Liverpool council budget cuts options - pain across the board
I spent this afternoon reading through the list of options put forward by Liverpool council to meet the £50m blackhole in its budget for next year.
I tweeted the items that caught my attention under #cutsoptions.
What you have is a set of options for £90m-plus that are going to deliver pain to all kinds of communities across the city.
Try explaining to families why you've cut free school milks for their kids and school uniform grants but kept a similar amount in the budget to fund the Mathew Street Festival.
Solve both those problems by telling 2,000 people with 'substantial' care needs that you will no longer provide them a service, instead you will concentrate on 'critical' needs only.
Or keep that and scrap regeneration agency Liverpool Vision (that leads strategic investment) instead.
Or how about stop funding arts and cultural organisations, or cutting funding to the voluntary sector by 50%.
Anyone fancy fortnightly bin collections to help save £1.5m?
These are just a glimpse of the tough decisions that are on the table. Click HERE to read the full list.
Many of the savings are "efficiencies", but not even all those are pain free.
Of course not all the items that raise eyebrows will be implemented, but some will.
Expect there to be lots of lobbying by some groups over the next few weeks. Some people working in areas potentially affected have a more uncertain future tonight.
No wonder Joe Anderson says he can't sleep at night.
17 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
I suppose the tragic thing is that cuts that hurt have to come out of the revenue budget while there are monies being spent in the capital budget that really dont need doing and that the money can not be transferred over.
Mathew street festival is good and it brings in money to local business' but if the cost of it means that we are pulling school milk and shutting Sure Start centres to pay for it then it is a no brainer. I am not sure where the money quoted by the council actually goes. Keep it but pull the council funding and pass it over to the business'.
LIverpool Vision needs to go. It is too expensive and in these times we can not fund it. It is said it brings in jobs but who is to say the jobs would not have come anyway.
A lot of the council's business is done by the contract with LDL. Anyone looking for council savings coming from here would be disappointed.
There was one area that the council suggested stopping which was undertaken by LDL but this saving was down as a 'transferred to other business' rather than any money saved. Another saving by reduced IT support had no figure against it and was a TBA so not something to hold ones breath on.
If this excercise is to inevitably lead to less people, then there will be less PC's in use and a figure for savings on PC support is not mentioned at all.
If the Chief Exec of LDL is also a member of LCC's senior mangement then he does not seem to be getting into the spirit of this and instead looking for LDL to do less for the same money.
If LCC pay him to be part of the senior management team ( in addition to the pay he receives from his other 3 external jobs) , then stopping his wage and returning him to LDL could maybe be LDL's contribution.
I know there is a signed contract but do we not also have a contract for emptying the bins and that is in the list as an option for cost cutting.
Sorry to change the subject but is anyone in the know about the documentary that was filmed about the Lib Dem GE campaign in 2010, amusingly called "Winning Wavertree"?
I think you blogged about it a while ago, David, but no news since.
I know Tom Morrison said it was in post-production on his now defunct blogsite, but that was about a year ago, andf all reference has been removed to it elsewhere. Any news?
Perhaps the reason the savings in reduced IT support are not quantified is because they do not know what they are actually paying for services like this.
Or am I inappropriately shoehorning the shortcomings of LDL into the discussion again?
Not at all shoehorning Katie.
Their track record has not been good when it comes to dipping hands into the sweetie jar when attention is diverted. Now when the doctor has apparently got a job in the sweet shop it is a job that someone needs to do.
Once upon a time Joe Anderson did a good job of this but no more and I have not seen anyone else step up to the plate.
Thanks for the reassurance.
As for people stepping up to the plate - or not, as in this case, I thought that was the purpose of Select Committees - like Finance and Resources.
They're meant to hold the Cabinet and officers to account, but spend time rubber stamping things like HR policy documents(equality and diversity, workforce strategy, etc.) and noting decisions about fountains etc. instead of looking at the progress made on reforming LDL governance, improving transparency and, above all, benchmarking the costs of the services and goods LDL provides. This stuff isn't even in their work programme, although if ever there was an opportunity to claw back significant amounts of money, LDL is surely it.
At the next F&R meeting, there will be the usual performance reports from the Revenus Service and Benefits Service - and if they're anything like last time, they'll be full of LDL PR stuff (award-winning, innovative, biggest in the country..... etc etc.. the same report every time with the odd sentence added, and new figures in the tables) and the officers responsible will not even be there to answer questions (the "protocol", apparently). the only money they will mention is what they've collected or distributed on behalf of the Council. All well and good, but when are they actually going to get someone from LDL to present clear breakdowns of the actual cost of the services and goods they provide - with the benchmarking specified in the contract - and present it in the flesh, so they can explain and answer questions. But at least they meet, which is more than can be said about the LDL Scrutiny Panel - no meetings since they rubber stamped the contract refresh in June, and none scheduled.
