PRESS RELEASE FROM NORTH TYNESIDE LABOUR GROUP
Subject: Council budget meeting adjourned
Tories find budget meeting a question too far
Last night’s meeting of North Tyneside Council to discuss the Mayor’s final budget before May’s Mayoral election descended into scenes of chaos as the Cabinet member in charge of Finance, Judith Wallace in some cases refused to answer questions about the impact of the budget which was packed with fees and charges increases and budget cuts.
The Mayor revealed her budget which cut services to the most vulnerable by more than £2.4m and included inflation busting increases in charges for services such as burials and cremations, meals on wheels, school meals, access to leisure centres, cost to use libraries, rents for allotments and council owned site’s.
When questioned about the likely impact of the budget, Councillor Wallace refused to answer questions and said she would respond in writing. Mayor Arkley sat silent throughout the whole meeting.
Councillor Norma Redfearn, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group said
‘This budget contains some life changing decisions for residents of North Tyneside but neither the Mayor nor Councillor Wallace was prepared to answer any questions. The people of North Tyneside deserve better from their leaders. The Mayor has run out of steam and she won’t even defend her own budget. She’s broken promise after promise and has increased the council debt by £191m in 5 years despite promising to reduce it. She needs to answer the questions about the impact of her budget on North Tyneside’.
Notes to Editors: For detail please see attached questions for Full Council which contain detailed costings and impact.
Possible Questions for Council Budget Meeting.
1. Council plan and sustainable community strategy what is the linkage and where are they considered as outlined in the linkage of the strategy and the council plan? Jim Allan
2. What Plan has been used for constructing the budget for 2013/14? Is it the existing plan as agreed on by two thirds of the council on 1st March 2012? Or is it the sustainable community strategy agreed by council in the summer of 2010 and which expires in 2013? Jim Allan
3. If it is the Sustainable Community strategy of 2010, is it sensible that we draft a budget on a strategy that only has a few months left in its life? Especially where there is a substantial risk that the Council will not agree a new strategy it has had no part in? What is the view of the statutory Officers if that is the case and the Council Plan has been ignored against the democratic numbers within the council chamber? Can we have any evidence where the cabinet or Council Officers have considered the council plan in preparing the Cabinet Budget proposals, as referred to in the Cabinet Report issued on 26th November 2012. Jim Allan
4. Can it be confirmed what status the Council Plan has within the organisation of the Authority?
5. Article Four of the Council’s Constitution explains publicly the role of Full Council? And the Financial regulations explain the role of full council as copied below –
There is clear messages on how the council is involved in approving the policy framework and budget. The Financial Regulations further state
So in terms of dealing with a proposal that deals simply with a financial set of figures where does the policy framework fit into the process and how can the Council Plan be omitted from the decisions of council? Jim Allan
Questions from Bruce Pickard to be confirmed
Questions from Ray Glindon’s Team
1. Is the Mayor happy with the settlement she received from her government and did she make any representations to the government for year on year underfunding of council services?
2. Can she give evidence to the council of any representation that she made?
3. Why did she not make any representation?
4. The Mayor has run down the amount of money held in reserves, from a record level when she came into office. We see from this proposed budget that the accounts are being subsidised again from the use of reserves. Is the Mayor happy that she is running the reserves to a dangerous level?
5. The orders from central government are for councils to use their reserves to fund the shortfall of money coming from her government. She should know that reserves are kept for the unexpected, so if a major issue arose that the council had to fund where would the Mayor get the money from?
6. Does the Mayor agree that by freezing the council tax at zero % this is only storing up lack of spending issues for future years. The time will come when just to run basic services either she or any future mayor will have serious issues in being able to carry out these services for the people of North Tyneside.?
7. We know that your government are subsidising the freeze on council tax, but these are one off payments which are at the discretion of the Secretary of State We actually agree that everything must be done to assist the people of North Tyneside especially with the way that they are being hit, with the changes to benefits and the council tax. Does the mayor agree that her government are building up problems for a future date and building up a war chest for the next general election when they would hope to fund councils at a decent level to try to get votes?
8. On the capital plan the mayor has constantly borrowed throughout this financial year to fund the plan. How much will the mayor be borrowing this year if her projected sales of council land do not go through. ?
9. There is only so much borrowing that a council can do and we now are very much near that limit, how will the mayor carry out her proposals for the capital plan when that limit is reached, and does she agree that with all of this borrowing and the revenue costs for paying it back that she is probably putting at risk the funding for essential council services.?
10. With the result of the new benefits payments in April and the number of job losses being announced on a daily basis, is the mayor worried about residents being unable to pay their council tax, therefore reducing the amount of income coming into the council.?
