Patrick Butler has blogged about Sefton cuts in The Guardian: here
Sefton only advertised the "Transforming Sefton" website in the Southport Visiter on 26th January. The first budget cut decisions were made on 16th December the second round on 27th January. Whilst the final budget is not due to be set until 3rd March, many of the decisions had already been made. Ms Carney admitted at our last meeting that the timescale meant that public consultations could not be carried out.
Does this seem like good consultation to you? Whilst we are very sympathetic with the timescale and cuts Sefton have been handed from Central Government, and with the plight of Sefton employees and elected representatives, surely this does not mean Sefton are able to disregard public law around consultation or impact assessment? Surely this does not mean they are able to cut services like Sure Start, arguably, in direct confliction with legislation surrounding their provision and/or closure. The law in this area is fairly specific in detailing that Sure Start Centres can only be closed or altered significantly if there are very good reasons (budget cuts will not suffice).
According to DfE Sefton has also received the highest cut of 12.9% to the new Early Intervention Grant money additional to the general budget cut (I called DfE). This money is for things like Sure Start, Youth Centres, The Early Years Workforce, Teen Pregnancy services, connexions e.t.c. They are apparently asking Councils to "prioritise these services" so that the 12.9% cuts does not apply across the board. They believe there is no guidance on which of these, arguably very important and cost effective early intervention services, should be "prioritised" over the others. They suggest Councils "centralise services" - put youth centres in with children's centres but as far as they know there is no funding or support available to Councils to help with this. This means Sure Start, Youth Centres, e.t.c. are effectively looking at possibly more than 12.9% cuts (not counting inflation) since we are not aware how the other services are funded and whether Sefton has outsourced contracts which cannot be broken with providers of the other services/other contractual issues/other priorities.
These cuts have somewhat pitted Sure Start against Youth Centres as each cause competes for the reduced money. This is a shame, they are two causes which really should stand together for all "Early Intervention" services. Two fantastically successful and valued services to represent all the services. The main point is not the ideology but the law. Morally speaking, these services - early interventions, do valuable work to support community cohesiveness and solve social and economic problems. Even if one does not believe in the provision of public services to the disadvantaged or vulnerable or even generally, there is a requirement under law to provide public services of this kind and to satisfy certain equalities requirements. The taxing of individuals and businesses is meant to pay for public services otherwise what is the point in taxation?
Cutting these services specifically will result in the first port being crisis intervention and consequently, higher spending. Instead of children's and youth services there will be police, courts, social services, solicitors, poverty and suffering with both economic and social costs to Sefton and Central Government. By implementing these cuts from Central Government, which themselves may well contravene public law (I am attempting without success to find details of any Impact Assessments or Consultations which have been carried out by DCLG prior to cutting Local Authority budgets or the EIG) over their cuts to Early Intervention, Sefton may well be flouting equality laws by disadvantaging priority groups without consideration to the effect of budget/service changes. The possibility that DCLG may also be flouting Public or European Law in requesting cuts of this level and speed, does not relieve Sefton of its responsibility to work within Public or European Law.
What many Councillors are afraid of - personal and regional sanctions for failing to set a legal budget, may well come true anyway. If the Councillors, who must be aware of their responsibilities under law, pass proposals which have not paid heed to legislation, then the budget is potentially not a legal one anyway and all they will have done is sold Sefton Residents down the river out of fear, ideology or political bias - for these are the very reasons to have consultations and impact assessments in the first place. Decisions cannot be made based on political bias, rather they must be made on measurable effects and in knowledge of the consequences for the public. Councillors, MPs, Councils, Government and Parliament are public servants and services after all, and are ultimately accountable to and required to work in the best interests of, the public.
Resources:
http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/Surestart/Page1/DFE-00020-2011
http://www.thecompact.org.uk/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=100460
http://www.wrc.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2009/k/keeping_it_legal.pdf
Sefton Council Code of Practice for Equalities in Procurement
No comments:
Post a Comment