Agenda item

MATTERS FOR DEBATE

Pursuant to Standing Order 5(1)(m), and in accordance with Standing Order 5(3), to consider any objections or amendments to minutes submitted under Standing Orders 7(2) and 13.

 

The procedure for the meeting having been approved by the Cabinet is attached, as are the list of matters for debate.

 

In accordance with Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Director of Finance will submit (separately) a written report on each set of proposals, giving his view on their robustness. The Budget Summary on the Labour Group Proposal will also be circulated separately.

Minutes:

LABOUR AMENDMENT (1) TO BUDGET CABINET MINUTE 327

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Foulkes

Seconded by Councillor Phil Davies

 

1.  Council notes that this budget cuts Wirral’s workforce by nearly 20%, and that, in order to make this cut, this administration has borrowed £6.4m, which will have to be paid back at the revenue cost of £600,000 a year, over a period of 25 years which totals £15m. This amount is in addition to the £15m being found from other sources over the next two years.

 

2.  Council notes that the loss of 1300 jobs, (of which only 1100 are accounted for in this budget) will take £51m directly out of Wirral’s economy, with all the consequent knock on to contractors, traders and shop keepers, which will considerably increase the impact of that loss.

 

3.  Council believes that an area like Wirral, which is heavily dependent on public sector employment, has little chance of making up that loss with new private sector jobs, particularly in a climate where the private sector is already shedding the jobs it currently has, and that a cut of this severity, from one of the biggest employers on Wirral, can only push Wirral’s economy deeper into depression, increasing the level of unemployment and reducing opportunities for future generations of Wirral’s young people.

 

4.  Council believes that the policy of this government to pursue deficit reduction over such a short timescale, with its consequent impact on local government, is driven more by political election timetables and a political ideology which wants to drastically reduce the size of the State, than it is by necessity. Council notes that even under a Thatcher “There is no Alternative” government, they chose to reduce a budget deficit over a period of nine years rather than five.

 

5.  Council believes the damage done to the local economy has been compounded by the fact that the Secretary of State chose in the Local Government Settlement to front load in one year many of the cuts to Local Government spending, and that this draconian move was further exacerbated by a decision to centre those cuts, through the use of Area Based Grant, on the areas of highest deprivation in the country, leading to a situation where, for example,  Richmond on Thames loses just £5.39 in Revenue Spending Power per head of population, Wirral loses £84.27 and Liverpool loses £162.99

 

6.  Council deeply regrets that Wirral’s Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition has not joined with their colleagues elsewhere in the country in condemning this government’s treatment of Local Government and its impact on vital front line services, but has chosen instead to celebrate the scale of the job losses they are inflicting as a triumph of leadership, without showing any appreciation of the damage they are doing.

 

7.  Council further condemns the fact that they have taken every opportunity to thwart any attempt to scrutinise the impact of these cuts, unlike neighbouring authorities who have taken an all party approach to reduce the impact of any cuts that have to be made, and have gone to great lengths to conceal the real truth about what these cuts mean, including suspending elements of the Council’s Constitution to suppress proper scrutiny and debate, and refusing to allow constitutionally called Scrutiny Committees to  proceed.

 

8.  Council notes that the outcome of this behaviour is that the members of this Council are being asked to approve a budget which has not been properly and rigorously scrutinised, which does not have in place any published departmental restructuring plans to show how services will be delivered in the future, and which does not have any published risk assessments or equality impact statements.

 

9.  Council expresses its outrage that members are being asked to approve this budget “blind”, without any of the essential back up information, and that they have not even been allowed to see the detailed departmental budget breakdowns which, in the past, have always been published as part of the budget “blue book” presented to Budget Cabinet as an integral part of the Budget report.

 

10.Council believes this is totally unacceptable, that there is no evidence to show that this budget is either robust or deliverable, and that the failure to follow the Council’s own Constitution on the budget procedure also renders it potentially illegal and open to challenge.

 

11.Council welcomes the fact that the residents of Wirral will not be faced with any increase in Council Tax, but regrets that the capping formula applied by the Secretary of State, combined with the financial incentive to set a zero Council Tax increase, effectively took away any choice from local people on whether or not they wished to pay even a small increase in order to protect vital services.