11. What proposals has the mayor built into her budget to counteract this and if she has built this into her proposals what is the amount of money that she has built in.?
12. Also if people do fall behind with their council tax through no fault of their own, what help will the mayor give to these people, or will she insist that the bailiffs are sent straight in.?
13. We see that the mayor is again refusing to take £10k cut in her salary even though she now receives a sum of money from other regional duties that she carries out. Will the mayor now reconsider this in the light of announcements from her government about welfare reform which will cut income to the most needy of this borough?
14. if she says that councillors have not taken a cut in our allowance The difference is that we are paid an allowance, which in most cases works out at about £1-20 per hour yours is an attractive salary which we think is overpaid for the duties that you carry out. Also if the mayor wanted to reduce councillor allowances it was up to her to reflect that in her proposals
Questions from Martin Rankin
6. Can the Cabinet Member explain where are the proposals for Treasury Management and the decisions for levels of virement in the process?
7. Could the Cabinet member explain how they are managing the shortfall in capital receipts this year and what plans do they have for next year?
8. Have the Cabinet considered the impact of the withdrawal of the subsidy for 0% council tax levels? And could we have a copy of the information that they have considered.
9. What areas of work are currently being undertaken for further outsourcing and/or shared working and who is involved in that work?
Questions from Steve Cox’s Team
Capital Plan Questions
Swan Hunters Redevelopment page 139 onwards.
1. Can the Relevant Cabinet member explain to council that on Page 140 says “incredibly tight deadlines” Yet on page 142 says £9M of funding is awaiting approval. Has this been given yet? Or is this a case of George Osborne’s cuts to funding and continual dithering with reviews and lack of a clear plan for the economy?
2. I would like the cabinet member to also explain on Page 141 paragraph 2 states business “must be on site by March 2015 to benefit from Enterprise Zone funding” who in the Cabinet is going to take the responsibility for leading this project forward and delivering it? Given the amount of time this site has been empty and the importance of the redevelopment to Wallsend and North Tyneside as a whole is the Cabinet member confident enough the timescale will be met to give us their personal assurance of that?
3. Would the Cabinet Member also be able to confirm that the opportunities for employment on the North Bank of the Tyne
4. Can the Cabinet Member explain to council Page 153 says the building and construction will cost £4.85M this year but again £2.7M of funding is not yet approved and a decision is not expected till April 2013?
5. Are there specific plans in place if this funding is not forthcoming or will this just a case of more debt? Which Cabinet member is going to take the responsibility for ensuring this vital project goes ahead and is delivered on time and in budget?
6. Can the relevant Cabinet member explain that on Page 165, there is a list of locations that are in need of flood prevention works that need doing in all areas of the North Tyneside. Each one of these are very important and have a dramatic impact on local residents. However there is no mention of timescales to deal with these? Can the Cabinet member tell us how many of these projects will be done this year? Is the cabinet member who is responsible for this work confident enough in their plan to assure residents they will not suffer the problems they have in the past?
Joan Walker’s Team Adult social care
Locality commissioned independent Supported Living Services - £500,000 A18 page 274
1. How can the massive cuts planned of £500,000 not result in 163 people with learning disabilities being put at risk? These 163 people are some of our most disadvantaged people in NT, relying upon support provided by Adult Social Care, to ensure they can continue to live independently in their own homes. These cuts to essential services will result in our most needy residents depending more and more on family members to replace the lost care. How will the Cabinet Member ensure the quality of care received by people is maintained despite the cuts?
Supplementary
The lost services will mean overnight care will be replaced by technical gadgets, individual care will be reduced as staff are allocated across other services, and shared hours will be used to support people in groups, instead of delivering specialist individual care previously funded. Again how can these cuts guarantee quality of care is not reduced?
Redefining Housing Related Support for vulnerable people - £500,000 + £625,000 = £1.13m A19 +A31 pages 280 - 291
1. Yet again there are massive cuts of over £1 million planned, targeted at our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents. This time housing related support services are being savagely cut despite the loss of funding last year of £3.04m, and the enormous savings made. Again our helpless residents will inevitably suffer hardship, as services are decommissioned, cut in other words, and the support given to provide independent living will be thrown out. The residents who will suffer under these cuts are some of our most powerless residents; frail and elderly people, people with learning disabilities and mental health problems, and those with sensory and physical disabilities, such blindness. In addition funding for housing related support services will be cut for homeless people, teenage parents, young people at risk and people with substance misuse.
Again how can the Cabinet Member justify these cuts bearing in mind the overwhelming hardship people will suffer as a direct result of the lack of housing related support?
Supplementary
The results of these will mean, more people sleeping rough on the streets of NT, increased use of drugs and alcohol as users relapse and increased crime as people seek other ways of filling the gap left by the cuts. How will all these problems be dealt with?
Business case A19 &A31 –Redesigning Housing Related Support Services for Vulnerable People.
Reduction of A19 - £505K A31 - £625k
2. Can the Cabinet member for Adult Social Care please explain the rationale behind this administrations’ decision to bring forward the efficiency savings of £285k from 2014/15 on top of the other savings that this service will have to endure, bringing it to a total of £1.13M, when he very well knows their impact will be felt by those on the bottom rung of our community. These are the very groups identified by the coalition Govt, the DoH and the Marmot report as being the key groups in need of support and is indeed all the more surprising just as this authority is about to inherit responsibility for Public Health as these categories fall under the social determinants of ill health?
3. Supplementary Question
A19 &A31
In the same business case it is put forward that the authority now completely decommission the crisis response for those very vulnerable individuals with a physical disability because of previously unidentified problems with a property. Can the cabinet member tell me what this problem was and why it was left unreported, could it not be addressed by some of the £258k allocated to Adult Social Care under its repair fund, which they are now seeking to scrap under business case A22?
Review Personalisation staffing structures - £250,000 A23 pages 308 -314
1. 44 service users of mental health and learning disability care with complex needs will be affected by the loss of 9 support workers when cuts are made of £150,000. There will be a loss for older people needing psychiatric care and also support for people of working age. These 44 service users rely heavily upon these highly specialised services and have built up good relations with their support workers.
If these post are cut what steps has the Cabinet Member taken to overcome these losses and maintain independence for service users?
Integration of Reablement - £193,000 A26 pages 332 -341
1. The planned savings of £193,000 are again staff cuts and the loss of highly experienced and dedicated staff within the learning disabilities and mental health reablement teams. The loss of 4 managers and 3 support workers will mean 61 service users with complex and profound multiple learning disabilities will suffer badly when their well trusted support workers are no longer there to care, and the managers who have built up long standing relationships and know their clients well, are lost.
Does the Cabinet member really think this is the best we can do with such dependent residents?
Review in house Learning Disability Short Breaks- £142,000 A25 pages 324 -331
1. What protection will be given to provide high quality short breaks for vulnerable residents with learning disabilities if the 13 beds for respite care is halved down to 6 to provide a saving of £93,000 or if instead an external provider is used what guarantees can be given to provide care within the borough of NT. Whilst respite care allows families and carers a welcome break from caring for their loved ones and the allocation of beds is often full over holidays, there has been a number of criticisms from families/carers.
If the provision of high quality short break care is removed this can lead to families requesting full time residential care at a higher cost?
What guarantees can the Cabinet provide to ensure that the cut in funding will not result in a reduction in short breaks availability within the borough, for carers.?
Supplementary
In addition consultations for alternative care to include holiday breaks for clients will be introduced following consultations, so that when a family goes on holiday they know their loved one is also able to go on holiday as part of their short break respite care?
Review charges for extra care housing - £25,000 A24 pages 318 -323 Linda Darke to ask the question
1. I have had several residents of Rowan Croft Extra care home in Killingworth contact me recently who are very concerned about a couple of meetings which have been held in the last couple of weeks at Rowan Croft where a consultation exercise was carried out. These residents and others are very worried indeed they may to have pay a Wellbeing payment of 25 pounds per week.
This is on top of payments they already pay. Further question. If this wellbeing payment does go ahead how many flats do you envisage remaining empty and indeed becoming empty when people who need this type of extra care are priced out of the market?
Maximum spend Framework - £100,000 A21 pages 298 -302
1. The introduction of a maximum limit for care packages will be harmful to some of our most vulnerable young adults with learning and physical disabilities already settled with their own families or living independently in their own home.
If this limit is brought in this will force many young adults into accepting residential care simply because this is cheaper or it may force a reduction in care quality by having to accept a cheaper package. An alternative would be to assess each young adult as an individual to assess correctly the care needed and not to have an upper limit.
Can this alternative be accepted to ensure poor care is not made.?
Business Cases A28 & A33 – Welfare Reform Administration & Call Handling and One Gateway
Projected Savings of £215k split over 2 cost centres.
1. Can the cabinet member explain how this authority had spare capacity to take this admin work on with existing resources from the DWP and is now shown as an efficiency saving of £151k? Can he also explain the rationale behind the ‘top slicing’ of the incoming budget by £64k, given that this client group is recognised as vulnerable and can he also outline what the existing services are that will generate the saving?
