Transcript

Transcript

(blender whirring) (blender whirring) (blender whirring) (blender whirring) (blender whirring)

• Good evening members and members of the public, who I see we've got quite a few of, and obviously the press attending this full council meeting, BCP Council 20th of February 2024. I'm Councillor Leslie Deadman, and as chairman of this council, I will be chairing the meeting, and I will be supported by Vice Chair, Councillor Simon Hall. I will now set out the housekeeping arrangements for the meeting. Firstly, please note that this meeting is being recorded by the Council for Live and Subsequent Broadcast. It will be published on the Council website for a minimum, sorry, not a maximum, a minimum of six months. In order to ensure this meeting is managed effectively, please could everyone follow these ground rules, which we have at every meeting, so I think we all know them. However, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand clearly to indicate. Where there appears to be a consensus in the meeting for a motion, I will ask if there's any dissension. And when a formal vote is required, this will be carried out by a show of hands, unless a recorded vote is requested, which requires support from a quarter of the members present at this meeting. Please could members just indicate to me if they are leaving the meeting. In accordance with the Constitution, I will allow for comfort breaks as appropriate. Please, if you can, avoid leaving the meeting during the debate, but obviously. Points of order raised should state the applicable constitutional provision. And as I say, every meeting, and I know everybody does, I will assume that all Councillors will uphold the highest standards of conduct and treat one another with courtesy and consideration. This evening, we have a timer, which you will see somewhere down there. I feel like the Weather Girl, just articulating. And this is to give the speakers notice of when they are near the end of the time for speaking. There are various times for speaking, and that will be adjusted as necessary. All right. Oh, and as a reminder, this is a meeting being held in public. It is not a public meeting, but the public are in attendance to observe proceedings and debate, but I therefore request that members of the public remain silent throughout the meeting. Thank you. Right. Item one, apologies. Chief Executive, can you read out the apologies for this meeting? Thank you, Chairman. Apologies have been received from Councillor John Charlanner, Councillor Joe Clevance, and Councillor David Flag. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Now, members of all had note of this. The monitoring officer has granted all members dispensations in respect of the following agenda items. Item 11, budget, including Council tax. Item six, safety, vote, debate on petition and motion. So I hope all members understand that there is no need to make separate declarations of interest on that. And Chief Executive, can you report on any other declarations of interest received? Thank you, Chairman. I've had no specific declarations at this point, but I understand that one or two Councillors may wish to declare interest at appropriate points. If they are required to make any other declaration of interest, then could the police refer to the flow chart set out in the agenda for guidance? Thank you. Item three, confirmation of minutes. Councillors, we've all received and read the minutes. I know. Can you agree to confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held on 9th of January 2024? Do I see agreement? Thank you. Agreed. Agenda item four, announcements and introductions from the chairman. Firstly, rather sadly, I must report the death of former pool Councillor Jeff James. I know many of us knew him. And I'm inviting Councillor Maye Haynes to say a few words about Councillor James. Councillor Haynes. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Geoffrey John James, who was a Councillor for Parkstone Pool from 1991 to 1996, passed away on Saturday the 3rd of February. He served on many committees during that time. Housing, tourism, performance review and also leisure and recreation services. Jeff was born in Bournemouth, but his heart had always been with Poole. He moved to Poole at a young age and made it his permanent hometown. Those that knew him will know that he had a very keen interest in food and wine. He owned and ran a restaurant for a few years in Poole High Street called Barfats, which I believe is now Ginales, on the High Street. Following that, Jeff started a construction company where, together with his wife Claire, built high-quality homes in Poole, who retired in 2008 and not want to sit still and barked on a new project to achieve a dream that he had. And this was to write a book. So, what could he write about? Jeff and his wife had travelled extensively in France and developed a fondness for the country. Together, they learned about the food and wines from the different regions, and in the process discovered the Arminiat region in Gascony. On further research, Jeff realised that there were no books in English about this particular drink. This gave him an idea, and after spending many months researching further, visiting, talking to Arminiat producers, and of course sampling, the book A Live Lovers Guide to Arminiat was published in 2013. There is much more I can say, but time is short. Jeff that I knew, it seemed really odd to say new and not know. He was a generous and kind person. He was a good father, grandfather and a loving husband to Claire. He was also a very dear friend to my husband and I. We learned from him that true friendship was accepting someone for who they are and what's and all, that life is for living and enjoying it. Sorry, it's come back on. So, Madam Chair, I would like to finish on a lighter note and recount a story Jeff told me of his time on the council. He was wondering how to keep committee meetings from over running. His suggestion was to have a guillotine, he said to me. And after a certain agreed length of time, the meeting would end and any unfinished business would be carried over. To quote Jeff, this really made members focus and meetings for much more timely thereafter, rather apt I thought to finish on this note as there has been some debate at length about the length of our council meetings. Madam Chair, I know we've got a very long agenda tonight and I thank you for letting me pay this more tribute. And if I could ask for a moment of silent reflection, it's a mark of respect to the late Jeffrey John James. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Haynes. That was very lovely. Just before I ask you all to stand, I'm also reporting, sadly, the death of our former colleague, Carl Hopton. Carl undertook a number of roles for Bournemouth Council and then BCP Council. His last role was being mace bearer as part of the civic team. I'm sure you will join me in passing our condolences to Carl's family and friends. Now members, would you like to stand in a silent tribute to both Councillor James and Mr. Hopton? Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] Thank you, members. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] the candidates for the Youth Parliament said their pieces, which was really lovely. They all had more or less the same remit, and they will all have the same agenda, but at the same time they were all so good. Then I attended the bereavement umbrella, which is, I'm not going to explain it totally, but it's, if one is bereaved, very often you can't find the information that you need at the time you need it. This bereavement umbrella has been created by all party MPs, and you just go to this particular site, or ask your doctor, and then you access all the help you need. And lastly, I went over to Hengersbury Head to meet all our coastal lookouts, which was a very nice occasion, a lot of men in blue uniforms, and I might just mention that Princess Anne dropped in, so that was very good. I have every time for her, now I've met her, because she spoke to every one of those men, and I think that was about 60 of them, so that was a really good, something good for them. They're very, very good, those coast guards. Right, moving on, public issues, right. Now, the time for questions, statements, and petitions from the public, normally commences after the declarations of interest, and shall be restricted to a total of 15 minutes. The discretion of myself, this time may be extended, but as we have such a full agenda, I'm stumbling over it, but we have a very full agenda, so we are enforcing the 15 minute time limit for the public questions and statements. And I know that some people have been already warned about that. When we get to a question to which an answer can't be given within the time limit, a written answer shall be provided to the questioner, two working days for that, and a copy emailed to all Councillors, so we will all know what was said and what the answer is. And the remaining statements will go on our website. So, starting with Joe Keeling, a public question regarding Highmore Farm Planning application, would you like to come forward? And then I know Councillor Vicki Slade, Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places will respond, so yes, if you'd like to make a start. Good evening, everyone. During a meeting chaired by MP Connor Burns, with regards to the Highmore Farm Planning application, David McNair, Director of Bournemouth Hospital, stated that the Nuffield had made inquiries with the Council to purchase Wessex Fields in order to build a replacement hospital in this location. Talks were progressing 2019-2020, however they came to an end for reasons he stated he was not privy to. May I ask who the talks were with? When these talks concluded, who in the Council stopped the potential sale of this land to the Nuffield, as I'm led to believe it was during the leadership of the First Administration? Why did the Nuffield move from Wessex Fields to Toba Village? Is it indeed a fact they were put off from the Wessex Fields site, as is rumoured to be the case, if so, why? Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Do you want to stay there? Thanks, Joe. Do you want to turn your microphone? Thank you very much for your question, Joe. I can confirm that in early 2020, a community meeting was held at the bridge to discuss all of the options for the Wessex Fields site, in which I was involved in. This resulted in the agreement to go out to tender with a soft market testing of the site to determine what the interest might be around its use. A significant number of responses were received to this exercise, which was conducted by an external organisation, and then sent its report to the Council in October 2020. One of these organisations was the Nuffield Hospital. Just to clarify that the reason that it took so long is due to the global pandemic, the Council moved to a response phase with non-essential work being caused, which included the tendering for the soft market testing, and that was let in June 2020 with the report received by the Council sometime in October 2020. Our period of leadership ended on the 30th of September 2020. No meetings were held with any of the potential users who had responded to that market testing, and beyond the initial expression of interest, BCP had no record of further discussions once the pandemic commenced. No direct offer to purchase the site was made by Nuffield or anyone else during my leadership of the Council. In December 2020, when the Conservative Administration had taken control, a paper was brought to Cabinet, sharing the results of the soft market testing. I have just been cited on this for the first time in preparation for this answer. The Cabinet paper sought a decision to sell all or part of the Wessex Field site, and the recommendation, which was passed, was for part of the site to be sold to the Bournemouth Hospital Trust, now known as UHD, University Hospital's Dorset, and this was progressed. The Cabinet report can be read online, but the external soft market test was provided as a confidential appendix. I cannot tell you why Nuffield decided to start negotiations with Talbot Village Trust, or why they decided not to pursue their initial interest in the site, which they are, of course, a private business, so I have no information available for that. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. Susan Stockwell has submitted a public question regarding waste collection and licence premises. Would you like to ask your question? Andy Hadley, Councillor for Climate Response, Environment and Energy will respond. Sorry, can you say it? What is it about? Who's question? Oh, it's OK. It's the wrong one, it's OK. All right. Thank you. Will you control waste collection? Ensuring bins are returned to and collected by Council staff from premises where the waste is generated? Instead of being left on pavements or public land where they attract flight-hipping and vandalism, this also breaches the public sector equality duty by obstructing the highway, particularly for young, elderly and disabled. During high winds recently, my car came very close to being damaged by a large commercial bin on wheels, left in Bournemouth Square after emptying, instead of being returned to the premises. Thank you. Councillor Hadley, would you like to respond? Thank you, Leader. Thank you, Chair. Susan, thank you for your question. The waste service acknowledged that bins left out on public land for extended periods of time can be a particular problem for elderly individuals, disabled people and parents with push chairs in particular. The Council, like the vast majority of local authorities, operates a curbside waste collection service. Our adopted waste collection guidance can be viewed online. It is the responsibility of the householder or business to avoid causing an obstruction to pedestrians where possible and to stall their bins as soon as possible on the collection day. Leaving a bin out on the pavement is not a criminal matter, but is a civil one. The Government has given local authorities the power to issue fines for persistent breaches of the rules. The Government's advice to councils is that fixed penalty notices should be issued as a last resort. The Council is currently reviewing options and taking learning from other local authorities to consider introducing a new standard for how commercial wastes should be stored and how waste bins or sacks are presented on the highway and public land within our town centre retail areas, which will be considered in a future cabinet meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Our next question is from Adam Soffianus, a public question regarding the safety valve. Would you like to come through, Mr. Soffianus? Councillor Richard Burton is going to respond. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. So, Councillors will be aware that the Council has submitted a 15-year plan to Government in relation to the safety valve scheme. During a committee meeting last month, it was confirmed by an officer that this plan, and I quote, doesn't tackle the deficits currently projected for the end of this financial year. In other words, this plan will not pay off a penny of the £63 million accumulated deficit, a deficit which already leaves the Council in technical insolvency. Can Council confirm for the avoidance of doubts that the 15-year safety valve plan does not tackle that £63 million deficit and does not remove the associated risk of insolvency? Thank you. Thank you, Adam, very much for the question. Before I answer, I've got five questions tonight, and I've tried not to repeat myself in any of them. So, could I ask any answers that I get sent out to all the people who have answered the children's questions? So, it sort of saves a bit of time. Yeah, I must also thank you very much for the interest in this. It's really heartening to know the number of people who have interest in children's services and particularly send at the moment. Adam, you're quite correct. After 15 years, the end-year position is planned to have a small surplus, that's the end-year position. Have a small surplus, and the accumulated deficit will start to reduce at that point. The £63 million deficit will have risen by that time. Further conversations will be needed to take place with government about how the projected £63 million accumulated deficit can be funded in the meantime. Proving that we have a drastic increase in the deficit will aid these conversations. Thank you. We have now Rachel Filmer, public question also regarding the safety valve. In January, over 30 residents gathered to protest against safety valve. 20 stayed for the Children's Services Committee meeting where 20 questions and 10 statements were submitted. Families spoke eloquently and bravely about the ways they've been failed by inadequate services. Young people, Maisie and Will, said they feel unworthy of funding and they find the safety valve planned details terrifying. Yet the Council glosses over these legitimate concerns. The 15-year outline mentions the risk of more tribunals and judicial review, acknowledging that statutory duties will not be met. Councillors and officers may be listening, but are we being heard? By the Council's own admission, services are already not good enough. The choices made here will define our children's entire lives and determine quality of life for parents and carers for decades to come. Will Council commit to oppose any plan which involves a reduction in services? Thank you very much for your question, Rachel. The 15-year plan is based on all statutory duties being met and children remaining in their current placements as long as they remain appropriate. The plan includes some assumptions for improved demand management, but the main way of reducing budget pressures is through creating new high-quality low-cost places through the capital program. The plan takes an estimate of 15 years to achieve a balance because there are, and this bit I've got actually been bold, no plans to change the commitments already made. It takes time to create new local places, and these are to be filled by children who are not yet placed in any provision. There are no plans to change placements for children and young people who are in the most appropriate placement. This will only be considered if it's the best interest of that young person. An associated improvement plan for the local area's send partnership has been developed and is with a DFE for approval. This will be shared with all stakeholders as soon as possible. The implementation of the improvement plan will be overseen by the send improvement board, and this is shared by the DFE appointed improvement advisor and has representatives across all local authority, education, health and structures, and I also sit on that board. Thank you. Sarah Cooper has submitted a public question regarding the safety valve. Adam Sofianas, would you like to ask the question? Can I just inform everybody that we take these questions as they come into the Council so we are unable to differentiate. These will come in first, so people down the list may be unlucky. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Chair. You'll be sick of me by the end. Yeah, so this is on behalf of Sarah Cooper who can't be here. She asks, It is well documented that the Council's send service has not been consistently meeting statutory requirements. This is evident in tribunal outcomes where council decisions are overturned in the overwhelming majority of cases. A cabinet paper published in September 2023 described BCP as the fifth lowest performing authority in the country. Although some improved data has been returned, performance is still below statutory minimums and parents tell us of long waits for statutory advice while newer requests are prioritized. Yet the 15 year safety valve plan would mean not only a considerable reorganization of services but specific reductions in service, such as the need for 50% reductions in EHCPs in year one to meet financial targets. How can the Council guarantee that any safety valve plan would meet statutory levels when they are already unmet? Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Adam, for reading the question and could you also pass my thanks to Sarah for asking it. Currently, 95% of decisions to assess are within six weeks. There is a large historic backlog of annual reviews. Back when the cabinet paper that you refer to was written, and I remember that paper well, as you can imagine, the backlog was over 600. It's now down to 310. Although this is still too high, it's due to be caught up by May 24, the May this year, based on the common progress. Looking at the EHCP20 deadline, I was embarrassed by the number of completed and timely manner at that point, if you remember why it was a 0%. This has consistently improved over the last three months. November, it was up to 3.5%, December 12.5, January at 28.6. Due to the nature of the time indicator, it will take some months to reach our 100% target, but clear improvements can be evidence. This is still not good enough, however, and I'm pleased with the progress, and I would thank officers for their work in this. Looking at the 50% reduction of EHCP's mentioned, from around 60 plans per month currently in the system, about 30 are to clear the backlog. Going forward, the underlying number of new plans in 23-24 should only be about 30 per month, with it assumed that this level will continue into 24-25, then reduced by only one per month over the remaining years due to falling overall child numbers. There's a falling number of school-age children within the BCP following from a pool, which that is commonly going through with secondary school-age children. You are quite right to be concerned about the impacts that the safety valve plan might have on the same service improvement journey. This is a primary reason that BCP has entered a 15-year plan rather than a seven-year plan, and to buy other authorities. Thank you, everybody, who's asked a question. We are going to cut it off at this point. We had 24 questions, which is a great many, and I'd just like to say, I'm really pleased that everybody is so keen to ask a question. It really is cheering. Not all of them are on the safety valve, and as I say, you will get answers written, and it will go on the website. I just apologise to the rest of the page, and thank you very much for your questions and statements. We're going to move on to item six. I believe, again, we've received a petition and a motion on the matter of this safety valve program. We're going to ask the lead petitioner to introduce the petition, and then Councillor Canavan will move his motion, and then debate on both items will follow. Now, the petitioner is, in fact, Mr. Sophianos. Are you ready, Mr. Sophianos? Yes, okay, should I go to Counavan? Just wait a few seconds for Mr. Sophianos to get the right paperwork. It does seem to be some debate going on outside. I suppose somebody could open the door, see what's going on? We're just going to go and have a quick check. Yeah. You can't be this long getting papers, can you? Go back down. Okay, yes, okay, no, I've got much. Mr. Sophianos, can you come forward? Would you like to introduce your petition, and you've got the three minutes for this one? Good evening, again, everyone. I'd like to thank the Chair and all the officers who have supported this event, and I salute the thousands of residents who made this the most signed petition in BCP's history. Let's begin with the background. Services for special educational needs and disabilities have been underfunded for years. English councils have built up a deficit of almost three billion pounds, and when the deficit override ends in 2026, many will face bankruptcy. But instead of a solution, there's safety valve, a scheme which compels councils to limit their spending on send services. And it does this by cutting the services. It's right there in the Council's 15-year plan, a 50-percent cut in EHCPs in year one alone, limits in special school places, cuts in 16-plus services, and so on. But these limits aren't based on needs, they're based on targets. And those safety valve councils do get punished for missing spending targets. There's no measurement for abandoning children. Yet families are already in crisis because services are already in crisis. Last year, English councils were found to have broken the law in 98% of all send tribunal cases. And as they slip further and further away from their statutory duties, more and more children are left behind. And even if it did go ahead, as we heard, the safety valve plan won't save BCP from bankruptcy, because it only looks forwards. So we already have a £63 million deficit, which puts the Council in technical insolvency now. But not a penny would be paid off by this plan. And there's no special protection under safety valve either. After all this, BCP would still be bankrupt. Safety valve is a cruel deception, a victim-blaming policy, which, above all, punishes vulnerable children. Last month we saw in War X a council what that culture looks like. So tonight we ask one thing of you, be better. Stand up for families, demand a solution to the deficit trap, demand a solution to the funding gap, combine with other councils in a single voice. And though it is hard to challenge a higher authority, if you do find yourself struggling in a deep end or banging at a brick wall, you might discover in that moment what life is like for so many sound families every single day. Finally, there's a motion coming up and we do ask you all to support it. This isn't about local politics, it's about a national policy, which doesn't work, and a plan which will make things worse. So councillors, let's be better. Stand with us tonight. It's time to fix a broken system and it starts here. Thank you Mr. Sophianos, and I believe you had over 2000 signatures for the petition. Do any councillors have questions they wish to put to Mr. Sophianos? And obviously I'd ask you to be brief. Yes, councillor. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr. Sophianos. We've heard about the potential impact that safety valve is likely to have on some schools. What reaction have you had from local schools, senior leadership teams and semcos in response to BCP's safety valve proposal? Good question. I'm glad you brought schools up because I didn't have time to reflect on that in the speech. As part of this 15-year plan, schools would have to contribute to the in-year deficit reduction program during those 15 years. So the proposal is to take half a percent out of year one's budget and 1% out of each subsequent year. So for year one, the school's budget reduces by about 1.3 million and year to 2.7 million going up to 5 million in year 15. We know schools are unhappy. I was there at the school's forum in January. They voted against these proposals, which means BCP would have to apply to the Department for Education, for Disapplication to enable them to access those funds. Head teachers tell us that they would certainly have to cut staff. They're already on the brink. And I know from speaking to Sanco's that they too are already on the brink. The requirements being asked of them is getting more and more, but staffing isn't increasing in turn. And so it's at a critical point now. The service is already in disintegration. And I think that this comes back again to the kids. Failure to support San kids properly in the classroom or around the school communities is