 

Council recommends that:

 

·  Detailed Restructuring Plans, along with all relevant risk assessments and equality impact statements, be published as a matter of urgency to demonstrate how Council Services will be delivered in future in the light of the loss of nearly 20% of the workforce.

·  The ban on allowing an in house bid for the PACSPE contract be lifted and timescales extended in order to allow a competitive bid to be submitted by Wirral’s staff.

·  The previous terms and conditions which applied to EVR/VS applications be re-instated immediately for any future applicants.

·  Concessionary Travel for the over 60s is retained.

·  Current levels of refuse collection are maintained and no new charges are introduced.

·  In the light of the Draconian cuts to police services on Wirral, which include the loss of 325 officers and 163 police staff in this year alone, the posts of four Community Patrol Officers are restored at the cost of £110,000, using the fund for re-structuring costs, to run in tandem with the review of the Anti Social Behaviour Team.

·  The Independent Panel on Members Allowances be asked to devise a sliding scale formula equivalent to a 5% saving so that those members in receipt of the highest allowance bear the largest reduction, and the level of their public sector income as a consequence of their role as a councillor is taken into account.

·  No member be allowed to accept more than one Special Responsibility Allowance, including allowances from other public sector bodies.

 

Council notes that other major changes to the budget are contained within separate amendments in order to maximise the opportunity for all councillors to vote with their consciences.

 

 

LABOUR AMENDMENT (2) TO BUDGET CABINET MINUTE 327

 

Proposed by Councillor Moira McLaughlin

Seconded by Councillor Brian Kenny

 

Council notes that the provision of Respite Care, Intermediate Care and Home Reablement services plays a key role in the Council’s strategy for reducing the numbers of elderly and vulnerable adults who require full time residential care.

 

Council further notes that these services also play a key role in reducing unnecessary bed blocking in Wirral’s hospitals.

 

Council recognises that over time the introduction of the Personalisation agenda where individuals can choose how they spend the budgets allocated to them may have an impact on the services currently offered.

 

Council also recognises that, in line with many other authorities, it faces unprecedented levels of cuts in resources, that it is legally obliged to set a balanced budget, and that it therefore has to take action in order to reduce its expenditure to meet the limited resources available.

 

Council understands, however, that change can be very disturbing and destabilising for the elderly, for individuals with dementia, for those with learning difficulties and for those with mental health needs, and consequently for their families and carers, and that this change needs to be managed very carefully.

 

Council acknowledges the representations it has received from service users, their families and from charities experienced in this area that the Council is moving too far too fast and the consequence is growing levels of fear and confusion with the attendant risk, in some cases, that a breaking point will be triggered, leading to higher levels of demand for more costly residential care.

 

In response to these representations, and in line with the statement from the Leader of the Council that he wishes to “invest further where necessary to protect those who are most vulnerable in society,” Council recommends the priorities in the budget are re-focussed in the following way:

 

The HART service remains as an integrated in house unit

£760,000 

Mapleholme stays open in line with the recommendations made at Cabinet in November 2009, following a lengthy and detailed consultation

£800,000

The closure of Pensall, Poulton, Meadowcroft and Fernleigh is postponed for a period of at least six months in order to ensure that appropriate and quality checked alternative services are in place and service users and their families have been properly consulted and are satisfied and familiar with any alternative arrangements that have been made.

£990,000

 

In order to pay for this, Council recommends

 

Remaining Council Balances, following the implementation of the proposals in the budget and the use of £4.4m to pay for EVRs, are reduced from £6.8m to £6m, in line with the amount recommended as best practice by the District Auditor as a percentage of expenditure.

£800,000

In the light of the contribution of the Hart Service to reducing admissions to residential care, £166,000 is earmarked from the £2m allocated within the budget on page 5 to meet increasing demand for services for the elderly.

£166,000

In line with other services which are being asked in this budget to absorb £7.8m of inflationary costs, based on the current 4% increase in the consumer price index, the £400,000 allowance for inflation on the Biffa contract be removed. In order to avoid any appearance to the public of rewarding poor performance, particularly in winter weather, the Chief Officer be asked to absorb the consequences, with the suggestion that a more rigorous monitoring of the contract given past track records, and the application of penalties where standards are breached might prove helpful in this matter.

