Some of us considered the Tory budget in Swindon as irresponsible in that they under-funded Adult Social Care and put £2.5M into general reserves in the expectation that it would probably be needed to top up Adult Social Care.

That stupidity has come home to roost with a vengeance.

While it could be contended that the very fact Swindon had £2.5M in general reserves as well as the recommended £6.0M in reserves any Whitehall official looking simply at the numbers would be forgiven for assuming Swindon was in a strong financial position and levied heftier cuts against Swindon than anywhere else. I don’t advocate that line because it may not be quite true. It is much more likely that the formula used for local Government grant worked against us again, as it has done right from the creation of Swindon Unititory Council.  Another factor is that our reliance on specific grants (achieved by Sir Michael Pitt working with the then Labour MPs) has caused us to fare particularly badly in this round.

What needs to happen is for Swindon to quietly lobby for a fundamental change in the distribution formula.  Shouting at the Parliamentarians has not worked and will not work.

The facts are that Swindon has lost £1.4 million revenue in the current year,  much of which is specific grants.  Just less than £1.2 M of this  is in children’s services other than education (welfare) – a blanket percentage reduction across about 20 budget heads.

Another area if difficulty arising from local Tory creative accounting is in ‘forward planning’. Three years ago the people who worked on structure pans and the land use plan for the Eastern development were transferred to the LABGI grant.  LABGI was a specific grant to help Councils that were in the business of expansion and regeneration and indeed it appeared legitimate at the time to move planning employees on to this organisation.  Now that LABGI has  gone there is a need to find an extra £300K in to retain this planning service.  If this is not done there will be even fewer controls on developers in and around Swindon .  Tho’ perhaps this is not a problem for the market forces fanatics in the Tory Party?

There are two potential problems for communities.

• Derique Montaut introduced Homeline to Swindon, 1984, the first in the country,  following an elderly person’s decomposing body being found after 3 months in a bungalow in Highworth.  That or something like it can happen again if Adult Social Care does not have the staff to follow up every lead of a vulnerable elderly person.
• The reductions in specific grants in Children’s services could mean that vulnerable and abused children slip through the net. Indeed most of the specific grants were put in place as result of previous tragedies such as Baby P.

Lastly the national cuts that are being introduced are part of Tory doctrine and have little to do with the economy.  World leaders have lost the influence of Brown, and his understanding of how to avoid the depression that followed the 1930s stock market crash.   We may be reverting to a new form of protectionism.  Cameron’s Tories have started a race to the bottom and Vince Cable seems to have forgotten that he used to agree with Gordon Brown.  Just where is the Liberal Democratic brake on Tory dogma?  Do you remember this LibDem poster!!

Cllr Des Moffatt

This post gives the recent history of Swindon Council’s attitude to Swindon Dial a Ride (SDAR) service.   The Council’s Value for Money Review (5th October 2009) contains unspecified legal advice recommending cessation of the Grant to SDAR, and appears to have triggered the proposed reduction of £50k in grant aid contained in Swindon Borough Council’s draft budget early this year.  This was opposed by all  and was subsequently dropped.  At least, so it appeared at the time.

Most of us relaxed when the Conservative group amendment to a labour resolution at the Full Council meeting of was unanimous.  But someone has been beavering away in the background, sharpening the knife avainst SDAR, but keeping a low profile until the election was safely out of the way.  The first the Labour Group knew of the decision to submit the service to a full tender regime was when the special Procurement Advisory Group (PAG) meeting agenda was published.  I suspect most members of the Council were equally surprised!

Swindon Dial a Ride did respond in detail to the Value for Money report, but have been denied access to officers to discuss a Service Level Agreement (and much else) ever since 2006.  Council Officers have  failed in their duty to attend any of SDAR board/management meeting for over two years.  Had they done so the efficiency and value provided by SDAR wwould have been crystal clear to them. SDAR also provided independent legal advice to the effect that grant aid for a registered charity involved in the transport and care of disabled people did not come under Article 87 of the EU treaty; again I have a copy of that advice.

My own first reaction was to challenge the Councils legal advice and Officials supplied it to me after checking at the highest level.  I was astounded that the advice was dated 25th January 2010.   I suspect any reader will note the significance of the date that the Council passed the supportive resolution unanimously. I am not at liberty to divulge the contents save to say that I regard the advice as having been ‘invited’.

The EU legislation is titled ”On public passenger transport services by rail and by road“.  As its title makes clear it deals with public passenger transport – not a service which exists for people who cannot use public transport!!

However, as I have said to the Labour Group and I am quite clear about it, it would be a bold elected Councillor indeed who ignored their own legal advice.  Should the Council fail now to proceed to tender and a disgruntled alternative operator chose to contest the grant award and win, Councillors would arguably be personally liable “jointly and severally” –  now there’s a phrase to conjure with.

We are where we are,  and I am content that some Tory members will seek to protect the service by ensuring that any tender document is not ‘tweaked’ and that SDAR gets a fair chance to compete despite unseen enemies.

Cabinet and Lead members make the decisions on behalf of the Council. The Procurement Advisory Group is tasked with ensuring that the Council receives the best service for the most competitive price. Quality of service matters, and so does the unintended consequences that might be missed by others.  Penny wise and pound foolish some call it.  The PAG process is carried out in stages, and to say that to say that “PAG passed it” misrepresents what PAG is about.

Clls Des Moffatt

p.s. Its interesting to note that WiFi did not go through the Procurement Advisory Group.