All this would be shocking at any time, but with the cuts that the council is having to make, it's appalling and inexplicable.
Call me a bore if you like, but I'm going to keep going on about this LDL business at every available opportunity until we get some proper information and LCC actually start doing something about it. And judging from some recent FOIA requests on whatdotheyknow.com, other people feel the same.
Please do keep on going on about LDL Katie - lots of people are out there willing you on. It is probably the most corrupt contract in the public sector (and that's saying an awful lot when you think about it) and the fact that Joe Anderson is gleefully celebrating it with the dirty doctor, says more about anderson and his integrity than all of the 'sleepless' nights he has spent on the cuts.
if it wasnt for people like Katie no-one would know the extent and cost of this corrupt contract.
Katie, the F&F committee is there for you to ask questions at. Questions that must be taken. Questions that must be addressed. If you dont come and ask them at the committee, or send them in to the clerk in writing instead if you prefer, but continue to ask them instead on the blog of a journalist at the Daily Post, you must not be surprised if you are not getting very far with answers.
There is a system for members of the public to hold the Cabinet members to account, it is your opportunity. I am not sure about your other comments which seem to reflect a meeting other than the one I chaired - and certainly the Director of Revenues and of Benefits were both there to talk to the two reports I asked of them. So I wont rise to any of that.
Thanks
It is good that Louise communicates. The problem with the committee is that you can ask a question and you will get words back, lots of words or even lots of words but words nevertheless.
If one was to turn up and ask whether there was a conflict of interest with the doctor then the answer, unwrapped from the words, would be ‘no’. which would not be a truth.
It is not the stated ‘holding to account’.
No one from the electorate sees it that way and, even if the ‘bestest’ of words were used, that would not change.
In any business to business transaction the seller is duty bound to get the best deal possible for their employer and the buyer is bound to get the best deal possible for their’s as it should be.
With the cuts it was the first test of the ‘two hats’ doctor as to which hat would be worn or whether it would be both with him being employed by BT and at the same time sitting at LCC’s top table..
The list of cuts offered up with nothing from LDL says only one.
If one was to look for the top 3 local/national news events of the last year or so then this would not be amongt them but there is a similarity in-so-much as they did not come about by saying ‘Well the question was asked, the answer was given and that was it’.
Hi Louise,
You're missing the point about why I write all the stuff I do on this blog.
The point is not that I could raise things at F&R meetings, although I did actually try to do this, once (and maybe I'm a wimp, but I found the formality and environment intimidating and frustrating - they're not exactly debates, are they?).
But the real point is that members of the public should't have to ask these questions - at the Committee or anywhere else. You (and your colleagues) should be asking them. And you're not. Why don't you?
Do you know the explanations for all the things I raise? Things which anyone looking at the information in the public domain would want to know. Things which we, as Liverpool residents, council tax payers and stakeholders in LCC and its ventures, are entitled to know. Because if you do, then please share them. Without all the caveats about commercial confidentiality - which sounds like standard big-business bullying, and is in any event overriden by the public interest.
You may well think a blog is not the place to discuss this stuff, but there really is no alternative. It's not as if the LDL Scrutiny Panel has really met since the last time it tried to do a bit of actual scrutinising and heads rolled among officers as a result. And there wasn't any public consultation about the LDL contract refresh, was there?
Please don't take this as a personal attack. I admire the fact that you will engage with me and the other people who read and comment on this blog, which is more than anyone else will. And it is obvious that you are sincere and hard-working, doing something I think is underpaid and pretty thankless.
But you and your colleages really need to understand that you have to explain what on earth you're doing, and why. It is not going to go away.
Finally, the platitudinous LDL report, complete with mention of the "protocol" whereby no-one had to come and answer questions, was not made to your committee, but to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 18 August 2011. Apologies for attributing it to F&R.
I would certainly agree that Scrutiny Committees are not really debating events, for the public, although councillor members of the committee are able to get into a small amount of debate about each item, and frequently do.
And I can also see that they can feel intimidatory if you are a member of the public wanting to ask questions. You could submit them in writing if that would be preferred? How about if together you formulate a precise set of unambiguous questions that you want answers to, that are not of the "When did you stop beating your wife" nature, and put them in? You can send them to me if you want to, or indeed publish them on here, and I will keep my eye open for them. Please make it clear that they are to tabled at Finance and Resources.
I cannot promise you answers as I am the chair of the "questioning committee" rather than the cabinet member with the answers, but I can promise that I will see that they are put.
If what comes back is indeed just "words" then it will be a matter for the committee to find ways to better probe for the information on your behalf.
Thanks for answering, Louise, it's greatly appreciated. Will do (and point taken about the questioning role).