£400,000

In line with other areas where specific grant has not been replaced, the £202,000 grant for waste infrastructure be not replaced, but any essential needs be met from within existing resources of the Council or the contractor.

£202,000

 

In the light of real concerns that the implementation of the “Free after Three” parking scheme has been tested only over Christmas, when holiday shopping patterns are very different,  and may well not increase trade but simply distort shopping patterns over a longer period of time, as well as changing the competitive position of smaller shopping areas like Bebington and New Ferry where parking is still free, this initiative should be postponed until such time that a proper review of all appropriate consequences has taken place and the true cost or benefits of the scheme to Traders and the Council has been properly analysed.

£482,000

 

The Council’s new Big Society Unit be instructed to investigate how the deep cleansing of local and district shopping centres could be achieved under the principles of localism and the Big Society, by using the financial resources already available within Area Forums, or a combination of Area Forums, by recruiting willing clean up volunteers and by a rigorous enforcement by the Council and by residents and traders of current cleansing contracts.

£500,000

 

 

Council believes that these measures will not only benefit Wirral’s most vulnerable residents, but will also make transparent the level of Health Authority Grant being paid back into Social Services, against a background of £13m of resources being removed, and demonstrate that the full £4.9m of grant is being used in the proper manner, (set against the £3.4m of grant currently evident in this budget).

 

 

In conjunction with this amendment, the Council also considered a minority report which had been prepared by Councillors McLaughlin, Roberts, Salter and Kenny.

 

 

LABOUR AMENDMENT (3) TO BUDGET CABINET MINUTE 327

 

Proposed by Councillor Adrian Jones

Seconded by Councillor Ann McLachlan

 

Council demands that a full review takes place on the way in which applications for EVRs and Voluntary Severance were invited.

 

Council does not believe that it is appropriate to ask employees to take serious decisions about their future in a “last chance saloon” climate of fear, where pressure is applied to persuade people to go by telling them that any future settlements will be considerably reduced, and that a failure to reach the required number of EVRs or Voluntary Severance requests would lead to compulsory redundancies.

 

Council instructs the Employment and Appointments Committee to re-instate immediately the previous terms and conditions which applied to EVR/VS applications for any future applicants, pending the review.

 

 

LABOUR AMENDMENT (4) TO BUDGET CABINET MINUTE 327

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Foulkes

Seconded by Councillor Phil Davies

 

Council notes that information recently revealed in the Times under the Freedom of Information Act shows that Conservative Council Leaders have warned the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, that the Government’s spending cuts will have “devastating” consequences on public services and complained about the unfairness of the settlement, with many Northern Authorities faring worse than Southern Authorities.

 

Council notes that this adds to the clear condemnation of the consequences of such a savage front loading of cuts made by Liberal Democrat Council Leaders and councillors in a prior letter to the Times.

 

In the light of this information, Council calls on the Wirral Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition to join their colleagues in this protest and lobby their own Government about the unprecedented damage being caused by this savage slashing of Council resources in one year, with no time to phase in alternative ways of delivering services.

 

Council asks that this budget setting procedure be delayed until its legal limit on March 10th in order for this lobbying to take place and the full impact this budget will have on front line services to be set out clearly to Government ministers in a  last ditch attempt to prevent such damage being done to the people of Wirral.

 

 

Following the debate, and Councillor Green having replied, each amendment was put to the vote as follows:

 

Labour amendment (1) was put and lost (23:41:1).

 

Labour amendment (2) was put and lost with the Council dividing as follows:

 

For the amendment (23) - Councillors JA Crabtree, G Davies, PL Davies, WJ Davies, D Dodd, S Foulkes, P Glasman, AER Jones, B Kenny, A McArdle, ARC McLachlan, M McLaughlin, CM Meaden, D Realey, DE Roberts, J Salter, H Smith, PA Smith, WW Smith,  JV Stapleton, S Whittingham, I Williams, KJ Williams.

