Archive for the ‘Scotland’ Category
Labour will put the boot into Britains recovery
Labour will kill the recovery
Monday, April 5 2010
The Conservatives have launched a poster as part of a wider campaign highlighting how Labour’s job tax will kill the recovery.
“Labour have confirmed today that they are going ahead with a national insurance tax rise on jobs that Britain’s business leaders say will endanger jobs”, said George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor.
The Conservatives have also unveiled new research showing how National Insurance has become Labour’s favourite stealth tax:
- Total receipts from National Insurance have risen over five times faster than income tax receipts over the last decade.
- Average National Insurance Contributions (NICs) per family have risen over twelve times as much as average income tax receipts per family over the same period.
- In that time Gordon Brown cut the basic rate of income tax once (as part of the 10p tax con) but he increased National Insurance rates in three different ways – and that’s even before Labour’s new tax on jobs planned for 2011
“With Gordon Brown now finally forced to call the election, the choice is clear”, Osborne added.
“Labour’s jobs tax and debt will stamp out the green shoots and kill the recovery. Conservative plans to cut wasteful government spending and stop the jobs tax will get Britain working.”
Tweet this!
Captains of Industry and Business Leaders are Backing the Conservatives UK
Top Business Leaders Back Tories On Tax
9:42am UK, Thursday April 01, 2010
Ruth Barnett, Sky News Online
A group of business leaders have written a letter backing the Conservatives’ proposal to halt a planned rise in National Insurance.
David Cameron described it as a “very important moment in the election campaign”.
The executive chairman of Marks and Spencers, Sir Stuart Rose, and easyJet entrepreneur Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou are among the 23 people to have signed the letter, which is published in the Daily Telegraph.
The signatories employ around half a million workers between them.
They agree with shadow chancellor George Osborne that increasing NI by 1p next April, as Labour plans to do, is bad news for the economy.
“The Government’s proposal to increase national insurance, placing an additional tax on jobs, comes at exactly the wrong time in the economic cycle,” the letter says.
The Labour Party feel that the Conservatives’ plan has not been properly costed and not properly thought through.
Sky’s political correspondent Joey Jones
“In a personal capacity, we welcome George Osborne’s plan to stop the proposed increase in national insurance by cutting Government waste.”
Mr Cameron told BBC Breakfast: “These household names – people like Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Mothercare – are saying that Labour’s plans to put up National Insurance contributions are the biggest threat to the recovery.
“They are saying there is no threat to the recovery from cutting waste in 2010 but there is a threat to the recovery from putting up National Insurance contributions.
“Labour have said the whole thing is that we can secure the recovery. Well, today that plank of their whole approach has been removed.”
Chancellor Alistair Darling pledged to introduce the rise as a way of paying off some of the nation’s debts.
But Mr Osborne said he would axe the increase for people earning less than £45,000 if his party wins power at the next election. He said he would pay for this by finding efficiency savings worth £12bn.
Mr Darling counters that Mr Osborne’s policy is at odds with the Conservatives’ claim they would cut the deficit sooner and deeper than the Government plans.
Treasury Chief Secretary Liam Byrne said the Conservatives were not able to fund their promise on NI.
“No business goes to its shareholders with unfunded promises – but that’s exactly what the Tories are doing,” he said.
The captains of industry and top business leaders are fully aware of the failure of this Labour Government. They are giving their full backing to the Conservatives, because they know we have the experience and common sense, to get rid of Labour’s crippling debt, but not at the expense of putting more businesses out of action, or risking the creation of new jobs.
Members of the public whose jobs are hanging by a thread need to take note and ensure their vote is for the Conservatives. Another term of Labour could spell disaster for them and everyone else in the United Kingdom.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Brown caught misleading people again with wrong immigration data UK
The figures Gordon Brown gave in a podcast about immigration were wrong, the statistics watchdog has told the Prime Minister in an open letter.
The PM’s speech was correct but his podcast was not, the letter says
Mr Brown “did not use comparable” sets of data when he discussed the number of people who had come to Britain in recent years, the note the chair of the UK Statistics Authority said.
A statement from Downing Street said it accepted some of the numbers used were unclear and not strictly comparable.
The Prime Minister used the podcast to talk about his points system and reassure working families that the system is fair.
