NOTES OF SPEECH TO COUNCIL
RE:2005/2006 BUDGET
FOR JANUARY COUNCIL

The budget proposals are disappointing. The approach has no vision or imagination, and members are virtually given no options – just the opportunity to tinker with a few figures here and there.

It is wrongly assumed that the starting point has to be a reduction of services. No thought is given to find better and cheaper ways of providing the same services and the same level of service.

My greatest criticism is that the budget report completely ignores the conventional ways local councils usually adopt to enable themselves to function in difficult times.

Cutting services means cutting jobs by making compulsory redundancies – if a service is cut the opportunities for redeployment are limited. Vote for this paper and you vote for compulsory redundancies. My group does not believe compulsory redundancies are necessary at this time. We value our staff. We don’t want compulsory redundancies if they can be avoided.

The conventional way of dealing with cash shortages is to look at natural wastage first; then at voluntary redundancies – and compulsory redundancies are the very last resort. So my group’s starting point is natural wastage. We have investigated the staffing position. On the face of it, it would seem that, over the last three years there has only been a staffing increase of about 21 new posts. However, this ignores the small number of staff transferred to partnerships and Trusts during that time, and the truth is that most units have either increased their staff or stood still.

We have looked at natural wastage, and find that, over the last three years, on average each year there have been about 30 leavers - last year with average costs of about £15,000 each. Now, if 14 of those posts had not been replaced, the Council would have made efficiency savings of £210,000 – which corresponds to the amount the officers seek to recover by raising car park charges.

As I have said on many occasions, the old Ryedale used to have a Staffing sub-committee. Members and officers worked together to identify three classes of post: those that would be replaced automatically; those that would be referred to committee, and those which would be deleted automatically on the departure of the post-holder. This sub-committee was wound up, and since then, this job has not been done. Instead, we are invited to continue to leave staffing matters to Senior Management.

We don’t accept this. We are not convinced that all management units look at their staffing with the same vigour – as mentioned before, most units have increased their staff; we believe that members should not only be in control of this council, but be seen to be in control of this council, and we cannot see how this can be done unless members have direct control of staffing – leaving this to the management team is not delegation, but an abdication of responsibility.

So our first proposal is to set up a personnel sub-committee, and task it with the job of reducing the cost of staff by at least £210,000 over the next 12 months by natural wastage.

In other words, every time a member of staff leaves the authority, his/her job should be analysed by members and officers to see if it can be done in another way by other people, without making a replacement

Saving £210,000 on staffing also would cover 3% of the 7% efficiency savings, required by Gershon over a period of 3 years.

Our second proposal is that, as a one off – and not to be repeated next year – provision should be made to use up to £210,000 out of the interest on our reserves to cover this year’s shortfall only.

This will provide better value than the proposal to defer replacing vacant posts for a period of three months. I believe this might have raised about £50,000. However, if 14 posts are not replaced, the replacement of the remaining 14 posts could be delayed with a saving of £25,000.

So, in this way, the Council will have found £235,000 of the required £337,000.

As regards the remaining £100K:

We would agree to transfer grass cutting to North Yorkshire with a saving of £20,000.

We are totally against any increase in car parking charges except in regard to excess charges, where we would put the charge up to £90, subject to payment of £45 if the ticket is paid within 7 days. This would raise £25,000

This leaves 57K to find.

This brings me to the recycling bid of £150K. I understand that, of this, £50 K is a contribution to the Repairs and Renewals Reserve. We don’t see why this is necessary. It is an expense which can be deferred – we have enough money in reserves already. So, why do we need more?

That leaves £7K.

We would strongly oppose any reduction in the Tourist Information Centres, as we regard these as essential. However, we note the Town Centre Management suggestion of putting the Malton TIC into the same building as TCM. They say a saving of £50,000 might be achieved, if this is done. We have some doubts about this figure, but we are sure that far more than £7K would be saved if this is done.

This is our alternative budget. It can be achieved without any reduction of services, without any increase in car parking charges (except excess charges), and without any compulsory redundancies. The Ryedale Festival can continue, and no public toilet need be closed