 

Against the amendment (41) – Councillors T Anderson, C Blakeley, E Boult, A Bridson, A Brighouse, SL Clarke, W Clements, D Elderton, GJ Ellis, G Gardiner, PN Gilchrist, JE Green, J Hale, T Harney, K Hayes, P Hayes, AC Hodson, S Holbrook, PSC Johnson, M Johnston, P Kearney, J Keeley, S Kelly, D Knowles, I Lewis, D McCubbin, D Mitchell, RK Moon, SR Mountney, S Niblock, C Povall, A Pritchard, P Reisdorf, Mrs LA Rennie, SL Rowlands, S Taylor, GCJ Watt, R Wilkins, Mrs PM Williams, S Williams and Mrs K Wood.

 

Abstention (1) – Councillor AJ Jennings

 

Labour amendment (3) was put and lost (23:41:1).

 

Labour amendment (4) was put and lost with the Council dividing as follows:

 

For the amendment (23) - Councillors JA Crabtree, G Davies, PL Davies, WJ Davies, D Dodd, S Foulkes, P Glasman, AER Jones, B Kenny, A McArdle, ARC McLachlan, M McLaughlin, CM Meaden, D Realey, DE Roberts, J Salter, H Smith, PA Smith, WW Smith,  JV Stapleton, S Whittingham, I Williams, KJ Williams.

 

Against the amendment (41) – Councillors T Anderson, C Blakeley, E Boult, A Bridson, A Brighouse, SL Clarke, W Clements, D Elderton, GJ Ellis, G Gardiner, PN Gilchrist, JE Green, J Hale, T Harney, K Hayes, P Hayes, AC Hodson, S Holbrook, PSC Johnson, M Johnston, P Kearney, J Keeley, S Kelly, D Knowles, I Lewis, D McCubbin, D Mitchell, RK Moon, SR Mountney, S Niblock, C Povall, A Pritchard, P Reisdorf, Mrs LA Rennie, SL Rowlands, S Taylor, GCJ Watt, R Wilkins, Mrs PM Williams, S Williams and Mrs K Wood.

 

Abstention (1) – Councillor AJ Jennings

 

Resolved – That it be noted that Cabinet minute 327 is therefore confirmed.

 

 

PETITION – RESPITE CARE HOMES

 

Following on from minute 102 ante, the Council voted on the amendment moved by Councillor Moon, seconded by Councillor Green in respect of the petition which the Council had received and to which Mr Donaldson had spoken regarding the proposed closure of respite care homes, as below:

 

“(1) Council recognises the deeply felt concerns of service users and their carers as the Council re-provides respite care from the independent sector. Council further recognises the good work being done by officers in contacting service users and carers and in supporting them making alternate arrangements; and instructs officers to continue these efforts to ensure a satisfactory outcome is achieved for all current users and their carers.

 

(2) Council shares the aspirations of the petitioners that care of the most vulnerable in our borough be one of the Council’s highest priorities. Council further notes that the Cabinet’s Budget recommendation makes no cuts in the overall level of support to those most vulnerable members of our community and their carers.”

 

The amendment was put and carried, with the Council dividing as follows

 

For the amendment (41) – Councillors T Anderson, C Blakeley, E Boult, A Bridson, A Brighouse, SL Clarke, W Clements, D Elderton, GJ Ellis, G Gardiner, PN Gilchrist, JE Green, J Hale, T Harney, K Hayes, P Hayes, AC Hodson, S Holbrook, PSC Johnson, M Johnston, P Kearney, J Keeley, S Kelly, D Knowles, I Lewis, D McCubbin, D Mitchell, RK Moon, SR Mountney, S Niblock, C Povall, A Pritchard, P Reisdorf, Mrs LA Rennie, SL Rowlands, S Taylor, GCJ Watt, R Wilkins, Mrs PM Williams, S Williams and Mrs K Wood.

 

Against the amendment (23) - Councillors JA Crabtree, G Davies, PL Davies, WJ Davies, D Dodd, S Foulkes, P Glasman, AER Jones, B Kenny, A McArdle, ARC McLachlan, M McLaughlin, CM Meaden, D Realey, DE Roberts, J Salter, H Smith, PA Smith, WW Smith,  JV Stapleton, S Whittingham, I Williams, KJ Williams.