“Some people talk as if net inward migration is rising. In fact, it is falling – down from 237,000 in 2007, to 163,000 in 2008, to provisional figures of 147,000 last year,” he said.
“Some people talk as if all immigrants stay here forever. In fact, most come for short periods and then return to their own country.”
But the chair of the statistics authority, Sir Michael Scholar, said the figure for 2007 should have been lower – the official number was 233,000, not 237,000.
It means the scale of the fall is less dramatic than Mr Brown implied.
There is an urgent need for immediate steps to properly control immigration instead of the free for all flood of migrants some with no skills and many who cant even speak English.
Labour systematically ignored the warnings just to rub the rights nose in it and in the hope of getting more votes. They betrayed the interests of Britain and the British people and now growing pressure mounts on all major frontline services with education, healthcare and the prisons bursting under the strain of an endless flood of people invited into the UK by Labour.
Labour lied to us all.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Conservatives to offer real help for small business UK
I am pleased to see some real help being promised for small business. Its encouraging that small business is being recognised for the part it plays by the Conservatives who understand the importance of the fact that we are a nation of traders and that small business accounts for 80% of the revenue raised.
Jim Ferguson
Conservative tax reform to aid self employed
Wednesday, March 31 2010
Mark Prisk, the Shadow Business Minister, has announced that a Conservative Government would undertake a full and fundamental review of small business taxation, including IR35.
The aim will be to provide a simpler, clearer and lasting tax regime, so businesses can plan with confidence.
“For the last 13 years, Labour have constantly meddled with the tax rules for freelancers and self-employed, Prisk said. “IR35 has especially proved to over-complex, uncertain and often unfair”.
IR35 has cost business £73 million over 10 years but it has barely raised revenue for the Treasury. Prisk criticised Gordon Brown for making it harder to be self-employed at a time when Britain should be open for business.
“This is why a Conservative Government would mandate the independent Office of Tax Simplification to undertake a fundamental review of current arrangements with the aim of providing a clearer, lasting and fairer tax regime”.
This announcement is in addition to previous plesges to simplify the tax system, cut Corporation Tax for small firms, and make small business rate relief automatic.
“Small businesses cannot afford 5 more years of Gordon Brown”, Prisk added. “Only the Conservatives have the energy and the ideas to get Britain working by boosting enterprise”.
Tweet this!
Labour addicted to union cash while Libdems get bought off by Labour UK
Secret papers reveal Labour’s dependency on union cash
Tuesday, March 30 2010
Previously unpublished papers reveal the true scope of Labour’s dependency on union cash.
Following Conservative pressure, the Government will publish the previously confidential minutes and papers of the Inter-Party Talks on the Funding of Political Parties.
Francis Maude, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, led the Conservative delegation in the Talks. “Gordon Brown wrecked the opportunity to clean up politics because he wanted the unions’ votes to become Labour Party leader”, he said. “These documents expose the Labour Party’s addiction to union cash”.
The Talks were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips and were suspended without substantive agreement in October 2007.
Peter Watt, then Labour General Secretary and a delegate on the Talks, has subsequently written how the Talks failed since “the Labour Party could not resolve its internal issues”, “my own party was the biggest block to reform” and Gordon Brown “repeatedly warned the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] that he would block any attempt to reduce the unions’ power.”
Peter Watt also notes how the Liberal Democrats were bought off by Labour: “[Labour] managed to clinch a deal with the LibDems by promising that Menzies (Ming) Campbell would get a taxpayer-funded car and driver if the reforms went through.”
The newly published papers today reveal the true extent of the union funding of the Labour Party:
- Many union members would not pay a political levy to the Labour Party if given a choice.
- Some trade unions affiliate more individuals to the Labour Party than they have union members paying a political levy (only money from the political levy can be used for political purposes).
- From 2001 to 2006, the unions gave the Labour Party £45 million in cash.
- Trade unions pay £1 million a year to the Labour Party at a local and regional level, tying in local Labour Party branches through binding “Constituency Development Plans”.
Sir Hayden Phillips drew up detailed option papers on how the political levy could be reformed to give union members genuine choice. The Labour Party objected to these proposals. This was the key stumbling block that led to the Talks failing.
It’s wrong that union barons, not rank-and-file union members, decide how much to give to Labour”, Maude added.
