Another way..., £12m of savings, but frontline services protected Options

[Richard Garvie]

Great to see some more suggestions on here. No matter what party you support usually, it's great to see so many "better ways" that cutting frontline services.

[Richard Garvie]

PS. User23, what would you cut? Cameron wants a two year tax freeze, so we are going to have to cut £33,320,000. It's not going to cut itself either. The Tories want to axe frontline services, I have set out a vision that cuts council costs whilst protecting the vulnerable (elderly and the youn). What is the User23 way?

[user23]

You could raise taxes (lets face it the government is doing so), but WBC are not allowed to - they have to cut 9.2% from their budget. This is reality - the cuts will happen.

They're allowed to raise council tax if they wish. As I understand it, it's only a recommendation that it not be raised.

[On the edge]

They're allowed to raise council tax if they wish. As I understand it, it's only a recommendation that it not be raised.

Rasing local taxation is of course a way forward. Has been tried before in similar circumstances - notably in Liverpool (Derek Hatton?) and the Greater London Council. It seems pretty clear then what would happen if we tried that again!

[blackdog]

Can you help me out here. How could Shaw House be operated or become a trust. Who would pay for its survival and where would the money come from. What is the criteria for some department or government section taking on this responsibility and if it's that easy, make the library and museum a trust, that's saves a gread wad of money with no effort. You could even make your proposed indoor skate park a trust.

To get one part of the question out of the way - under the current laws the library service cannot be made into a trust. The supply of a library service is one of the statutory duties of local government. Change the law and the situation could change, but WBC cannot go it alone down that route.

Many museums have been made into trusts in order for local government to offload them - there is no statutory duty to provide museums. Usually the offload consists of setting up a trust (finding trustees etc), giving them the museum buildings and collections and committing to a level of grant funding for a certain period. The hope is that the trustees will gradually find sponsors, donors, customers etc and become independent of the need for local government grant funding (full independence is rarely achieved). The Corn Exchange was made into a trust some years back, but still needs plenty of WBC funding - hopefully less than it cost to run as part of WBC!

Shaw House is part museum, part historic house, part offices and part conference centre. I would guess that it could be set up as a trust - but I doubt that it would survive with its current mish-mash of activities. Turn it into a wedding centre perhaps, with rooms for guests, receptions on the premises etc. Might work.

[On the edge]

To get one part of the question out of the way - under the current laws the library service cannot be made into a trust. The supply of a library service is one of the statutory duties of local government. Change the law and the situation could change, but WBC cannot go it alone down that route.

Can accept that - but doesn't mean it's not possible. I'm not convinced that the enabling Act demands that the authority itself actually provides the service. It can contract that out and have it run 'on its behalf' by a third party. So arguably, if the third party failed to deliver a stautory requirement - then the Council would take the rap. Similar situation exists with refuse and some other services I think. However, if clarity was needed (and again, I can accept it might be, if only to ease contractural relationships) then a few like minded Councils could doubtless share the burden of promoting the appropriate change. Well worth the investment!

[Simon Kirby]

Can accept that - but doesn't mean it's not possible. I'm not convinced that the enabling Act demands that the authority itself actually provides the service. It can contract that out and have it run 'on its behalf' by a third party. So arguably, if the third party failed to deliver a stautory requirement - then the Council would take the rap. Similar situation exists with refuse and some other services I think. However, if clarity was needed (and again, I can accept it might be, if only to ease contractural relationships) then a few like minded Councils could doubtless share the burden of promoting the appropriate change. Well worth the investment!

Allotments are self-managed in just this way. Parish Councils are under a duty (actually it's their only duty) to provide allotments but they appear to be able to satisfy that duty by devolving the service to allotment associations. I thought this kind of enabling legislations was also something the current government were going to bring forward so that 3rd sector organisations had a right to bid to run services.

[Richard Garvie]

I wouldn't back a trust to run the library unless it could be proven it wouldn't affect the service provided. But Shaw House, The Museum and the Nature DiscoveryCentre could all find better funding if they were run by trustees. The Corn Exchange can't generate massive amounts of funding because of it's terms of lease I gather. Give them a thirty year lease and the pot available becomes much larger.

Couldn't the Nature Discovery Centre be given to the RSPB with the council simply looking after the play equipment? It can never be built on or sold off, and an organisation like that would be able to run it better than the council? These are all just ideas, but some bits on here (like Shaw House becoming a wedding centre) seem viable and realistic, the council would do well to look into some of them.

[blackdog]

They're allowed to raise council tax if they wish. As I understand it, it's only a recommendation that it not be raised.

They are very unlikely to raise council tax when the government is 'encouraging' a council tax freeze.

The other point is that council tax only raises £79 million of WBC's income - to raise another £10.23 million to counterbalance the cuts in funding from Whitehall would require a huge increase - electoral suicide for a Tory administration.

[Richard Garvie]

I think it is a ban on tax increases, a number of councils have been complaining about it.

Half a percent equals £750,000 here in West Berks I believe I read in the paper. A 2% rise would be met with uproard here, and that's only £3m. Remember, £33,320,000 is the magic number of savings required.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Richard - Are you in fact an agent of the Tory party sent out to post endless drivel about how wonderful the Labour party is? Thus making us so heartily sick of you that even Karl Marx would vote Conservative in an effort to be rid of you?

[Blake]

Richard - Are you in fact an agent of the Tory party sent out to post endless drivel about how wonderful the Labour party is? Thus making us so heartily sick of you that even Karl Marx would vote Conservative in an effort to be rid of you?

I think you have hit the nail on the head!

[blackdog]

I think it is a ban on tax increases, a number of councils have been complaining about it.

Half a percent equals £750,000 here in West Berks I believe I read in the paper. A 2% rise would be met with uproard here, and that's only £3m. Remember, £33,320,000 is the magic number of savings required.

Isn't it £33 million over 3 years - ie £11 million a year. A 14% hike in council tax would do the job - and cost the Tories the council in May.

A 2% rise would be met by grumbles, but we are not used to such low tax rises so it would pass through - especially if they sold it on the basis of the services it would save from the cuts.

However, if WBC did elect to solve the budget problem this way they could expect serious consequences from Whitehall - when Cameron/Osborne say they are 'encouraging' a council tax freeze they mean it - next year's government grants would probably fall drastically to force WBC to make cuts. Cuts are what they want and cuts they will get.

[Richard Garvie]

As far as I know, the first year is frozen by Whitehall (2011 / 12) and the second year is now only encouraged, rather than required. Hope that clears that issue up. The problem of course is that a freeze means a real terms reduction for the council due to inflation.

The cuts also need to be made over the next four financial years. Reading would seem to be front loading the savings there, so they will actually make money out of it by cutting faster and sticking some cash by for a rainy day. I think I would prefer to do it over four if I'm honest.

I don't think the Tories will make too many cuts before the election, but I guarentee they will have a plan to slash after the elections. We just need a bit of honesty around where people will cut.