leading to worse and worse outcomes. The loss of funding, the loss of staff is a worse outcome for us all. I hope that answers the question. Thank you, Mr. Sofia Onos. And I'm sure it did answer the question. Can I ask you to be slightly more brief? I don't want to muzzle anybody, but we equally want to get on with the meeting. Councillor Harmon, I think you were next. Thank you, yes. In the petition, you mentioned that safety valve won't solve the situation we are in and that there are other solutions. Can I ask for some clarity on what you see those solutions as being? Thank you. Thank you. So very quickly, yes. So we have this legacy deficit which will not be addressed. In 2026, all councils will face the potentially the removal of the statutory override. This is currently ring fencing, all DSG deficits around the country. So if you are in a situation like BCPs where the deficit is likely to be bigger than reserves, then that would almost certainly mean a section 11480s. So this isn't just a BCP issue, this is an English councils issue. There are a number of solutions, the most obvious one. The short, cheap fix is to extend the override, to give councils that extra bit of time to prepare. After that, there is a funding issue and there is the potential. I would hope to write off the deficits, but that is for the government to organise. Thank you. Take one more question. Councillor David Martin. Thank you, Chair. Adam, we know about Dorset and the difficulties they've had already in the early stages of their safety further agreement, but what has safety found being like for other councils? And can we learn anything from that experience? Thank you. Yes, thank you, Councillor. A real mixed bag, you mentioned Dorset. Dorset are currently we here, applying to have their contract extended because they're not going to hit their targets. I know Stoke-on-Trent are doing so as well, they wanted the first to enter the program. Kent is probably the biggest county council in the program, but they are currently trying to move 90% of their sent children into mainstream, which has caused a lot of concern. Berry, and this is like the head on the stick outside the Tower of London. Berry Council missed their targets, they had their funding withdrawn. Government brought them back to the naughty step. They had to raid school reserves. They had to raid their own reserves. They had to take money out of school surpluses. So there are all sorts of traps for safety valve participants. I think the lesson for us is that councils with small deficits, it's a manageable project. For councils with a large deficit and with small reserves, which is BCP, it's incredibly challenging indeed, and the answer is does not lie in this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sophianos. And now, Councillor Canavan. Councillor Canavan, can I call upon you to move your motion? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 4, section D of the BCP Constitution, set out at paragraph 13.22. The options that are available to the Council in response to a petition. It was my view that those options were not very helpful. And they certainly didn't give any outcome for the parents in support of this petition. The petition seeks a debate by this Council, which obviously we're now having, but it also calls on the Council to reject safety valve. And my motion was originally intended to support them in ensuring that we did just that. However, I think it's important for parents and the public to know that this was prevented internally. I was prevented from being able to do that. But I am grateful for the decision today to lift the dispensation and to allow all the officers to participate in this debate. So this motion is intended to ensure that there is a definite outcome and a clear response to this petition and also, and more importantly, that it's this Council that takes the final decision. So whatever the DFE comes back with, BCP needs to keep control of the pace of change and to put children first. As has been pointed out, send support is simply a means of giving a child a chance to better access education and improve their lives. This is something we should be doing as standard. Child placement decisions should be based on the needs of the child, and not by targets or by adding yet another obstacle on the hurdle race that parents are navigating, I expect to navigate in a current system. But let's be clear, the objective safety valve is to reduce the amount spent on send by cutting the support delivered to children. For BCP, this includes reducing new HCPs by 50%. This could push up to 90% of new plans into mainstream schools and make further cuts to support for children over 16. There's also a serious risk that that BCP proposal could mean taking money from schools. And there is a willingness on the part of schools to help, but they can't be expected to make additional provision without more resources. So I'm not going to repeat the points that Mrs. Ophianos is made, but the solution does lie elsewhere because send services have been underfunded for years, and we need a better outcome. We need a better outcome that supports vulnerable children and struggling families across the BCP, of which there are very many. So I'm asking his Council to support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Canavan. Councillor Cooper, I understand you wish to second this motion. Yes, I shouldn't take too much time because the petition has been eloquent. We've got some really good questions, and Patrick has covered a lot. There's a few words I want to say, so the kind of root cause impact, opposition, Orwellian double think, definition of insanity, which it seems an insane process. So we know what the root cause the situation we're in. I don't want to go into all the years of austerity imposed on local authorities by the conservative government, and they have, and they continue to do so. And we need to grow up and challenge that, as other councils have. The cuts have far reaching impacts, as we know. It's like teaching it, it's OK. The poorest are paying the highest price, as always. Those who have got money can go to private guys to get their children assessed and go to other schools, whatever, so it's the working class people of this country who have been attacked through draconian political economic ideologies based on neoliberalism, which is a privatisation of everything. I would bet my house on it, that around the corner, do you remember when Gove wanted to privatise safeguarding? Do you remember that? And he was stopped. Around the corner, maybe the privatisation of commercialisation of SEND, the acronym which I can't stand, it's special educational needs and disabilities, the most vulnerable people in our society are suffering. Orwellian doublethink, I used to be a plumber. We used to put a safety valve in, which stopped the house from blowing up. It's just an illusion, safety valve is not an illusion, as expressed by the petitioner and as Patrick. It's a paper tiger. Paper tiger. Look what's happened in Birmingham. You see what's happening in Birmingham? They buy into everything, they do all this, they do that. They've suddenly got an extra 1.5 billion. What for? To get out of there in all the news reporting, not once, as it mentioned, that 40% of our budgets have been cut time and time and time again and continue to do so. So the families here, I've got about 30 seconds. Impact on the families, just quickly on this one. Many of us cannot work and have no life outside of caring responsibilities and all we are asking is for our children to receive their legal right to accessible education. We shouldn't have to fight this hard. Many parents cannot fight and it's those of the children we should all be concerned about. We see what happens when funding is cut and services deteriorate, more costs and vulnerable children of the collateral damage. And then there's the insane cycle of SENS before you tell me to shut up. Here we go. Definition of insanity. Placements break down. SENS costs gold to deficit growth. And when do I ever tell you to shut up? Oh, yeah. So the SENS cost goes up, deficit grows, mainstream schools, funding cut, limited staff and resources. Children struggle and needs worse and placement breaks down. That is the SENS vicious circle. Sorry, I apologise. Can I just tell everybody? I do have a switch here to switch your microphones off and it's not working. So please don't take advantage, you are lucky there, Councillor Cooper. Thank you very much, though, for that impassioned speech. Now, I'm going to call on other members who wish to speak on both the motion and the petition. Councillor Burton, I believe your hand was up immediately. Thank you very much, Chair. And thank you, Councillor Caravan, for the motion. I would just like to take a moment just to thank Adam also for the petition. It is quite a spectacular petition and I think it's really interesting. I'll be brief on what I want to make clear that I support the body of the motion. I have some issues with the preamble, especially the likely effect on young people and their families and BCP would be an acceptable bit. As I believe that asking for the 15-year plan, we're