“A Conservative Government will seek an agreed long-term settlement that would introduce an across-the-board cap on donations to end the big donor culture. As part of that reform, union members must have real choice on whether they want to pay a political levy and where it goes.”
Interesting to see how easy it was to buy off the Libdems. I suppose some things never change.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Labour will kill the recovery with their tax on jobs UK
We will stop Labour’s damaging NIC increase
Monday, March 29 2010
The Conservatives have announced that a Conservative Government will stop Labour’s tax rise on jobs by cutting waste.
Stopping the planned increases in National Insurance Contributions will result in 7 out of 10 working people being better off.
A Conservative Government will take immediate action to start cutting Government waste, in order to spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than Labour’s plans.
“The re-election of a Labour Government under Gordon Brown – with more debt, waste and taxes – will bring us a new recession”, George Osborne said, speaking alongside Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond.
“Labour will kill the recovery with their tax on jobs. We will cut Labour waste to stop it.”
Former Government advisers Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Martin Read, now members of the Conservatives’ Public Sector Productivity Advisory Board, advise that savings of £12 billion across all departmental spending are possible in-year without affecting the quality of front line services.
Having identified these savings the Conservatives can now commit to stop Labour’s tax rise on working people and jobs at the same time as reducing the deficit faster:
Labour are planning to raise Employees National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for everyone earning over £20,000. We will stop this increase altogether for everyone earning under £35,000 by raising the primary threshold at which people start paying NICs by £24 a week, and raising the Upper Earnings Limit by £29 a week.
Relative to Labour’s plans everyone liable for Employees NICs earning between £7,100 and £45,400 – which is 7 out of 10 working people – will be up to £150 better off a year under the Conservatives. Lower earners will get the greatest benefit as a percentage of their earnings. Nobody will be worse off.
Labour are also planning to raise Employers NICs for everyone earning over £5,700. This is a tax on jobs that will undermine the recovery. We will raise the secondary threshold at which employers start paying NICs by £21 a week, saving employers up to £150 for every person they employ relative to Labour’s plans. This will reduce the cost of Labour’s tax rise on employers by more than half.
Tweet this!
MP’s and sleaze – more scrutiny for candidates required – Scotland UK
Gordon Brown now leads a discredited Government.
The latest revelations regarding the three Labour MP’s who were caught in a sting operation offering to influence Government policy for money is sickening. Confidence in the members of Parliament is at an all time low as people form the opinion that none can be trusted with even the basic decency of someone expected in such high office.
I find it quite embarrasing to see the greed of people surface like this and ofcourse as a political candidate I feel uncomfortable with the fact that as a political candidate people are looking at me and asking if I am the same. Would I also conduct my self in this greedy dishonest way ?
The answer is no. I am horrified at how far those we trusted to run the country have fallen but perhaps we are also to blame !
Thats right we as in the electorate are also to blame. Let me explain.
Its not political parties who elect MP’s to parliament. Yes they select the candidates but its the people who vote and give those people they elect the mandate to enter parliament.
Perhaps we need to look at what we base our decisions on not only on party policy but to look with a far more critical eye at those we are preparing to vote for.
I believe that the general public need to be very certain that they know exactly where the political candidates stand on the fundamental issues of importance to them and to the good of the country.
Why vote for someone who has never experianced the real working world for example. ? A Career politician who knows noting of the pressures or issues of everday life ? Some career politicians are perfectly capable ofcourse but the question remains valid.
Scrutiny of the candidates views is fundamental to ensuring that only candidates of good character and trustworthiness should enter parliament. If there had been more scrutiny of the candidates themselves and a hard look at what they may have already achieved in life instead of a blind vote cast purely on party lines then I believe we could have avoided a lot of the problems that we have seen.
Patricia Hewitt, Geoff Hoon and Stephen Byers are now disgraced former Labour cabinet ministers who have shown their true nature. What appals me is that these people were involved and sat at the most senior positions in Government. The question is did they conduct themselves in this way while in those positions of power and influence.
Are there more Government ministers on the take ?
As for myself I will stand with the people of the Highlands in this region and give every support and assistance in a truthful and honest way. If I am elected to Parliament then the trust that has been invested in me will not be wasted but I will lead this region with strength and integrity.
I have been involved in business and hold positions of the highest order in other organisations where truth and honesty are beyond doubt.
