The Constituency Manager presented a report by the Head of Neighbourhoods and Engagement.  The report informed that a function of the Committee was to develop and agree a Constituency Plan for the area.  It was the intention that such a Plan would draw on robust data, including feedback from previous consultations and the knowledge, expertise and experience of all Ward Members, partners and community groups as well as Constituency Committee Members.

The Committee noted that the proposed operating model and the funding allocation of £50k for each Constituency Committee had been set out in a report to the Cabinet on 23 May 2013.  Also, on 10 October 2013 the Cabinet had received a report which had informed it that a further amount of £25k would be devolved to each Constituency Committee for Public Health initiatives from a non-recurrent underspend identified within the public health grant for 2013-15.  As a result, the Committee was being asked to determine expenditure in relation to a total of £75k by the end of the 2013-14 Financial Year.

The report set out considerations for the Committee and proposed an approach to identifying priorities for the remainder of 2013-14 and for developing a budget expenditure process in respect of the monies that had been allocated to it.

The Committee noted that there were a lot of needs in the Constituency area to consider including alcohol dependency, life expectancies and child poverty.  The Birkenhead Profile identifying priorities for Birkenhead 2013/14 was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and it was acknowledged that there was both limited data and funds available to the Committee.  Members considered that it may not be possible to make much impact this year but it could begin to consider community needs.  The ‘Suggested Priorities for Budget Distribution in Birkenhead 2013/14’ as collated based on the data, profile and consultation taken place was attached to the report at Appendix 2.

It was reported that a Members’ Workshop held in July 2013 had recognised that these issues were still valid although some of the detail may have changed.  The Committee was informed that the Constituency Manager had explored and discussed these issues further with local groups, Members, Council Services and partners.

The Committee was asked to consider what could be tackled with the resources available.  Members commented as follows:

·  Resources had been allocated to ‘The Love Wirral’ initiative which would run for twelve months and was an opportunity to put forward ideas to improve local environments which may result in a grant being made to bring them to fruition;

·  It was hoped that funding could be attracted from other areas and it was queried whether these areas were ambitious enough;

·  The £50k each Constituency Committee had been allocated was referred to as ‘seed corn’ and the expectation was that other agencies would add to it.  A question was asked on the representations the Council had made to other agencies for financial contributions.  It was noted that Officers were working with the Public Services Board and the next stage in development was to be successful in encouraging other public sector bodies to provide some funding.

·  It was important for the Committee to ‘kick-start’ against local priorities but some where one-offs and concern was raised over missed opportunities.

·  It was queried whether it would be possible to carry funding over into the next Financial Year.

·  There were large numbers of young people not in employment or training (NEETS) in the Birkenhead Constituency, compared to the others there was at least double. 

·  Older people on low incomes should be classed as a priority and it was noted that in fact it came under the second priority detailed in the report.

·  It would be disappointing if the Committee was unable to make any significant improvements from any small funding allocations it may make.  It was considered that as Members were familiar with issues and understood the needs in their own wards, it was proposed that a small Task and Finish Group be set up to give full consideration to this and recommends the best approach to the Committee.

·  As well as paying attention to what people and organisations in the Constituency area had said it was important to understand the data provided.

·  The only priority that could be linked was the problem of rubbish being deposited in alleyways, vacant land/shops.  The value of the Council’s Waste Contract was quite considerable yet parts of Birkenhead looked like the third world.  Why was effective tidying up not included in the Contract?  This needed to be addressed.  Was the Contract in practice a good bargain?

·  The way the Council allocated its resources did not result in life chances changing.  It was imperative that interventions were made at the beginning of life.

·  Schools could tell when children were 10 and 11 years old that they would end up as NEETS so why did the Council not do something about it?  Some funding should be used to prophesise who would become NEETS.

·  Organisations were being asked to submit proposals against Appendix 3 to the report (Financial Protocol).  The Committee was not asking Organisations to focus on what it wanted them to focus on.  They were focusing on what they wanted to focus on.

·  Instead of asking for off the shelf initiatives the Committee needed a process which identified its priorities.  Before deciding how to spend next year’s £75k, priorities must have been decided and the process agreed.

·  If this year’s £75k could not be used it must not be wasted.

·  It was necessary to get at the root cause of what made Birkenhead a uniquely bad place to live.  Poverty had a common link.  Time must be found to make the case for what made Birkenhead, Birkenhead.

·  Birkenhead people did not always receive free newspapers and there were many different languages spoken.  Communication issues must be tackled.

The Strategic Director for Transformation and Resources was in attendance at the meeting and informed that the Committee’s budget could roll over.  A way forward would be to commit funding for proposals that the Committee may make.

The Committee noted that, alternatively, it could open its own bank account and put the £75k into it.  The Committee could make a difference and would spend its budget, whatever its size, much more effectively.  The Members of the Committee were representatives, not delegates, elected to use their judgements.  The Council was providing a terrific opportunity to the four Wirral Constituencies, not just to think outside the box but to break the box open. 

A Member proposed that the Committee could agree to allocate a relatively small proportion of its funding to obtain some quick wins around environmental issues and to pay for a post graduate to drill down through the data to establish why thing were the way they were and the other three Constituency Committees be asked to make a similar contribution.  These were practical steps to take to make a difference immediately.

In the longer term, the Member proposed that there be a debate around health and the NEETS and a Task and Finish Group be set up to look at this and how the Committee could use the rest of its resources, rolling it over if it was considered necessary.

Another Member proposed that linked to the previous proposals the Committee obtain a yard stick to judge the Council’s bigger contracts and to give local people the chance to work.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the report be noted; and

(2)  a task and finish group be established to determine the priorities and proposals for spend in relation to environmental issues, data collection and improved communication.