Issue - meetings

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

The Leader was handed a petition in relation to the proposed closure of the Haven day-care centre. In accordance with committee standing order 31.1 this was recorded as received and a response due at the next ordinary meeting of the Cabinet in March.

There had been a total of seven deputations received, six in relation to agenda item 7[Corporate Planning 2015-18] and one in relation to agenda item 11[423 West Green Road, Red House]. 

Unison – Deputation 1

The Leader invited UNISON spokesperson Chris Taylor to address the Cabinet. 

Chris Taylor put forward his deputation on behalf of the joint trade unions and set out the reasons for Cabinet not taking forward the proposed budget reductions contained in the Corporate Planning report. He asked the Cabinet to consider the impact of the budget reductions on vulnerable adults, on day care centres, support to families, young people and stressed that the savings would impact most on the vulnerable and marginalised.

The Unions asked how communities could recover from these reductions with decreased numbers of council staff providing local services. The Unions felt that there was an alternative; the council could set a one year budget and give regard to a potential change in government which may provide a change in budget allocations to local authorities. Alternatives put forward, were cutting spend on consultants, making further use of the council’s reserves and discontinuing partnership working with private organisations.

Councillor Kober, the Leader of the Council, responded to the issues raised and made clear that no one in the council wanted to be in this position of needing to make £70m budget savings. It was important to keep in mind that the council had already made £117m  in  cuts over the last 4 years  through making efficiencies and  protecting Frontline services  but options were limited  now in how the £70m budget savings could be achieved.  It was important to remember that the coalition government had promised to complete the budget reductions in 4 years but this had not happened and local government was continuing to face the brunt of decreased funding.

 In response to the option of setting a one year budget as opposed to a three year budget, there were no signs that the government funding situation would change in the next year. All the major parties were signed up to continuing to reduce the budget deficit .Labour had indicated that they would change the funding formulae for the New Homes Bonus and this had been analysed as benefiting Northern metropolitan towns and reducing funding for London boroughs.

It was important to have a clear and open three year budget for consultation and engagement with staff, residents and partners instead of one year budget where the council would be forced to salami slice services year on year.

In response to avoiding the budget reductions, the council could not set an illegal budget as there was provision in the law for the section 151 officer to step in and compile a budget on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 818