There would be no distinction made as far as my views on parliamentary affairs are concerned.
The people require politicians who can be trusted and who will assist the country to go forward with honesty, hard work and above all who they can trust.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Liberal bias of BBC all too evident – Political candidates refused access to public debate Highlands Scotland
BBC BRIAN TAYLOR
As the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey at the forthcoming General Election I was delighted that the BBC had invited the various political parties to attend a live radio show in Avimore in the Scottish Highlands.
A number of us agreed to attend but on arrival despite having been on the list I was refused entry due to the fact I was a political Candidate.
The BBC told me that they had to remain impartial and that Candidates were not allowed in so that no one had an unfair advantage.
However Danny Alexander the LibDem MP who’s seat I am contesting is also a candidate. Not only was he allowed to attend but he was also on the panel. I pointed this out to the BBC, but they refused to listen. When the SNP Candidate arrived we discussed the situation and agreed that we would simply sit in the audience and not take part in the debate. Once again we were refused.
Later I spoke to security staff who had controlled entry to the room where the broadcast was taking place. They confirmed that they had been specifically told to refuse entry to the Labour Candidate Mike Robb as the BBC had been concerned that he was going to disrupt proceedings. I spoke with the hotel staff who also confirmed they were simply acting on instructions from their client.
While I accept that the BBC wish to remain impartial, why on earth then would they allow Danny Alexander to remain on the panel. It would have been easy to arrange to have a LibDem MSP to join the Conservative, Labour and SNP MSP’s who were also on the panel.
Danny Alexander should therefore never have been allowed to attend this event let alone sit on the panel.
With a General Election just around the corner this gave him a distinct advantage and high profile that was denied to the other political Candidates.
The BBC have been accused of left leaning, liberal bias before, but now I have experienced it for myself.
I have written to the BBC demanding a full and detailed explanation as to why they acted the way they did including the political editor Brian Taylor who Chaired the debate.
So far they have not even acknowledged my email.
I am sure that Danny Alexander is relieved. However he will have to face me on the various hustings where there will be no liberal bias allowed.
Bring on the General Election.
Jim Ferguson
Candidates barred from BBC debate
Anger over reception at Aviemore
By Iain Ramage
Published: 22/03/2010
A WOULD-BE Tory politician who was among three election candidates barred from a live BBC lunchtime debate at Aviemore Highland Resort claims they were “treated like terrorists”.
Jim Ferguson, the Conservative candidate for the forthcoming contest for the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency, is the boss of an Inverness security firm.
Stunned by the reception the trio had on Friday, he has written to the corporation asking for an explanation.
SNP candidate John Finnie and Labour’s Mike Robb were equally amazed to have been refused entry to Brian Taylor’s Big Debate on Radio Scotland despite being on the original audience guest list.
Mr Ferguson said: “We were treated like terrorists. It was totally bizarre.
“I was astonished to have been refused entry to a public debate. I explained that Danny Alexander was the MP, and also a candidate, and asked why he was allowed in and I wasn’t.
“It was embarrassing. It was humiliating. I felt this was absolutely undemocratic and very worrying of the BBC to be allowing the proceedings to happen like that.
“John Finnie and I even offered to observe the debate without asking questions, but they wouldn’t accept that.
“They have given Danny Alexander an unfair advantage.”
Mr Robb said: “I was initially told by the programme’s researcher that I could attend the event. However, I was later called by the programme to say that, as a declared local candidate, I would not be allowed to on the grounds of political impartiality.
“I was astonished to find out that the Lib Dems were to be represented on the panel by local MP Danny Alexander, rather than a Lib Dem MSP.
“He therefore had a platform to put his views to local voters whilst his political opponents at the coming general election were barred from even being allowed in the room.”
Mr Finnie, the opposition SNP group leader on Highland Council, said: “It does seem very peculiar.”
A spokeswoman for BBC Scotland said: “Participants and audiences at our debate programmes reflect our guidelines on impartiality.
“We are confident these guidelines were met.”
Mr Alexander declined to comment.
Tweet this!
Military chiefs savage Gordon Brown over incorrect evidence Iraq enquiry – Humiliation for British Government
This is a serious blow for Brown and his discredited Labour Government. Even the very top brass of the British armed forces cannot stomach his outright dishonesty and disrespect for our armed forces.
