Motion

for Full Council 21st September 2011 This Council agrees that all budget proposals presented to Full Council in the Budget debate on the 23rd February 2011 were legal and balanced Opening Speech (CW): On the 20th July, here at the last Full Council meeting, Cllr Pugh launched a highly political attack on the efforts of Independent group members to produce alternative budget proposals earlier this year. He told this chamber that on closer inspection of the Independent Budget there were, and I quote: some major flaws in their proposals and that it would have been extremely dangerous and irresponsible to have adopted their approach. I have brought forward this motion to challenge such overtly political behaviour and to correct the impression left by Cllr Pughs tirade, that the alternative budgets would not have been workable alternatives to his own, now failing model. From what we can deduce, Cllr Pugh bases his allegation on three factors none of which, in our opinion, are either fair or true: Firstly he claims that the final version of the Independent Budget was submitted only at the meeting on the 23rd of February, and I quote: that late submission of the final version of the proposals gave members very little time to assess their validity and robustness. Secondly, he claimed that there was an error in the amount that we said we would return to the reserves. Lastly, and most worryingly in our view, as it affects our relations with officers and staff, Cllr Pugh stated that our staff restructuring proposals were extremely dangerous and irresponsible. How so?

Firstly, let us be very clear. The final version of our budget proposal, as presented to members, was seen by the Section 151 Officer, Dave Burbage and he was, and remains, satisfied that our proposals were lawful and balanced. The late alteration, allocated the available cash from the Pan Meadows development allowing us to recommend additional funding for community buses and an additional 341k for the reserves. What Cllr Pugh has latched on to, is that on the front cover of our presentation to members, there was a typographical error. A figure of five hundred thousand was shown, instead of the correct amount of three hundred and forty one thousand. This was not replicated in the body of the report or our calculations. The figures shown at IND33 were correct. At this point, members might be interested to have their memories refreshed as to the contents of IND33, something that Cllr Pugh might prefer not to accurately recall: IND33 stated: The Isle of Wight Council have legal responsibilities that appear not to be budgeted for, such as seaweed clearance and issues relating to the aborted Ryde Interchange project. Currently these costs are met from reserves. We propose a provision for them here that can be held on reserve to address these issues as they arise. Cllr Pugh would now like elected members and more importantly, members of the public, to view this provision as extremely dangerous and irresponsible. And what about his allegation that we presented our proposals so late that no one had time to give them careful consideration? Well, lets be absolutely clear about what he is suggesting here. What he is saying is that had members had a chance to carefully review the final version of the Independent Budget proposals beforehand, then they would have been able to see for themselves what a dangerous budget we had created!

Hang on to that thought whilst you consider the next part of Cllr Pughs cunning plan to divert attention away from his own monumental budget catastrophe. Firstly, the late submission of the final version of the Independent Budget was entirely due to Cllr Pughs own tardiness in failing to provide details of the Pan Meadows New Homes Bonus, to the opposition groups in a timely manner. The New Homes Bonus was formally announced by the DCLG on Thursday the 17th February. The figure available for the Isle of Wight, was known here on the Friday. The leader only notified the other groups late on the Monday, three days after the information was given to him, leaving very little time for the other groups to factor this into their budget proposals. He on the other hand had the whole weekend to dedicate to that task. At the time, we regarded the short notice as a minor irritation when compared to the elation at having additional funds to allocate to an extremely difficult budget package. No one could have imagined the mischief that Cllr Pugh would later make of this, for one very significant reason. During the weeks preceding the Budget meeting, Cllr Pugh had devoted a great deal of time and energy to demanding details of our proposals from which he was able to produce a 15 page dossier delving into every aspect of our alternative budget. Cllr Pugh was in full possession of the facts well before the day of the Budget meeting. Whether he shared this information with members of his group we do not know. For Cllr Pugh to claim that the late submission of the final version of our proposals gave members very little time to assess their validity and robustness and that an error in the amount that we said would be returned to the reserves caused our budget to be extremely dangerous and irresponsible is risible especially when one considers the amount of information regarding our proposals he had at his disposal in the weeks leading up to the budget. In making this public allegation he has grotesquely misled the public and members of the Isle of Wight Council and grossly misrepresented our position.

There was nothing in the revised proposals that materially altered their robustness, validity, balance or lawfulness. Finally, and probably most seriously, in his attempt to substantiate his allegations, Cllr Pugh compared our staff restructuring proposals to those of Conservative controlled Southampton City Council, which led recently to strikes. Apart from insulting his Conservative colleagues across the water, he is completely off the mark with his allegations. Southampton City Councils situation arose because their proposals were aimed at lower pay grades and were based on reducing working hours. The resultant strike was largely by lower paid staff, refuse collectors and street cleaners, most of whom are at pay grades Sc1-Sc4 Our proposal was to implement a restructuring and reduction in senior management with a 5% Reduction in salaries for better paid employees, which excluded the lower paid staff grades Sc 1 Sc 6. We included all elected member allowances regardless of responsibilities, which is probably what upset the leader most! We further proposed a 10% reduction for staff earning over 65k per annum. That meant that only better paid officers and all elected members would be affected. Cllr Pugh knew all of this because, in our response to his enquiries prior to the budget presentations, we told him, in writing. There can be no confusion or doubt about this! His claim that this would have led to strikes and would have been unworkable and that in some way the proposal was arbitrary, is best disingenuous and at worst a downright lie! It was far from arbitrary or unworkable. It was proposed to facilitate a three month consultation with trade unions and staff. Crucially, it would have allowed us to save 180 jobs. As a result of Cllr Pughs insistence on cutting rather than making efficiency savings, these jobs have either been lost or are now at risk. Important departments like Trading Standards are shuddering under the

burden that Cllr Pughs job cutting strategy has placed on them. Most people in better remunerated positions, would rather suffer a reduction in their pay than the loss of their job. Our budget would have allowed time to negotiate and time for the impact of the cuts, that had to be made, to be better understood and better implemented. There is always risk, but to claim in the way that Cllr Pugh has, that our budget proposals were extremely dangerous, irresponsible and unworkable is political rhetoric at its worst. Our Section 151 officer, Mr Burbage has told us: In respect of deliverability and achievability a number of proposals within all budgets have an element of risk particularly where they involve staff negotiations or for example eligibility criteria where individual assessment is involved He also stated: without commenting on the merits of the budgets put before Council on the 23rd February in my opinion all budgets were balanced and legal Therefore the motion is: This Council agrees that all budget proposals presented to Full Council in the Budget debate on the 23rd February 2011 were legal and balanced I now call on this whole Council to accept this and move on. Please adopt this motion. I now call for a seconder.