demonstrating that we're focused on making improvements for children, young people, and not just chasing the money like some authorities have. But I'm not going to make an issue with that because I think the motion is good. I'm pleased that we haven't decided to try to vote on accepting or rejecting the safety of health, because to be honest, right now, we don't know what we would be voting on because we don't have that back from the Secretary of State. You might find the Secretary of State's side would be really generous and offers a lot of money. Unlikely, but if we voted against it, we wouldn't be able to accept that. I'm more than happy about anybody to write to any Secretary of State that would make a difference. The LGA or any bells that matter, I'll certainly be more than trying to add my name to such a letter. This will answer all the lobbying we've been doing. Every send improvement board, we ask the DFE representative to take that message back because something has to be done. If we get an agreement from the Secretary of State, it will contain income, spending, anything more than one million would have to come to Council anyway. And just to be clear, all decisions made at full Council are binding. I would suggest that the best time for a debate would be either depending on when we get a reply from the Secretary of State at the next full Council meeting, or if it comes through quickly as an extraordinary meeting, so if we get a quick decision. So, I would ask for confirmation that that's possible. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Councillor David Martin, I think you're next. Thank you, Chair. As a member of, on the Children's Overview and Strutiny Committee amongst many important items, send service and, in particular, safety valve has been a topic we've discussed in great depth and with great concern. We know recent years has seen a significant uplifting the number of young people needing to access, send provisions, and, as a consequence, finances have spiralled. As we've heard within a potential safety valve agreement, it will take at least 15 years in our best-case aspirational plan submitted to the Department of Education for Education to get a somewhat back-on-track. And I say somewhat as, again, we've already heard, critically, the £63 million current deficit has not been factored, will not be paid off. Bankruptcy still remains irrespective of safety valve. As we've heard two years into their agreement, Dorsey are having to find their way back to the negotiating table to presumably ensure further government funding is not withheld. It's easy to be distracted by these big numbers, but we must not forget that the hearts of all of this are our young people, their families, and their futures. As members, we, in this room, must take full responsibility to ensure we truly understand where the Senate's Senate service currently is, and what the reality is like for those with lived experience, who we've already heard from previously and have heard as part of the petition. But I do want to recognise or highlight that, obviously, in 2021, the inadequate raising for children's services, and there are signs of progress, and there's clear determination from offices to progress even further. Now we know the service didn't become inadequate overnight, and we know it will take time. But I also want to highlight the government's responsibility to adequately fund local authorities who, despite cuts, still demand more from the overstretched and the under-resourced. In January of this year, more than 40 Conservative MPs called for extra counsel funding to fend off bankruptcies. Also in January of this year, our local MPs were very keen to express their concerns about our office's ability to deliver some provisions in BCP. But in my opinion, January of this year is far too late to start pointing the finger of blame after devastating cuts to local authorities, highlights that our local MPs must first take responsibility for the part they've played and then crucially take a more supportive, pragmatic approach. Moving forward together with the Council by lobbying government to ensure this gets the true attention funding and support required. When it comes to send services our young people, their parents, carers, and many of our teachers are exhausted, pushed to their very limits. Every young person within the send system deserves an opportunity in the right setting to get a fair crack at the future and to flourish. Reducing access to EHCPs and a weighted mainstream approach is not the answer. Safety Valve's success is dependent on delivering a reduction of spend, and this ultimately reduces an already struggling service further. The sum already in safety valve their feet are very much held to the fire not for a failing send service experience, but for financial targets measures not met. I'm in full support of the motion brought forward tonight and our involvement is crucial to ensure we are not agreed to something that is not fit for purpose and clearly not the solution. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor Broughtt, I believe you wish to speak. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would just like to thank Councillor Kanavan for bringing this motion forward, which I will be very wholeheartedly accepting as well. And again, thank you to all the members of the public for taking time out and coming and bringing forward this very important issue. Many of us have been spending an awful lot of time over the last few months dealing with this. I think the fact that we've got so many people signing this petition shows a real strength for feeling in this area and to right as well. As it stands, the reason I'm supporting this motion is that I could not support the safety valve as it stands and the submission that has been put to the Department for Education at the moment. As we've heard from others, it doesn't currently deal with the accumulated debt and therefore doesn't resolve the very big financial burden that is putting pressure on the Council and its solvency. It doesn't give satisfaction as it currently stands at the statutory levels and the clues in the title, statutory levels of support would continue to be guaranteed to our children. And I think that is an absolutely critical part of making sure that anything that we accept has that as a centrality to it. And I don't think it also gives guarantees that we would have a long term joined up plan for a better or more sustainable service. So as it stands with the 15 year plan that we put forward, I just couldn't accept it. However, I am encouraged that our MPs have now secured a commitment from the Department for Education that no further offers will be made without further involvement to them and others. And as we've heard, I'd be very interested to see what comes back after that negotiating process, but if it isn't a huge move away from where we are now, still would not be able to support it. Looking to the motion itself, I think it's very hard to argue with any of the resolutions that it's proposing. The first is that the Council is able to debate and consider this at this full Council. That sounds obvious, but actually for those of us that sat through the first children services meeting, we did not get a straight answer on that. And so to have now not only a commitment from the administration that will happen, but also hopefully agreeing through this motion, I think gives no room for movement within that whatsoever. I also agree that we need to be right into the Secretary of State to seek an urgent extension to the statutory override and also to give local authorities time and space to address this crisis, but mindful of the fact that more time does not resolve this issue in the long term. And there's always a danger in pushing something a little bit further down. And the last two points are to write to the Secretary of State talking about additional funding, who's not going to agree with that, and then finally to write to the LGA to look at for a much more long term decision on all of this. So really pleased that we're discussing it tonight. Thank you very much to the members of public for joining. And I really do hope that we get full cross-party support on this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Joses for someone over there. Thank you. No, I turn it on. There we go. Is it a differentiate from Kate? Sorry, Joe. So, like others, I'm happy to support this motion tonight and whatnot. And I think people's right and others were right in identifying austerity in the cuts as one of the root causes here. But I don't know if that's the only cause of this issue. I can't ignore the fact that our public services, a lot of them, have been turned into financial black holes. And that's a result of 40 years of not austerity, but marketisation and fragmentation of our public services. And I think, actually, if we're going to talk about root causes and how we sort this out, we've got to look at that. Anybody who looked at safety values got any experience of the issues and what new this scheme wasn't going to work. And far too much time has been spent discussing a solution that was never going to work. We've got to start coming up with genuine solutions and accept that they're going to require radical change to our broken system. And really, time and energy would have been far better spent looking at how to address those root causes that aren't just austerity. It's not as simple as, oh, if the cuts hadn't happened, this situation wouldn't have happened. It's with fragmentation and marketisation. And I just wanted to highlight that as I don't think that I've been addressed so far in my debate. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Samman. I'm going to ask Councillor Canavan now. Would you like to reply to the debate on the motion? Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes, Councillor, so sorry. I didn't see you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know and I know many of my residents are thankful that the pressing issues surrounding the safety valve proposal and its potential impact on vulnerable children and families are being considered at full council this evening. When discussing safety valve and the proposed motion, I'm mindful that first and foremost, mine and our collective responsibility as Councillors is that of corporate parents. Corporate parents who are responsible providing the best possible care and safeguarding for the children of BCP. I've been a Councillor for less than a year, but I've worked in the teaching profession for 16 years. And in my personal experience and through discussions with colleagues, it's a profession in complete crisis. I hear of teachers already being asked to choose between which children will be assessed because schools cannot afford to assess all those with send and varied educational needs. I'm also told regularly about classrooms consistently understaffed and needs already uncated for. Head teachers and think they're having to make increasingly difficult decisions daily. And are worried how changes implemented would infect their students and strip to their already diminished budgets. They are concerned that safety valve will further impact on this. I know many teachers who've been no fault of their own feel like they are failing the children in their care due to the pressures of budget and staff and constraints in the system. In addition to this, in the coming academic year, many schools in BCP will face real term cuts amounting to £176 per child. This is at its core a crisis in funding. Funding that has been stripped from schools and children for the last 14 years. A crisis in funding caused directly by government. Just last month MPs berated the government over its lack of support for local authorities during a comments debate on special needs. It's concerning to me that local MPs and members of the government's party have been using this crisis to push their personal agendas and make political gains at the expense of children and families. Children and families that they were elected to represent. These are the same MPs that have consistently voted to cut council funding over the last 10 years. As a court preparing, I'm committed to holding the needs of children and families at the forefront of our agenda. As a teacher, I owe it to the school community to ensure they have the tools they need for success going forward. As a counsellor, I need to be assured that we are able to address BCP's funding deficit. I support this motion as I believe it begins to establish a way forward that aims to safeguard the rights of children and families. Put the needs of school communities at its core and protect the council from a bleak financial future whilst holding central government to account on behalf of the most vulnerable in BCP. Thank you. Councillor Harman. Thank you, Chair. As has been mentioned, BCP is one of many local authorities currently facing an immense accumulated deficit on its high needs blog. This national issue has been caused by increased need for send services coupled with severe underfunding from central government. As part of a safety valve agreement, the Department for Education requires clear, strict targets to be met. Amongst other things we've heard, this will include reducing the number of education, health and care plans issued and special school places available. Many families have told me that they are incredibly concerned about the knock-on effect this could have. There is huge worry that basing these targets not on need but on number will deny some of our most vulnerable young people equality of opportunity and have a potentially devastating impact upon their futures. By essentially forcing BCP to accept an agreement like safety valve, I've heard many families accuse the government of failing our children. Those families and others around the country speak of their send experience as desperate. Too many are having to continually fight to get the support their children are entitled to from an under-resourced and overstretched service. Education professionals fear safety valve will make an already challenging service much worse and that the long-term impact that this government scheme could have on the next generation and beyond has been woefully underestimated by those in Westminster. Safety valve has the potential to affect so many lives, yet as again we've heard this evening crucially it does not address the existing £63 million accumulated deficit and does not cover increasing spend over the next 15 years. From what I understand it is designed to reduce future overspend, not pay off the deficit. At the start of this year, Councillor Olivia Brown and I wrote to the five MPs that cover BCP calling on them to do what this motion sets out in large parts. We urge them to use their platform to stand up for the families of BCP by speaking out and lobbying their own government to find a long-term practical solution to ensure that councils are not faced with having to cut services to balance budgets. I'm sorry to say that we've been sorely disappointed with the lack of urgency and the lack of empathy in the few replies that we have received. As well as calling on the government to do more to seek a solution, this motion calls for a democratic decision on the future of this scheme. I fully support this. Having full transparency and member participation on this process is crucial given the potentially huge impact any decision could have on countless young lives. I desperately hope we will be able to show the leadership that our MPs so far have failed to. Thank you, Councillor. I know you're very keen to clap, but can we not clap because it is a meeting? Thank you. Councillor Canavan, would you like to reply to the debate rather than on the motion? Madam Chairman, there is very little I can add. I'm very grateful for the support around the chamber and to add the things that I didn't have time to cover. Not only am I grateful, but more importantly, I think the parents will be grateful, so thank you very much. Councillors, sorry. Sorry, Patrick, I didn't realise. Yes, so, Councillors, I think we've done a very good job on this and we'd now go to the vote. We could either have a consensus or a show of hands on the motion, so I would like you to tell me, first of all, do we have a consensus for the motion? So, members, it's a consensus that we are in agreement with Councillor Canavan's motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving on, recommendations from Cabinet and the other committees. Councillors, recommendations 7 to 18 on your sheets, they're going to all be taken separately as they're set out on the agenda. And I must highlight that there are decisions on some of these issues which have been taken under delegated powers by the relevant bodies and therefore are not before the Council this evening. So, item 7, Council tax base 2024 to 25. Councillor Cox, I understand you are going to move the recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to recommend to Council that it approves the report for the calculation of the Council tax base for the year ended 24, 25 and recommends the tax base to full Council and be pursuant to this report and in accordance with the local authorities the calculation of Council tax base regulations 1992 as amended that the amount calculated as the tax, Council tax base for board with price church and pool council for 24, 25 is 146,342. Now, Madam Chair, this is a fairly dry report but I would draw members attention to the relatively large number of properties that are claiming single persons discount which is quite significant if not a whopping 30 odd percent. I can assure the Council that we will be undertaking some due diligence on this figure but I'll just leave it like that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cox, do you have a seconder? Councillor Brown, thank you. Members, does anybody wish to speak? Silence. So can we move to the vote with consensus or do you want to show of hands? Agreed. Thank you. Item 8, Treasury Management Monitoring Report for the period April to December 2023, Treasury Management Strategy for 2024 to 25. Councillor Andrews, I understand you are going to move the recommendation and Councillor Connolly, sorry, is going to second. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. At the audit and governance meeting on the 11th January, the committee was presented with a change to the Council's minimum revenue provision policy. The Council is required by statute to make a charge to their revenue account to provide for the repayment of debt resulting from capital expenditure known as minimum revenue provision, MRP. The authority is required to determine a level of MRP. It considers to be prudent whilst having regard to MRP guidance issued by the government. The guidance provides suggested methods for the calculation of MRP. However, the guidance and the legislation does not define what is prudent. It's for each authority to determine what is prudent repayment based on its own individual circumstances considering the medium and long-term financial plans, current budgetary pressures, et cetera. An independent review has been carried out by Link Asset Services, the Council's Treasury Management Advisors, who specialise in his field and work closely with central government on capital policy decisions. They have determined that moving to an annuity method of repayment, similar to repayment profile on standard mortgages will be prudent for this Council. The annuity method is suggested by government guidance and is widely adopted by many other local authorities. I understand over 75% of other councils have already made this switch. This change to procedures does require for Council approval, hence the recommendation A from ANG before you this evening. Also item A, we are also required to approve the Treasury Management Strategy for 2024-2025. My Vice Chair can expand on the matter at Washi seconds. Thank you very much. Thank you. You have a seconder in Council. Condolee, I believe. Yes, that's right. Thank you. So the proposed MRP approach moving to the annuity method means lower debt repayments now and then increasingly higher repayments over the term of the debt. This provides the Council with in-year savings for this year and in the medium term financial plan. I should mention also that another benefit of this policy is that the outstanding unsupported debt liability will be written off in full earlier than under the current method. The downside is of course higher payments down the line and the risk associated with the slower rate of paying down the debt in earlier years. Now the Committee considered in-depth this risk associated with this change in policy and I thank the officers for their time out through my subsequent questions also. The key mitigation is that the annuity method allows flexibility in the pace of debt repayments as additional repayments can be made through voluntary revenue provision, VRP. The Council can put aside funds raised from revenue savings and then make these additional VRP payments at any time to offset the increased payments in later years. The Q3 budget monitoring for 2023/24 has already considered this and set aside the VRP repayments and the proposed 24/25 budget also allows further VRP contributions. So the Committee unanimously got comfortable with this policy on this basis as well as the fact that it is an approach used by over 60% of other local authorities. But I did want to highlight the importance of setting aside VRP alongside this which we should need to keep monitoring. We will also be discussing this policy in detail with the external auditors as they assess this year's accounts and on an ongoing basis. So with this in mind I am prepared to second the motion. Thank you, Councillor. Any members wishing to speak on this? Right, can we go to the vote on this item? Everybody in favour, consensus voting? Thank you. Thank you very much, members. Item 9, mainstream schools and early years funding formula, 2023/24/25 report, Councillor Burton. I think you are going to move this and Councillor Cox is going to second. Yes, thank you very much, Chair. What this paper is asking for is to delegate some specific decisions to cabinet and corporate director children's services in consultation with the portfolio holder, that's me. The delegation is needed to allow the consultation to conclude with the schools for them from early years and because we are waiting for a Secretary of State decision about the rest of what we need to agree with the outcome. When the decision arrives, we can decide what we want to do. Just to be clear on this, this Secretary of State's decision is separate to anything to the safety valve. It's just that we need permission for some of these things. So the Council receives a Ringfence dedicated schools grant to fund early years in mainstream schools. The formula is highly regulated by the DFE. We decide the local formula after consultation with the schools for them. We need the different possibilities to account for the Secretary of State's decisions. The dedicated school grant is divided into four separate funding blocks with an estimate for the next year of the 363 million. Around 73% of the budget goes directly to schools. About 17% goes to the high knees block, which is spent on supporting young people with the HDPs and funds the needs for individual pupils who top up funding for those in mainstream schools and funding for pupils and special schools and other special providers. This year we're planning a 6.2% early years increase, which is due to expansion driven by the government in this area. 2% schools increase, 0.1% central service decrease and a 3% high knees increase, which is not representative of demand. Our point out that this funding is spent on pupils. The decision is just slightly altering which pupils this money is spent on. Transferring funding from the schools to high knees can be agreed by the schools for them and it's limited to 0.5%. It's remained at this level since the restrictions were implemented. The schools for them didn't agree the extra 0.5% transfer. The council requested this from the Secretary of State. The schools for them were aware that this was likely. So they decided that the 0.5% if it was granted, then they would prefer that all schools should contribute the funding of the transfer. Including those on the minimum per pupil funding level allocations. I would also highlight that we're dealing here is a 0.5% only. I have seen 0.5% transfer is commonplace for high tier authorities. It's basically a business as usual thing. So the three options are one, the Secretary of State allows 0.5% and the minimum per pupil funding drop. The 0.5% will be shared across all schools. That's a preferred option for the schools for them. If that isn't the case, option two is if the 0.5% is allowed by the Secretary of State but doesn't allow... Councillor BOURTAN, you're over your level. Can you speed it up a bit, please? I've only got about two more sentences. Allow schools to drop beneath the minimum funding and the second preference of the schools for them, effectively taking more from the schools, some schools, and less from others. Option three is a second mistake, doesn't decide to allow the transfer, then the local mainstream form level will have to exist. This has been cited children services over the scrutiny, and it's also been through Cabinet. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor COCKS, you're going to second. I'll second that. Thank you. Is there any debate on this subject? Questions? Yes, Councillor CANAVAN. Yes, Madam Chairman, if I may, I am confused by what has just been said, because part of the text in this recommendation, there is a very clear link between this item and the high needs block money, and I'm concerned that the scheme of delegation that's within these recommendations will influence or could influence the outcome of the decision that Council takes when we actually get the decision from the DFE about the safety valve. So I am, although welcoming Councillor Burton's comments are the two things are separate, I'm not convinced that they necessarily are, so I welcome some reassurance on that. Thank you. Councillor Barts. Yes, thank you, I too. I think it only fair, actually, to the portfolio holder, because it was an awful lot to tell us in a very short period of time. I think it did extremely well. So if there's any confusion, it's purely because you only had such a short time to tell us about it, so you might be able to expand a little, getting a second bite at the chair. But I would agree with the previous Councillor that if the portfolio could explain the separations of what we've just said about the safety of our issues, that we've just debated and how it is deemed not to impact on the issue that we have before us today within this particular point, so be grateful to hear from you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Barts. Can I just say to that, yes, Councillor Burton did do very well. Can I advise, members, though, that when you actually type out your speech, you could actually time yourself reading it. Sorry. I don't want to be a miserable old nag here, but, you know, we can all keep within the time. Thank you, Councillor Barts. Does anybody else wish to speak? Sorry, Councillor. Oh, I'm so sorry. Councillor Dove, you were so close. I couldn't see you. I have time for my speech. I try not to cough. So, you're absolutely right. This is absolutely part of safety vow, because it's