The sooner our brave men and woman of the United Kingdom’s armed forces have a Conservative Government they can trust the better.
Jim Ferguson
PM Admits Iraq Inquiry Defence Spending Error
6:54pm UK, Wednesday March 17, 2010
Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has admitted giving incorrect evidence to the Iraq Inquiry on defence spending.
Mr Brown told Sir John Chilcot’s panel that the defence budget had risen “in real terms every year”.
But House of Commons reseach shows Mr Brown’s claim was wrong, and he has now written to Sir John to correct it.
The PM said that the Treasury had agreed spending with the MoD for 2002, 2004 and 2007.
“The Iraqi expenditure was being met, but at the same time the defence budget was rising in real terms every year,” he said.
Repeating his claim, he told them: “The spending review of 2004 gave the Ministry of Defence a rising level of real spending, moving from 1.2% to 1.4% in real terms each year.”
But a research note prepared by the House of Commons Library in October last year showed defence expenditure had fallen in real terms in four financial years since Labour came to power in 1997: 1997/98 (-2.2%); 1999/2000 (-0.4%); 2004/5 (-0.7%); and 2006/7 (-0.1%).
In real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.
Gordon Brown
The average annual increase between 1997 and 2009 was 2.7%, it said, but noted that “this figure is likely to have been distorted by current operations”.
Asked at Prime Minister’s Questions whether he would correct the record, Mr Brown said: “Yes. I am already writing to Sir John Chilcot about this issue.
“Because of operational fluctuations in the way the money is spent, expenditure has risen in cash terms every year, in real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.”
The Prime Minister’s evidence to the Inquiry sparked condemnation from senior military figures.
Lord Boyce – who was the head of the military at the time of the invasion – called him “disingenuous” and insisted the MoD was starved of funds.
“He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous,” Admiral Boyce told The Times newspaper.
“It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed
“There may have been a 1.5% increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.”
Lord Boyce’s predecessor Lord Guthrie accused Mr Brown of costing soldiers their lives by failing to fund the army properly.
The Tories described Mr Brown’s admission as a “humiliating climbdown”.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: “He has made repeated and fundamentally false claims, misleading Parliament, the public and worst of all the Armed Forces and their families.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said Mr Brown had “taken the first opportunity” to tell MPs about the mistake.
<a href=”http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=2001437c67″>Prime Minister’s Questions</a>
Tweet this!
Highland Council cutbacks will take away front line services Scotland UK
The national percentage for those who are over 60 in scotland is 19%. That percentage increases to 34% for the Highlands and Islands. This percentage for the Highlands will increase by 10% every 5 years so its imperative that proper planning and a full strategic review is carried out in order to ensure adequate health care provision accross the Highlands and islands.
I am disapointed to see that the Highland Council who now have to make £12 million pounds of savings are cutting front line services in areas such as care workers who are a lifeline to many families across this region.
The SNP, Labour and LibDems have all had an opportunity at running the Highland Council but have failed to achieve the outcomes that the people need. Their in-fighting and petty politics have caused inaction and a failure to properly provide for the elderly community which is growing at an incredible rate.
There really does have to be some common sense introduced so that we don’t end up with a situation where we simply dont have the resources to cope.
Add to this the fact that we have had huge numbers of Eastern Europeans migrating to the Highlands who have not being paying contributions to the country but who quickly claim all their entitlements and we see a recipe for disaster due to not having the care provision and infrastructure to cope. The Labour Government were warned that this would happen but neither they nor the LibDems were prepared to listen and simply used political correctness as a weapon to silence their critics.
The SNP are faring no better and despite thousands of Scottish jobs being lost on a weekly basis they still adopt an insane policy of trying to bring huge numbers of immigrants to Scotland when there is simply no jobs for them.
An already overburdoned NHS is now creaking at the seams and the recent case of having 54 beds at Raigmore hospital blocked is tragic. Almost an entire floor is now taken up with people who have no other place to go because the Highland Council did not make the proper provision when they had the opportunity to do so. The bed blocking situation at Raigmore hospital has seen a 50% increase in just one year and may increase further next year unless a soloution can be found.
Local people who require hospital treatment will likely find that waiting lists will grow and with cutbacks in funding this will conspire to bring greater pressure to bear on local people.
