Full council unanimously votes to accept s114 report

That Full Council:
2.1 Agrees to accept the section 114 (3) report issued by the Section 151 Officer on 29 November 2023 …
2.2 Agrees that the Council take immediate steps to mitigate the forecast 2023/24 overspend through the implementation of the Financial Recovery Plan … including:
o The continuation of the Spend Control Policy introduced by the Section 151 Officer to remain in place until the 31 March 2025 …
o The continuation of actions under the existing Financial Improvement Plan, monitored by the Improvement and Assurance Board, in relation to systems improvement, improved forecasting and income maximisation.
o The review of the capital programme will be carried out as set out …
2.3 Endorses the Section 151 Officer’s intention to seek to secure Exceptional Financial Support from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) for 2023/24
2.4 Notes that the setting of a balanced budget for 2024/25 and Medium-Term Financial Plan for 2024/25 to 2027/28, in the context that very significant savings will be required, forms a key part of the Financial Improvement Plan.

The full council meeting heard a range of concerns about how a s114 (3) report came to be issued in November, when there are suggestions that other councils are in worse positions. Maybe being the first of a new wave of councils expected to declare having financial problems in the current year has triggered the Government to say they are minded to send in Commissioners; but it’s the Finance Officer’s call and it has to be respected. Trouble for me was, I’ve kinda been asked to look out for risk management by City Councillors, so before the general debate, I took the opportunity to ask a question about the report – as to whether a separate risk analysis had been done in preparing for the decision. Since I’d not given a heads up I understood the officers’ request for an adjournment; but after 16 minutes they came back to say that the question was not legitimate because it had not sought to clarify the report. Yep, Councillors aren’t getting that 16 minutes back.
(See also the N Post coverage of this episode; an overall write-up is also available.)

Challenged by Cllr. Ethan Radford, the former Conservative in the Independent Group of Clifton Independents and Independent Conservatives did choose to speak – complaining about the pressure on reserves. But they remain the only Nottingham City opposition group to have never moved any amendments to a budget; and have done so twice. But they had no suggestions on what to do about the in-year challenge of £23 million projected overspend.

Cllr. David Mellen, the Leader, did however cite a whole list of assumptions in this year’s spending and next year’s budget that Councillors intend to check. Other points included that the council is statutorily required to provide help for the more people needing care, often via a private sector making more money, and providing for the homeless, and not getting financial support required from national government. We once got a grant of around £127 million from national government, and now get £26 million.

Another uncertainty – although more about next year’s budget – is just what does a Gov’t announcement of an extra £65 million for local government next year actually mean. A simple pro-rata calculation suggests an extra £32 million for Nottingham, but I am waiting for an actual specific Nottingham figure explaining how much and in what manner money is to be provided. I thought this was due on the 19th, but there is just a suggestion that this won’t come until February. (I’ll update this post with actual news when it is properly understood.)

As for my full speech, I explained why I had asked about risk; referred colleagues to the Guardian report which explained the s114 situation well – “Nottingham had been hollowed out” – and again queried why the editor of the Nottingham Post had not been able to grasp it; listed the current impact of the more visible cuts in services on The Meadows; exhorted colleagues to remember the discipline “one council” brings upon us, and thanked both he staff who are carrying on, and the senior staff who had come to help in Nottingham despite knowing the challenges they were to face. (These points are expanded below.)

On the Guardian report –
“Nottingham city council wasn’t reckless. It was hollowed out by austerity”
by Patrick Butler
I chose the following extract –
“The message is simple: expenditure, fuelled by inflation and exploding demand for services, exceeds resources, depleted after years of austerity.
“Its particular crisis is one faced by scores of other local authorities: child protection costs going through the roof, soaring bills for temporary housing caused by booming homelessness, and an implacably growing need for adult social care services and home-to-school transport.”

Cllr. Eunice Regan and I went through concerns about services in The Meadows in the afternoon with our SRDO.
 From which –
“Problems with street cleaning – cos we have been hollowed out.

“Problems with street bins after Forest matches – cos we have been hollowed out.

“Wardens not available enough to act on tipping next to a skip – cos we have been hollowed out.