OK, here’s a series of questions for the F&R Select Committee. There’s a bit of preamble to give some proper context – sorry if it’s a bit lengthy. Any criticism, comments or suggestions will be very welcome. I’ll eventually submit them in writing, Louise, if you think that’s the best way to get some proper answers.
Despite an explicit commitment to open book accounting in the joint venture agreement and service contract, Liverpool City Council does not appear to hold all sorts of information about LDL that it should.
There is a case study of LDL on the DCLG website which states that Liverpool City Council has direct access to the Management Information Systems of Liverpool Direct (in line, I think, with the Treasury Taskforce Guidance on PFI projects, also referenced in the case study). The documents also state that the partnership has a Strategy Board, comprising senior executive officers from LCC and LDL.
Yet there have also been several reports – external and internal – which have looked at the operation and finances of the LDL contract which reached contradictory conclusions. And several recent FOIA requests for information that the council would be expected to hold, if the above arrangements (strategy board, open book accounting and access to the MIS) were actually in force have been refused on the grounds that LCC does not hold the information. So either the answers to these requests are not truthful (which is surely unlikely, since this would actually be a criminal offence), or the Strategy Board is ineffectual/non-existent and the council really doesn’t get the information to which it is entitled, and which central government is under the impression that it gets. Surely not the case. Answers to the following questions would hopefully start to cast some light on all of this:
1) Does LCC have access to the Management Information Systems of Liverpool Direct? If not, why not? Did it ever?
2) Who are the current members of the Strategy Board, how often do they meet, and who do they report/feedback/account to?
3) A clear intention from the start of the joint venture was that LDL would do work for third parties. Why are the revenues from this work not reported in the LDL accounts? Who decided this, and when?
4) LCC makes the final decision about whether and what third party work LDL takes on. Who takes these decisions, what information do they base these decisions on and how and to whom do they account for their decisions?
5) Third party financial reports mention LDL as supplier of various services – irrespective of what body the money is paid to, do the LCC directors of LDL know how much is paid by these third parties for the services they receive? And if they don’t, why did and do they approve these transactions?
This is a start – there are also questions about the who and how the costs of supplies of technology, equipment and services procured for LCC/LDL through BT are actually benchmarked, what economies of scale/discounts are actually achieved, etc. etc. which I and many other people will want to ask in due course.
Can I point out, by the way, that when LCC does admit to holding information like this, the standard response is to state a) that the information is commercially confidential, and/or b) that the information does not belong to the council, but to LDL or even BT.
Neither of these excuses are true – any commercial confidentiality that might reasonably apply to any of this information is outweighed by the public interest, and the Information Commissioner has made it clear in several cases that this kind of excuse cannot be used to withhold information. As for the second excuse, it doesn’t actually matter who owns the information – the council is required to disclose what it holds, irrespective of who actually owns it (ownership only seems to apply to personal information).
Just came accross
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/quarterly_accounts_for_ldl#outgoing-165404
The FOI response says that there is no monitoring of this mega contract.
Perhaps it is just me but isn't this something that elected members should be jumping on or, for that matter, senior officers, without anyone needing to arm wrestle them to show an interest?
Should this not be something to elicit a response of thank you very much for pointing it out and we will certainly need to chase this rather than the perceived responses of " we will do what we do and what has it got to do with you anyway" ?
Does it have to be a member of the opposition party in an evenly balanced council or a member of the press with a headline to get any response other than a shrug of the shoulders ?
Is the electorate truly only of any significance 1 day in every 4 years ?
To give the press (i.e. Bartlett and the LDP) their due, they have consistently highlighted some if not all of the shocking management of the LDL contract.
And people do leak highly illuminating stuff to them. The problem is that the council then does nothing apart from reassuring us all that they are on top of it, that things are changing, etc etc - when they clearly aren't.
Since our elected representatives seem so reluctant/incapable of even enforcing the Council's rights under the contract and JVA, let's see if the Select Committee route will work - as Louise Baldock has suggested. The next meeting is 21 December.
Hi Katie
If you have agreed the questions above, then you need to send them, by email would be okay, to my committee clerk dave dot jones at liverpool dot gov dot uk and explain that you want them to be taking as written questions at the committee.
There will then be written answers at the meeting and you can ask verbal supplementary questions then, or take the answers away and consider them and ask further written or verbal questions at the next meeting after that.
I was going to submit them on your behalf but think on balance you would have better chance of having them answered if they are submitted in the traditional way. Get them in asap to ensure plenty of time for answers to be gathered.
Any queries then please email me using the same format as above.
i dont know how am going to pay for my childrens school clothes this year with 4 to buy its very expensive i dont even go to the festival in mathrew st as i have found it not to be a great family day out with the kids they have always found it very boring