Our elderly deserve better and after a lifetime of paying contributions into the NHS and their taxes they should not be worrying about healthcare provision at a time of life when they should be able to relax and take life at a slower pace.
I hope that people across the Highlands quickly wake up to the failures of those we trusted to lead and prepare this region for the future.
Immediate action must now be taken before it really is too late.
Jim Ferguson
Thought you should see (if you have not already seen), the areas that Highland Council are looking to achieve budget cuts and reduce level of service delivery at front end.
Looks to me as if everything possible is being done to protect the non-performing layers of management earning salaries in excess of £40,000 per annum.
One example detailed below demonstrates how management level salaries have got completely out of control:
“Schools General Reduce the number of Quality Improvement Officers by 2″ – Saving 0.140 = £140,000 simply staggering, given the average level of earnings across the Highlands of those employed outside of the Public Sector
The areas that appear to be under the knife are the very areas community leaders feel should be strengthened. particularly in relation to Education and Care of the Elderly!
Please click the link to download the Highland Council document concerned:
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FD04B6BA-B0E6-4CC5-B3D6-A10FCA5CE352/0/Item9HC4809.pdf
This is the document listing the potential cutbacks for the next two or three financial years within Highland Council and highlights the years of gross mis-management of public finances by successive political parties and elected councillors
Large sums of money have been wasted on flights of fancy, such as the Kessock Bridge fireworks display, with no thought as to how the mooey could have been better utilised for public benefit.
The huge external debt running into hundreds of £Millions, run up by successive administrations has never rung any alarm bells, whilst job protectionism has always been exhibited at the highest level of management – this simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Best wishes
Barrie Haycock
Chair Planning Watch UK
********************************************************
Documentation extract (NOT Edited):
Highland Council Agenda
Item – 4 March 2010 Report
Budget Consultation
Report by Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance
Summary
Highland Council, on 11 February, noted that budget consultation proposals would be considered by the Council in March. This report sets out the proposed approach to the
budget consultation exercise.
1. Introduction
1.1 The revenue budget for 2010/11 was agreed by the Council on 11 February. While that report set out a range of savings now agreed for 2011/12 and 2012/13, it
highlighted a considerable budget gap remained across those two years, estimated at £36m.
1.2 Recent comments by the Accounts Commission on the 2009 Audit Overview Report, sets in context the challenges faced by Council’s in the wake of the
economic downturn.
“…the scale of the budget challenge they face means councils need to take urgent
action. It is essential that they continue to develop and implement plans to cope
with the tough times ahead, including thinking radically about service design and
delivery.”
1.3 Given the difficult financial prospects for local government over the next few years, and the level of savings the Council is likely to be faced with, the Council agreed to
consult on budget proposals for 2011/12 and 2012/13, prior to the proposals being considered by the Council in the Autumn of 2010.
1.4 This report sets out the proposed approach to the budget consultation exercise.
1.5 This report is produced in support of the Council’s corporate governance process, which in turn is designed to support/augment the Council’s overall/corporate
delivery of all of its obligations in terms of the Single Outcome Agreement.
2. Purpose of Consultation
2.1 The purpose of the budget consultation exercise will be to:-
? Seeks views from the public and other stakeholders, on a range of specific budget proposals the Council may be asked to consider in Autumn 2010.
? Seek views on the more strategic matters the Council is considering in relation to the budget, for example the education provision/school estate review and the
waste collection strategy.
? Ask the consultees for any areas where they feel budget savings could or should be made.
? Raise awareness of the financial challenges facing the Council and actions that may be necessary to address that.
3. Format of Consultation
3.1 A consultation document will be produced to support the exercise. This document will set out:-
? The financial context facing the Council, including the level of savings the Council thinks will have to be made over the next two years.
? Information on what the Council currently spends its budget on.
? The types of strategic review the Council is conducting or considering in major service areas e.g.
? Corporate Improvement Programme to improve efficiency and effectiveness (including procurement, asset management and business support along with other projects).
? Review of management costs.
? Reduction in travel and subsistence costs.
? Business case review for 5 new care homes.
? Review of education provision/school estate.
? Review of waste collection strategy.
? A range of specific saving proposals the Council may be asked to consider in Autumn 2010.
? Any other relevant supporting information.
? The format of response sought, including questions to be asked of consultees.