“Partnerships are reluctant to host bids for external funds to renew our Youth Centre – cos they have been hollowed out. 

“Community Groups not as impactful as they were – cos they and we have been hollowed out.

“Parking permit schemes delayed – cos we have been hollowed out.

“Community welfare services at risk – cos we have been hollowed out.

“Uncertainty over repairs in parks – cos we have been hollowed out. 

“Services the people of The Meadows value, but not defined as statutorily required, at risk, cos we have been hollowed out.”
Some of details regarding these problems will be converted into a e-mail newsletter to community activists later this week.

On thanking staff, I said something along the lines of –
Thanks our staff who have stuck with us during these difficult times.
We may well have asked them to work in ways where they do more whilst we find ways of paying them less. 
No doubt they know we are being hollowed out.
Thanks to them, and thanks to all our senior staff who have come to work for us in what was obviously going to be a difficult time.
They will have known we were being hollowed out.  But they came anyway.  And to them I said thank you. 

As for “one council”, I ventured that the best minds would struggle to deal with the extra costs this year alone – £4 million from adult social care; £13 million for extra child care costs; nearly £1 million extra for associated child travel costs; £4 million extra from homelessness.
So why should officers and Councillors beat each other up?
We are being hollowed out.

I WILL SEEK TO UPDATE THIS REPORT WITH ANY RELEVANT POINTS THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED. 

Commissioners to run Birmingham and spending restricted in Derbyshire

That Derbyshire are cutting back on services budgeted for as if they are to go bankrupt is a sign of the financial pressure principal local authorities are under. They cite reasons of the growth in need for supporting more families breaking up and more adults requiring social care.
It’s a national phenomenon and there are whispers of other neighbouring councils coming to the same conclusion. The phenomenon then brings pressure on councils to employ fewer people for some many of the services like street cleaning that are higher profile for many residents.

Michael Gove announcing commissioners for Birmingham (which has declared it can’t sustain services without going bankrupt) has ducked the emergency respond needed to help people in need.

Public services grew under a Labour government

Nottingham City Council’s forthcoming budget, 13 years ago, when Labour ran the government and gave a grant increase of £11 million, but lots of direction on how to spend it.
(Being reviewed some 5 weeks before the actual budget was carried.)

£15.6 million of savings announced

Cuts to Nottingham City Council services being announced. Consultation has begun.
Reasons –
– continued reduction of funds to local councils;
– continued redirection of money away from councils serving urban areas in The Midlands and the North;
– growth in ageing population and families & children who need extra support;
– promises by Government to fund the costs incurred through Covid-19 not being met provided;
– lost business for the Council’s commercial actives (e.g. theatres, leisure centres, markets):
– paying back borrowing incurred after the failure of Robin Hood Energy.
Incredibly frustrating to be carrying such burdens when Government services have so painfully been apparent in commissioning services – most especially track and trace – but also a range of services that councils could have provided.
The extra borrowing undertaken nationally could have relieved councils and seen them provide better services to meet the country’s needs.

Austerity not cancelled after all

Letter was written on January 29th

FT report says they’re calling for 5% cuts, but protection is expected for improve health, fight crime or tackle regional inequalities. Then it mentions “Mr Javid already has a long list of spending priorities, ranging from social care to further education colleges”. So all over the place.

The end of austerity was announced in the spending review of 4th September last year.

Another missed opportunity

The Conservatives were the big losers of the local government elections.
And Labour can win when local groups and parties think it through and work at it.  
But the opportunity to compel over the cuts to local public services and the direction of our money to corporations and banks has been missed
= = = = = = = = = = = = 
The Conservatives have lost over 1300 Councillors, which even their mood setters didn’t predict. Labour lost 82.  
This against elections 4 years ago on a General Election turnout, when the Conservatives beat Labour by 2.5% points.
So how is the national share of the vote calculated to be 28% each?
– 
Surely, the biggest losers have to be the Conservatives.  
In The Meadows, they were last.
They lost all 3 seats in Wollaton West and their only victory – in Clifton North – was narrower than expected.  
And they lost 1300 Councillors.  
–
The winners are the anti-politics independents.  
3 elected in Clifton East.  
Big numbers in Ashfield.
And gains across the country.  
– 
Yet the Mansfield Mayor was lost to Labour, despite Labour losing 2 candidates.  
Labour gained in Gedling. and took Amber Valley.  
But was also set back in Derby.  
–
A mixed picture, kinda questioning how one simple national conclusion can be drawn. 
But there is plainly potential for local parties and councillor groups to make a difference over national trends.  
–
Then there’s these weird stories of places like Sunderland that voted Brexit now electing parties that advocate Remain.  
–
So is the story trust in the main parties? Well compared to the expenses issues of 2009, no. (And who are journalists to lecture politicians on trust.)
– 
Then a Facebook friend says too much is read into local gov’t elections. Hey ho.

