff that had left, or were leaving the authority as a result of EVR/severance. The total figure, at the present time, stood at 1109, not 1300 as had been suggested. In response to questions from Members, the Director proposed to circulate details to the Committee of the numbers of staff who had subsequently resigned, having been refused EVR/severance.

He reported also that within the rationale that had been applied by Chief Officers, when considering requests for EVR/severance, was a clear understanding that where a post was to be deleted, there must not be a material impact, either directly or indirectly, on frontline services, the public or service users. Consequently, 357 people had been refused EVR/severance because of the need to maintain service quality. However, local authorities faced a severe financial challenge and considerable savings had been made as a result of staff leaving on a voluntary basis, with the support of their trade unions. He reported that risks had been fully evaluated as part of the process. However, in the Law, HR and Asset Management Directorate, as the measures taken were not expected to result in a material impact in service delivery and there had been no suggestion of gender bias in the selection of leavers, there had not been a requirement to undertake Equality Impact Assessments.

In response to questions from Members, the Director of Finance indicated that some restructuring had been necessary in the light of large numbers of staff leaving the authority and Chief Officers had been required to set out their restructure plans in order to identify costs, having been considered initially by the Interim Chief Executive and the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development. The Director assured Members that the papers for Budget Cabinet would soon be available and that they would contain details of restructuring costs.

In response to questions from Members in relation to the loss of trained reference librarians and other areas of expertise, the Director of Finance commented upon proposals to merge the library service and one stop shops. He accepted that whilst there had, inevitably, been a loss of some expertise, restructuring would result in no loss of service provision. In addition, work was ongoing with partners with a view to more services being brought into libraries. The Director commented also upon the loss of Specific Grant and upon the impact on contracts of zero inflation within the Council’s budget, when the actual rate was predicted to rise to 4%.

It was moved by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Kenny –

“That this Committee believes that the savings package put forward by the Administration is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons –

(1)  The Administration failed to engage this and other Scrutiny Committees in a debate about savings earlier in the year, and at Council on 13 December 2010 they suspended the Constitution to avoid having to consult Scrutiny Committees on the savings.

(2)  Decisions have been taken to allow staff to leave without proper restructuring plans being in place.

(3)  Because the EVR process only started in October 2010, there has been insufficient time to carry out effective service re-organisations and no reports have been submitted to Cabinet or any Overview and Scrutiny Committee on this vital issue.

(4)  Insufficient information has been presented to this Committee to enable Members to be confident that severe damage is not being done to valuable front-line services.

(5)  There is no evidence that the savings package proposed by the Administration has been subject to a proper Risk Assessment and Equality Impact Assessment.

Committee therefore agrees to refer the savings package back to Cabinet and ask them to provide the information referred to at (1) to (5) above, including a formal Risk Assessment and Equality Impact Statement on their proposed package, before the final budget proposal is submitted to the Cabinet”.

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

“(1) That, at this stage, the Committee recognises that a considerable amount of work has been undertaken on the budget since last Spring and wishes to await the outcome of the Cabinet’s proposals, in order that it may assess them.

(2) That the meeting stand adjourned, 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 Davies, Kenny McArdle and Stapleton voting against) –

(1)  That, at this stage, the Committee recognises that a considerable amount of work has been undertaken on the budget since last Spring and wishes to await the outcome of the Cabinet’s proposals, in order that it may assess them.

(2)  That the meeting stand adjourned, to reconvene on a date to be agreed by the group spokespersons once Budget Cabinet has outlined its proposals.