Sponsored by
Rethink ordered on County Hall’s budget savings
POLITICIANS who have scrutinised proposed budget cuts being made by Bucks County Council have ordered County Hall chiefs to reconsider a range of cost-saving plans.
The recommendations were made following a detailed examination of Buckinghamshire County Council’s 2012/13 to 2014/15 budgets proposals.
Each cabinet member attended the scrutiny meetings to answer questions on their budgets, and the effects of those proposals on service delivery.
The main priority of the scrutiny group was to assess if the county is making the right choices on the way it spends its money to effectively deliver its priority services to meet the needs of Bucks residents.
The recommendations were presented by the chairman of the budget scrutiny task and finish group – and former county council leader – David Shakespeare.
Key areas of recommendation were:
l Cabinet should reconsider the following proposed service reductions:
> Health and wellbeing.
>Meals on Wheels service charging increases.
> Respite services.
> Education and skills.
> Educational psychology service.
> Preventative services.
> Reductions in social care training/charging.
> Carer’s payment.
l The group also recommends that cabinet considers increased investment in the ‘independent domestic violence advocates’ in light of the ‘excellent’ work they do across the county in supporting those most in need.
l Cabinet should ensure that the likely ‘equalities impact’ is fully understood of any service reductions, and this means that an impact assessment should be fully completed before service reductions are proposed.
Recommendations will now go to Buckinghamshire County Council’s cabinet for its response on Monday, February 6.
Following this, the draft budget will go forward to a full county council meeting for its approval of the final budget.
Scrutiny budget task and finish group chairman, Councillor David Shakespeare, said: “This in depth review and detailed report has highlighted a huge number of important issues – particularly the fact that the priorities and needs of our residents should be reflected at a much earlier stage in the budget-setting process.
“I hope that cabinet members will take this report seriously and accept the recommendations.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Aylesbury
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 3 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
JR
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 10:38 AMWhat is obvious to many of us is the fact that here we have a pot of cash provided by the public and there is a whole raft of people taking £75000 pa, not to mention many who take well in excess of that figure. So the pot has taken a huge dent long before essential services even get a look in. Social Workers, for example, are often seen as the baddies in many headline cases - and yet Social workers were often the last point of contact, coming in just as the case hits flashpoint - why? Because faceless hierarchy (the ones taking too much cash out first) decide the department cannot do preventative work due to budget restrictions, so more and more cases are becoming 'high priority' and workers are expected to magic a solution out of thin air. Stress levels are high and workers are demoralised - but the big money takers (they don't earn it) are so far removed that they don't really give a monkeys as long as their monies come in under or on budget - so they can then get a huge pat on the back. If cuts need to be made, start by taking a long, hard, look at the roles of senior management. And how about cutting down on the reams of paperwork, thereby cutting down on the number of desk jockeys who have jobs simply for the purpose of checking paperwork. Cut back on the many, many levels of management - no private enterprise could ever hope to run at a profit with so many high wage takers...
Aylesbury Duck
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AMIs he suggesting the reductions should be greater ;o)) . ............. ... I agree, if cuts need to be made, then make them. .......... .......... But rather than cut frontline services, take a more fundamental look at things. Look at BCC senior managers pay; halve the salaries of Chris Williams who is on £207,000 per year (plus expenses?) and his four directors who are on more than £142,000 a year. ....... Stop paying union reps for the time they are on union business. Nationally in 2009-10 2,493 full time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense, which cost over £67 million. How much do BCC pay these people, time to stop this NOW. It is time for all public sector workers to start doing more for their money. They have it too cushy by far, they have become too expensive to employ that is why so many jobs are being lost and services out sourced to the private sector. They need to get all public sector workers back on a 40 hour week rather than 35 or 37 hours, outlaw flexi time and working from home and other similar skivers charters., and cut holiday entitlement, 32 days per year (plus bank holidays?) is too much. The list goes on, the unions will not like it but it is time for the public sector to step back and look at where they are wasting our money rather than cut front line services.
LocalBoy
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 08:12 PMThe cynic in me wonders how much of this has to do with helping "the people" and how much has to do with consideration of the votes these councillors might lose when they are next up for election. The list presented by Shakespeare is rather long and very general. It also represents a lot of things that would look bad if they were to be cut and also have the highest probability of coming up against large, very vocal opposition ... which would make David Shakespeare and his cronies look bad. If cuts need to be made, then make them. Mr Shakespeare should not be allowed to cherry pick the ones that would cause less politcal damage to him personally and reject the rest. Sorry, but it is all to obvious.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.