There is no money tree

Defending cuts to public services on the East Midlands version of BBC tv’ “Sunday Politics”, Conservative MP for Sherwood, Mark Spencer, said “There isn’t a money tree”.
Mediocre or what.
1. I don’t object to “quantative easing”, but it does feel a bit mythical and certainly, it’s been used for the benefit of the financial sector and the rich;
2. there is enough money to give away to corporations for cuts in their rates of tax;
3. what extra money announced above and beyond local government and health settlements has been awarded to those principal authorities with fewer less well off – Nottingham and Notts have lost out relative to Surrey – and you’d think a Notts MP would have something to say about that.
–
Comments (from 3rd April on…)
Alan Rhodes I object to being patronised by one of the most useless MP’s in Parliament
Alex Norris There isn’t a money tree. But there are choices. And time and time again this government have chosen to hit the poorest hardest to the benefit of the best off.

Full Council – March 2017

Budget day – and agreeing £27 million of cuts despite raising Council tax by 4.9%.
The Conservatives nationally are to blame and the Conservatives locally say nothing to speak up for the injustice against Nottingham.
Pictured are Labour councillors pointing out how special transitional funds have been directed away from cities and towns in the North and The Midlands (featured on the maps in white). The government still refuse to publish the criteria used for the allocation of funds.
The other big theme – the crisis in funding for social care and the knock on effects on hospitals and health care. So a motion calling for extra national funding. Meanwhile the policy of seeking integration of health and adult services continues, even though aspects of the government’s STP version is not particularly helpful.

Finally, I made a statement recognising the impact of Professor Peter Mansfield and stating that Nottingham could well become known for being the hme of the MRI scanner – which the Nottingham Post on-line report turned into a questioning of such a claim. La de da.

People working need more help to get by

If Meadows people seeking help are anything to go by, then the number of Nottingham people getting social security to get by (even though they are working some hours) is going up.
And after a period when debt problems were going down, cos people were aware of the need to tackle problems early, debt problems are on the increase.
–
Expanding …
From April 1st to 31st January, Meadows Advice Group helped on 664 matters,
gaining £1,155,653 benefits for residents (up slightly (£81k) on this point last year, which was already a record year),
helping to manage £171,816 of priority debt and
£191,497 of non priority debt, (both up proportionately higher).
Meadows Advice Group continue to report how benefits are being sought cos people are on zero hours, low hours or reduced hours.
Benefits up whilst apparently more people are in work (or not seeking job seekers allowance).
Some kind of economic miracle that.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, it was announced that Universal Credit will not reach Nottingham before December, and then only for single people.
(Not much coverage; how does Iain Duncan Smith get away with so much?)

Fair Funding for Nottingham

The campaign, with Derby City and Derbyshire County, was launched at Derby in the morning and a report was taken at Nottingham full council in the afternoon.
–
The Conservatives at full council did not have a good day today. Critical questions lined up, but no follow up planned. Slamming the council leader for not taking questions submitted by the public, without checking that the arbitrator on taking questions from the public is the Lord Mayor. Celebrating a national economic recovery and progress on the deficit. Hardest to credit was fury that cuts to Windsor and Maidenhead shouldn’t be compared against Nottingham’s cos it was only a district council – well it isn’t – it’s unitary (most purpose), like Nottingham. I know these things can be seen as small beer, and you might not expect me to say something else, but the Nottingham Conservatives really aren’t very good.