 

Abstention (1) – Councillor AJ Jennings

 

Before the substantive motion was put to the vote, Councillor Foulkes moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor P Davies, that –

 

“The council stop immediately the closure of all council-run respite care homes, at least until a satisfactory alternative has been found and approved by the majority of current users and their carers. We want the care of the most vulnerable in our borough to be one of our council’s highest priorities and we do not want any cuts to the overall level of support provided to those vulnerable members of our community and their carers.

 

In January 2011 Wirral Borough Council informed all users of respite services that it will close five council-run respite homes, by the end of March 2011.
The homes provide respite for older people, people with learning disabilities, mental health issues and crisis situations. They give carers an essential break. At the end of 2010 Wirral Borough Council asked over 311,000 residents about their plans for Wirral’s future.


Less than 1% agreed with the recommendation that ‘the council should stop directly providing respite and residential care services and instead buy them in at the same quality but a lower cost from the private and voluntary sector and others’. This is no mandate for action that could have a real and lasting effect on the most vulnerable members of our community, and their families.


The council are also introducing personal assessments and budgets for these vulnerable people and have stated that as a consequence “the future of traditional Day Care Centres is extremely uncertain”.


“A society is judged by its treatment of its weakest and most vulnerable members” – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.” “

 

This amendment was put and lost, with the Council dividing as follows:

 

For the amendment (23) - Councillors JA Crabtree, G Davies, PL Davies, WJ Davies, D Dodd, S Foulkes, P Glasman, AER Jones, B Kenny, A McArdle, ARC McLachlan, M McLaughlin, CM Meaden, D Realey, DE Roberts, J Salter, H Smith, PA Smith, WW Smith,  JV Stapleton, S Whittingham, I Williams, KJ Williams.

 

Against the amendment (41) – Councillors T Anderson, C Blakeley, E Boult, A Bridson, A Brighouse, SL Clarke, W Clements, D Elderton, GJ Ellis, G Gardiner, PN Gilchrist, JE Green, J Hale, T Harney, K Hayes, P Hayes, AC Hodson, S Holbrook, PSC Johnson, M Johnston, P Kearney, J Keeley, S Kelly, D Knowles, I Lewis, D McCubbin, D Mitchell, RK Moon, SR Mountney, S Niblock, C Povall, A Pritchard, P Reisdorf, Mrs LA Rennie, SL Rowlands, S Taylor, GCJ Watt, R Wilkins, Mrs PM Williams, S Williams and Mrs K Wood.

 

Abstention (1) – Councillor AJ Jennings

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Moon, then becoming the substantive motion was put to the vote and carried, with the Council dividing as follows:

 

For the substantive motion (40) – Councillors T Anderson, C Blakeley, E Boult, A Bridson, A Brighouse, SL Clarke, W Clements, D Elderton, GJ Ellis, G Gardiner, PN Gilchrist, JE Green, J Hale, T Harney, K Hayes, P Hayes, AC Hodson, S Holbrook, PSC Johnson, M Johnston, P Kearney, J Keeley, S Kelly, D Knowles, I Lewis, D McCubbin, D Mitchell, RK Moon, SR Mountney, C Povall, A Pritchard, P Reisdorf, Mrs LA Rennie, SL Rowlands, S Taylor, GCJ Watt, R Wilkins, Mrs PM Williams, S Williams and Mrs K Wood.

 

Abstentions (3) – Councillors A Jennings, M McLaughlin and S Niblock.

 

Resolved (40:0:3) –

 

(1) Council recognises the deeply felt concerns of service users and their carers as the Council re-provides respite care from the independent sector. Council further recognises the good work being done by officers in contacting service users and carers and in supporting them making alternate arrangements; and instructs officers to continue these efforts to ensure a satisfactory outcome is achieved for all current users and their carers.

 

(2) Council shares the aspirations of the petitioners that care of the most vulnerable in our borough be one of the Council’s highest priorities. Council further notes that the Cabinet’s Budget recommendation makes no cuts in the overall level of support to those most vulnerable members of our community and their carers.

Supporting documents: