Cllr Alex Ganotis (Labour, Heatons North), Leader of the Labour Group:
Following the publication of the Executive Budgetary proposals for 2016-17 on 18th August, can the Executive Member for Support and Governance confirm that there will be no compulsory redundancies from the 140 jobs which seem set to be lost as part of the cuts which have been announced?
Cllr Iain Roberts (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle and Gatley), Deputy Leader of the Council – Support and Governance:
No.
Comment: This is very worrying news for Council staff and it is also largely Lib Dem cuts to the frontline which will have a direct impact on the quality of services in Stockport.
Cllr Dickie Davies (Labour, Davenport and Cale Green):
Cllr Holloway has frequently said that he holds the Council’s award-winning ReACH service in high esteem. 75 users access reablement services to allow them to continue to live in their own homes and on average between 5 and 15 users rely on end of life care from ReACH.
In his business case approved on 18th August Cllr Holloway decided that this was the place for £596,000 of cuts, leading to between 20 and 25 job losses.
Can the Executive Member for Supporting Adults confirm that he has already abandoned these ill-thought out proposals?
Cllr Keith Holloway (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle and Gatley), Executive Councillor – Supporting Adults:
As I am sure you will recognise and as the Leader of the Council explained very clearly, we are faced with very, very, severe financial challenges, in particular over this year, and we have plans in place that will ensure in sharp contrast to many other boroughs across Greater Manchester, we will meet our financial requirements within the year. The financial challenges next year are absolutely unprecedented.
We are putting forward proposals for continued joint working with our health service colleagues. We have hoped that through the use of the Better care Fund and a variety of other joint funding resources, we would be able to ensure that the great majority of Adult Social Care services could continue, with some cuts for sure, but that the majority of those services would continue with some very limited changes.
Recognising the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with, we now recognise that we may not be able to deliver everything that we needed for next year. On that basis, we are putting forward for consultation a variety of service changes and funding reductions.
The first opportunity where Councillors will have to look at those proposals is on Monday evening, through the Adult Social Care and Housing Scrutiny process and I am sure there will be a robust discussion at that meeting. But, that discussion must be in terms of how we generate the savings that we need in order to deliver a balanced budget for next year.
I sincerely hope that the Labour Group opposite will not be suggesting that for next year and the year after, we set an illegal, unbalanced, budget. That is not an acceptable way forward. Of course, we are supporting a much wider service and we will be doing everything we possibly can, to ensure that the very worthwhile, very valuable service can continue, but there will savings in some very well regarded, very valuable services. That is inevitable, given the scale of financial challenges that the Authority is facing.
Comment: His answer both doesn’t address the question and is a frankly ridiculous attempt at scaremongering. Labour will never set an illegal budget in Stockport, and the Executive Member knows that is the case. He is attempting to deflect from his unnecessary, arbitrary decision to cut a highly regarded service by claiming in some way that he doesn’t have a choice. Residents will see beyond that, because he does have a choice and has made it.
Cllr Sheila Bailey (Labour, Edgeley and Cheadle Heath), Shadow Spokesperson – Communities:
In the business case for Parks which was recently published there was a proposal…to reduce staffing in parks, to remove staff from some parks altogether, and to operate a kind of ‘peripatetic’ service which will travel around the borough and pop in now and again, to have a look at what’s going on.
We have tried this before and it didn’t work. So can the Executive Member explain to the Council why he thinks it is going to work this time?
Cllr Martin Candler (Liberal Democrat, Marple North), Executive Councillor – Supporting Places:
Thank you Mr Mayor. My answer is a bit like the answer that Councillor Holloway gave a bit earlier on, on other changes. We have to find a way of balancing the budget and if that means that we have to look at the staffing in parks, then so be it. The business case will be looked by the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee a week tonight, and no doubt Councillor Bailey…will ask me a similar question on that evening.
The answer is we have to look at all possible means of balancing the books. We shall consult on those proposals…widely [with] all the people who have an interest in parks, but at the end of the day, somebody who doesn’t like this suggestion has to come up with some other way of finding the money.
Unless someone in the Labour Group is going to be honest and say ‘I think it’s about time Stockport Council defied the Government and attempt to set an illegal budget’ because we don’t like any of these cuts. And we don’t like them, certainly in Councillor Bailey’s case, because we’ve tried them before and they don’t work…
My answer is that the Council is in a very, very, difficult place in terms of money. We have a set of suggestions which have come forward as a business case [which] talks about staffing in parks. We will put that business case forward and it’s going to…be consulted on and then we will go through the process.
Cllr Sheila Bailey: Can the Executive Member tell us whether the proposal, as it stands in the business case, is to remove staffing from all parks or just a selected few?
Cllr Martin Candler: It is most parks. All the parks are not in exactly the same place in terms of public usage, in terms of the facilities that are offered and my advice to the Council is that most of the parks, including the ones that are in my ward, will suffer…the loss of a member of staff. Not all the parks are at exactly the same place, so there is a bit of variability in terms of the effect.
Comment: On this occasion the Executive Member initially tries to avoid the question by unjustifiably attacking the questioner, and then later acknowledges that his own policy won’t work. Residents will ask why he is implementing a policy he knows won’t work on such an important and valuable service.
Cllr Kate Butler (Labour, Reddish North), Shadow Spokesperson – Council Refom:
Cllr Alexander, you made reference earlier to the recent Police funding formula consultation, but I would like to ask you what representations did you make to the Home Secretary on behalf of the Council, and in support of the Greater Manchester Police, ahead of the closure of the public consultation [on this topic] earlier this week?
Cllr Shan Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Marple South), Executive Councillor – Safe and Resilient Communities:
I’m not quite clear, is it what I just said about the police consultation?
Cllr Kate Butler: No, it’s about what you personally have done. What representations…have [you] made to the Home Secretary or to the Home Office on behalf of the Council in regards to the consultation, and on the plans that are coming down the line for further cuts to the police service in Greater Manchester and Stockport?
Cllr Shan Alexander: If it’s the police cuts, I have made no representations. But if it is the Courts you are talking about, we are in the process of replying to that.
Cllr Kate Butler: No, for the third time, it’s specifically about what representations you have made in your role as, let me just get the title correct, as the ‘Executive Member for Safe and Resilient Communities’.
What representations you have made to the Home Office, not necessarily to the Home Secretary, but what representations you have made on behalf of this Council and the people of Stockport, in light of [changes to] the police funding formula and the further police cuts that we know are on the way.
Cllr Shan Alexander: Mr Mayor, I have answered the question twice. We feed into Greater Manchester. I haven’t personally made any representations.
Cllr Kate Butler: So my second question is, in light of your answer that you haven’t actually made any representations on behalf of Stockport, do you think that is good enough in light of the fact that since 2010 Greater Manchester Police has lost more than 1,500 Police Officers?
120 officers have been lost to Stockport’s policing division alone and this is at a time of rising crime. So…do you think it’s good enough that you haven’t made any representations to the Home Office?
Cllr Shan Alexander: Mr Mayor, the cuts for Stockport is not specifically given in any of the meetings I attend, but we do work in partnership and we work as Greater Manchester through Manchester and that’s where any information or any input will go into.
Comment: This exchange illustrates the staggering lack of proactivity which the Lib Dem Executive demonstrates in Stockport. It is clear from her response that the thought of standing up for local policing hasn’t even occurred to Cllr Alexander.
Cllr Colin Foster (Labour, Heatons South), Shadow Spokesperson – Children and Education:
The Executive approved a plan on 18th August to cut more than 60 jobs from Stockport’s Family Service, and the impact of these proposals is likely to be a reduction in support for young people across the borough.
Can the Executive Member for Supporting Children tell us how she is planning on ensuring that these potentially devastating cuts don’t undermine the goal of focusing on prevention and easily accessible support for families in need of intervention from the Council?
Cllr Wendy Meikle (Liberal Democrat, Offerton), Executive Councillor – Supporting Children:
This is part of the business case. We are looking at reducing 60 members of staff; to put it into context that is out of 416. It’s rather a lot but there are new ways of working – we have got totally new structures…we’ve got different teams in four localities and they will be able to draw on a wider range of services. We are taking out duplication…[and] taking out any excess roles.
The full business case will be at scrutiny on Wednesday, where I am sure it will be scrutinised, pulled apart and looked at. All the statutory provision will be there, we are not taking anything out that we have to leave in…and at this stage we are still in consultation Councillor Foster.
As for keeping young people safe in Stockport, I’ve got every confidence in the integrated service, and the supporting family structure where we have got an extra £3.2m from the Innovation Fund to work alongside the supporting families, [so] that no child will be at risk in Stockport.
Cllr Colin Foster: Thank you for that response, though it didn’t talk about supporting young people. Is it not true that at the last Scrutiny Committee that you reported that there was a £340,000 surplus on the Services to Young People budget and that this was overwhelmingly, if not all, vacancies within that particular service?
How can that service be at that level when it has been cut by something in the region of £2.5 million over the last three and a half years? Can you give us any indication as to where services for young people are will be consequent to the cuts of 60 further members of staff?
Cllr Wendy Meikle: Councillor Foster, the business case will go to scrutiny on Wednesday. I can’t give you a full answer on the question you are asking me at the moment. If you want me to look into it and supply all Council members with a written answer, I am quite willing to do that.
Comment: This is the single biggest loss of staff in any of the proposals and will have a direct impact on frontline family services across the borough. This creates a great deal of uncertainty for families across Stockport who highly value the work of these award-winning staff.