Supplementary Question
I note the cost savings of £100k are projected forward into 2014/15 under A28 but can the cabinet member explain which cost centre the extra £38,832K shown under the funding on page 348 is for?
I am also interested to know how the model is based on a 2 tier system but it refers to a 3rd tier system on page 349, is this because it is discretionary and therefore there is no intention by this authority to provide the service going forward?
Public Health - £990,000 A14 and A31 pages 258 -259 : £240.000 A14 + £750,000 A34
1. There is a danger the public health budget will be used to cover up the cuts made by other departments which are then charged to public health.
Can the Cabinet Member inform council what safeguards are to be put in place to prevent this and use the budget for its intended purpose to prevent ill health, reduce inequalities and improve the health of residents.
Supplementary
Can the Cabinet member explain how will services for children and young people be maintained given the expected reduction in staff of 10 full time equivalent posts costing £240,000?
CYPL section of the budget.
Question to the Lead Member, Children Young People & Learning –
1. Can the Mayor confirm if an assessment has been made on the impact of the withdrawal of the Education Allowance for 16 – 18 year olds?
2. What plans are there in the budget for the introduction of the school leaving age rising this year to 17?
3. Can the Cabinet member inform Council if any monies have been allocated for Priory Primary School in the coming financial year?
4. Can he provide details of the £160,000 reduction in Prevention and Early Intervention.
5. What will be the effect on the structure of this service, will there be more staff, or less delivering this service?
6. Will there be further delays, longer that those currently being experienced in providing statements for children with special educational needs prior to or at entry to primary school, given that this can have a dramatic effect on their early education?
A1 Catering Services Schools. Learning and skills
1. How many residents will be affected by the 3 times inflation rise in the charge for the cost of a lunch from the meals on wheels service?
2. Possible supplementary
Q How can the 8.47% increase be justified when school meals are only going up 2.5% ( in line with inflation) and childcare costs increase of 2.5% increase as well. Is this not an unfair attack on the most vulnerable in our society? Those who are not able to cook for themselves?
3. Q How can a 20% increase over 2 years in meals on wheels service be justified?
A3 Integrated disability and additional needs service
1. Could the Lead Member give some examples of the type of sharing of resources and provision that will take place to save £30,000?
A6 Catering
1. How many pupils will be pupils will be affected by the removal of the subsidy for the milk and fruit scheme in key stage 2 and how many Special Schools pupils will now no longer get the breakfast offer because of the decision taken in last year’s budget?
A15 Commissioning & Fair Access
1. How will the review of PFI model generate £250,000 of savings?
A16 CYPL Wide
1. Could the Lead member give Council some more details in fact because of the proposed saving of £650,000 is Full Council not entitled to a lot more detail with such a significant figure in the budget proposal?
A17 Preventative and Safeguarding
1. Does the Lead Member not agree with me that the reduction in adoption allowances will significantly disadvantage those families taking on children and might it also have an impact on the Councils ability to place children in families?
Community Services
1. he Community services committee should also pick up the Marden Bridge reduction in funding.
1. Why are we increasing the fee for the 10k road race? would this not be detrimental to people partaking? are we not trying to promote participation in sport and also lose much needed business to area. Also, promoting the area to the region and further.?
2. The same with the mouth of the Tyne festival who many visitors may not attend and has an assessment been done in regards to possible loss of business.?
Under b14/b15 page 447
A25 short breaks
Under b14/b15 page 447
A25 short breaks
1. Can the Cabinet Member explain that if the proposal is to cut the respite facility by losing 7 places from 13 available how will the need for respite be managed?
2. Has the Cabinet Member considered the impact on families who live in small family houses who have other children there will be no room for carers to do waking shifts or night shifts, Short break is designed to give the whole family a break but this would not happen Service users with challenging behaviour may find hard to adjust to a new regime of not going to respite.?
3. Can the Cabinet member advise council if there are any plans to place Service users, with PLD (profound learning difficulties) in elderly care homes as this has taken place in past, as no respite available, consultation may of taken place but I know families who are very unhappy and worried that they have not been consulted, have written to the mayor but have had no reply. Is this just a case of the most vulnerable in our society paying for austerity under the umbrella of personal choice?
4. Who is going to pay for the holidays when the family go away and the service user stays behind with carers, or vice versa?
5. The proposed scheme looks good on paper if you have a stable family background and you do not need higher needs or one to one two to one, able to adapt to change. But can the Cabinet Member tell me if there has been consultation with the clients and their families? and what has been their response to the proposals?