3.2 As a working draft, the enclosed annex 1 sets out a list of saving proposals that may feature in the consultation document. This list represents those savings identified by Services as part of the 2010/11 budget exercise, over and above those agreed by the Council to date. Some further refinement to proposals, and incorporate of further information where appropriate, will take place before finalised.
3.3 The consultation document will be hosted on the Council website, with consideration given to availability/distribution through other mediums where appropriate. It is not intended to print mass copies of the document, or utilise newspaper advertising or supplements, to minimise the costs of the consultation.
3.4 Consultees will be asked to provide comments via email, or in writing. Consideration will be given to a dedicated email address for responses. Ward
Forum meetings will also be used to discuss the consultation and receive feedback.
3.5 The Council has agreed that a Citizen Panel be established to support consultation on a range of matters, including the budget. Given the time necessary to recruit
and establish the panel, it will not be possible to use the panel for this initial budget consultation. It is expected that once up and running, the panel will be used for
future budget consultations.
4. Questions to be asked
4.1 While the Council could use a ‘blank sheet’ approach, i.e. leave the consultees to determine the format and content of their response, there are benefits in providing
a structure to the expected response, to aid analysis and collation.
4.2 A range of questions could be considered, to provide a structure to the response, while still leaving the consultee as much freedom as possible to give their views.
The questions could also provide a useful structure for discussion at Ward Forum meetings.
4.3 Some example questions that could be included are set out below.
(1) Are there any other areas of the Council, not reflected in the enclosed proposals, where you feel the Council could or should make savings? If so please provide details.
(2) Are there any comments you wish to make about the strategic reviews the Council is conducting.
4.4 The final structure of the document and questions will be prepared over the coming weeks, prior to formal launch of the consultation.
5. Next Steps and Timetable
5.1 Following the Council meeting, the consultation document will be prepared and incorporated on the Council website. The target date for this task is mid to end March.
5.2 The Council will then arrange for a press release, media coverage, posters in Service Points, etc as a means of promoting the consultation.
5.3 The first Ward Forum to be asked for views on the consultation will be the North West and Central Sutherland Ward Forum on 27th March.
5.4 Discussion at further Ward Forum meetings during April and May will also take place, with the consultation exercise estimated to conclude June 2010.
Recommendation
Members are asked to consider this report and agree the budget consultation approach and timetable.
Signature:
Designation: Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance
Date: 24 February 2010
Ref:
Background Papers
Author: Brian Porter, Finance Manager
Author’s Telephone No.: 01463 702424
Savings Proposals for Consultation 2011/12 – 2012/13 Annex 1
Education, Culture & Sport
Ref. Activity Heading Savings Proposal
Indicative Savings £m
1 & 3 Devolved budgets – schools Review Secondary timetabling methods, curriculum delivery methods and review teacher entitlement formulae 1.791
8 Schools General Review delivery of music tuition and region-wide music support 0.559
9 Schools General Reduce the number of Quality Improvement Officers by 2 – 0.140
12 Schools General Reduction in teaching absence cover funding 0.047
13 Schools General Discontinue the peripatetic janitorial function 0.287
14 Schools General Clothing Grant Allowance – Reduce level of award and change to “voucher” system 0.080
19 Additional Support Needs 20% reduction across Psychological Services, a 5% reduction across other specialist ASL budgets held centrally, at area level and in schools, including some reorganisation of management and administrative structures. 1.000
20 School Residences Income generation opportunities in School Residences 0.060
22 Grants to Voluntary Organisations
Further review of support for Voluntary Organisations 0.312
23 Youth Work Reduction in Youth Work 0.573
24 Community Learning Further reduction in Adult Education 0.050
25 Community Facilities,
Inverness and Nairn
Reduce number of Community Centres in Inverness 0.133
26 Archives Focus provision on new Highland Archive Centre 0.183
27 Culture Removal of the Out of Eden drama provision including the Highland wide Higher Drama course 0.195
29 Museums Reduce museum provision by two thirds through closures or alternative provision 0.400
30 Highland Culture Fund Removal of Highland Culture Fund and Lochaber Events budget 0.509
31 Integrated Library Service Reduction in library provision, including ceasing the Bookstart service 0.394
32 Integrated Library Service Library Support Unit – Reduce logistical support for libraries 0.100
33 Integrated Library Service Cease all development of the Am Baile gaelic heritage web resources, and seek alternative resources 0.172
34 Leisure, recreation and sports development
Reduce number of swimming pools 0.380
35 Sports Development and Play
Reduce support for sports development and play through review of Council and Partner provision 0.138
36 Floral Hall, Inverness Floral Hall – Close or find a social enterprise model to continue the operation 0.115
Total 7.618
ECS
Savings Proposals for Consultation 2011/12 – 2012/13 Annex 1
JCCYP
Ref. Activity Heading Savings Proposal
Indicative Savings £m
9 Review of Teacher input to nurseries
Reduce in line with service rationalisation 0.100
11 Workforce Qualification Standard
Reduction in expenditure to support early years staff qualification standard, as this will largely have been met. 0.050
Total 0.150
JCCYP
Savings Proposals for Consultation 2011/12 – 2012/13 Annex 1
Social Work
Ref. Activity Heading Savings Proposal
Indicative Savings £m
15 Establish Community Health & Social Care Partnerships with NHS Highland
Move towards integrated management of health and care 0.250
16 Community Care Learning
Disability Support Work provision
Review in – house support services for learning disabilities at Cradlehall, Inverness 0.035
18 Learning Disability Day Care Review of day care facility at Beachview, Brora. 0.069
19 Learning Disability Day Care Review learning disability day care service provision at Tigh na Drochaidh 0.020
20 Community Care Establishments
Review Raasay Day Centre 0.014
22 Care at Home Consider tender for all home care (public sector process involving comparator – phased approach) 1.000
23 Orchard Cease providing residential care at Orchard and downsize provision. Restrict the service to short breaks. 0.150
24 Top slice of fostering & adoption budget
Top slice of fostering & adoption budget 0.100
28 Children & Families Overnight provision in Children’s Units 0.100
31 Care Homes Review of all LA care home provision, to ensure best value tbc
35 Day Care Review Older People’s Day Care at Tigh na Drochaid, Portree 0.065
36 Childrens Services Review Staffin respite unit 0.130
Total 1.933
SW
Savings Proposals for Consultation 2011/12 – 2012/13 Annex 1
TECS
Ref. Activity Heading Savings Proposal
Indicative Savings £m
16 Service Review of overall staffing structure 0.075
18 Service Review all income streams. 0.300
20 Roads & Community Works Review standards of cyclic road maintenance. 0.400
21 Roads & Community Works Review standards of grounds maintenance. 0.500
22 Roads & Community Works Use contractors to replace seasonal staff employed on grounds maintenance. 0.050
23 Roads & Community Works Bught Nursery – examine option to procure plant material from external providers. 0.100
24 Roads & Community Works Review standards of street cleaning. 0.500
25 Roads & Community Works Review provision (numbers) of public toilets. 0.200
26 Roads & Community Works Review Pest Control function 0.095
27 Roads & Community Works Remove budget for unadopted roads. 0.050
28 Roads & Community Works
Business Support
Review the burial administration function for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey Area. 0.020
32 Waste Management Review level of grant to Social Enterprise Groups. 0.050
33 Transport & Infrastructure Review level of service for street lighting. 0.500
34 Transport & Infrastructure Replace external contractors with internal staff (internal transfer from Roads and Community Works to Street Lighting). 0.050
35 Transport & Infrastructure Review levels of subsidies for public transport. 0.500
36 Transport & Infrastructure Review level of grants to Community Transport Schemes 0.050
37 Transport & Infrastructure Review long term arrangements for the Corran Ferry. 0.150
38 Transport & Infrastructure Review Materials Testing Laboratory. 0.050
39 Transport & Infrastructure Review airstrips. 0.026
40A Environmental Health Review staffing level for Environmental Health. 0.060
40B Trading Standards Review staffing level for Trading Standards. 0.060
42 Business Support Review provision of vehicle workshops including options for amalgamation. 0.050
43 Business Support Review provision of materials stores including options for external provision. 0.075
44 Business Support Review business processes. 0.040
TECS
Ref. Activity Heading Savings Proposal
Indicative Savings £m
45 Roads & Community Works Review temporary mortuary facilities at Glen Nevis, Fort William. 0.005
Total 3.956
TECS
Tweet this!