written into the DSG management plan. And the national funding formula was introduced over five years ago to distribute school funding more fairly. And the formula takes into account various factors, such as numbers of pupils, characteristics, attainment, and the school's context, such as whether it's in an area of deprivation, et cetera. And it's through that, as Councillor Burton mentions, you get your minimum per pupil funding level. And what that is, is that's the formula that each and every single pupil requires to be educated adequately within our schools, which is why we have so many outstanding and good schools in BCP. And I was really encouraged to hear so many Councillors this evening speak so passionately about stopping the cuts to school, calling out reduced funding, noting their responsibilities as called but their parents. And so therefore, tonight, as part of this paper, we should be reassuring schools that funding will never fall below that minimum pupil funding level. And if it does, head teachers have written to senior Councillors and to the senior leadership team, making it quite clear what those inevitable results will be. So if we vote for part B of tonight's paper, we are voting for reduction staffing levels, reduction in resourcing, a reduction in building maintenance, and an increase in class sizes. So here we are, having heard all that debate and safety vow, asking to agree 1.3 million reduction of schools budget this year, described as only 2.6 next year, rising up to 5 million over four, 15 years. Schools have rejected this. They can't afford the 1.3 million this year. How will they afford 2.6 million each and every year? They can't. The Council have already removed 400K from the school's budget, and this paper looks to take away more. That means kids will not receive the full amount of funding they require to be adequately educated. This means that minimum per pupil funding level will be breached. I know the Council needs more money, but what we shouldn't be is the sheriff of Nottingham raiding budgets from those who need it the most, and we shouldn't be raiding it from our schools. And maybe the Council will look at their own expenditure first. We spent 400,000 last year on subjecting parents to court tribunals, where councils have lost 98.1% of their cases. Is that a wise use of our budget? Cabinet will advise this is business as usual, and it's not. This paper disproportionately hits schools, hits our children, our most vulnerable paper, and that's why I ask we do not accept the recommendation fee. We don't adopt the local mainstream formula and we do it in the national funding formula. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Dov. Councillor Brown, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't going to speak on this, but I'll just speak very briefly. I sort of support my colleague and the recommendations. I've attended, previously attended schools forum a number of years ago, and I know it's a very complex matter around the finances, but for members who aren't attentive to the minutiae of the figures, I'd just recommend that you look at table one in the report, which is the dedicated schools grant funding settlement for 2024-25, allocated by the Department for Education. For me, that table just indicates the priorities of this government. There's a 66% increase in early years funding, which is great, and that's because of the government policy about extending free early years or provision. So they've increased that by 66% or 13.9 million pounds. The high needs block, they've increased by 3% or 1.7 million pounds. Had government policy been different and their priorities been different and they've increased the high needs block by 66%, instead, we wouldn't be having to have all these safety valve discussions and all this worry about the growing deficit. It's purely down to central government's priorities. If they prioritise special educational needs and the high needs block and gave us a 66% increase like they have done for early years, we wouldn't have to be having all these conversations and these petitions. Thank you, Councillor Brown, does that, sorry? Oh, I'm so sorry, Councillor Connolly. Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to say that the recommendation is to delegate the final decisions. Consistent with what we've said about the safety valve so far, we would feel more comfortable having the opportunity to discuss and debate that transparently once we've seen the response from the Secretary of State. Do I see any more hands? Councillor Cox, did you reserve your right to speak? Could you want to speak on it? Thank you, Councillor Burton, can you sum up on this debate? Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Just a couple of things to add to it. I can so understand how the confusion is here with the debate on safety valve and this. They are overlapping but separate issues. The 0.5% is, as I said, a business that is usual at this moment in time, although in future the safety valve, if it happens, might make a difference to that. Thank you for noticing that. I went through quite a lot of information here quite quickly. Those people who attended Cabinet when I presented this paper would have got a better detail on it because the timing on this means that I do have to be quite quick. I would say that it did go through Cabinet on the vote quite quite unanimously. I didn't get any recommendations from children over in scrutiny. It's a shame it would have been good to have some debate there so that I could have heard some opinions, but that didn't happen. So I've had to take this forward as it is. I do totally agree that taking on different schools is not on my agenda. It's very unfortunate to be in that situation and this a local authority and all the local authorities are saying. I would remind you that what I said here is that this money isn't just being taken from schools and given to the local authority. The money's been taken for one set of children, a small amount to be spent on another set of children. That shouldn't happen, but that's the situation that we're in. I think I'll probably cover all the points there. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Councillor Burton. I think from what was said, perhaps we need to have a show of hands on this. Can we vote Secretary? We're just checking whether we can do them separately or whether they're set to try. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Yes, thank you, members. We're going to take them separately as I haven't got them in front of me at the moment. I've got to rely on the Chief Executive. Recommendation a, share of hands all in favour. Those against, please. Oh, all right, then, the abstentions. Thank you, members. So, that part of it is carried. And on the second part, oh, so he cancelled it. Have a what? Do we have support for a recorded vote on this? No, I'm sorry, Councillor. That doesn't seem to be the support. We have to ask them to stand or to show their hands. Okay, anybody that wishes for a recorded vote, can you please stand? So, I'm sorry, still isn't enough, Councillor Dove. Right, all those in favour of this particular part of the item? Councillor interjecting. This is going to be a fee. Councillor interjecting. Councillors, just to put their hand up, because actually we can't see if you've put it down here. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. All those against? Sorry, thank you, members. Stentions? I'm going to ask the Chief Executive to say they're not. That vote was carried 38 to 25. Thank you, members. We are moving on now to item 10. Housing revenue account, commonly called the HRA budget setting 2024 to 25. Now, you have this on your sheets. Councillor Wilson, I believe you're going to move the recommendation. I couldn't even see you there, Councillor Wilson. I'm so sorry. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. The housing revenue account is a separate account within the Council's budget that ring fences the income and expenditure associated with Council housing. It accounts for around 10,000 properties that we own. This report lays out the budget for the forthcoming financial year and sets out proposals regarding increases to rents, service charges and other charges to tenants and leaseholders. These increases are separate to the arrangements for increasing fees elsewhere within the Council and are set out in law and regulation. This year we are increasing our rents by 7.7%, which is based on the formula laid out in that legislation of CPI plus 1%. This is in line with other registered providers, both locally and nationally. We are also increasing many of our fees and charges to make sure that we are recovering costs. We took this approach through the BCP Homes Advisory Board, which has a number of residents on it. They agreed with us and emphasized that it was important that we ensure we are able to maintain a good standard of services to residents, repairs and improvements to homes and the provision of new homes. It is worth noting the improvements in building safety and regulation of social housing following the Grenfell Tower Fire in 2017 that are now being implemented. These changes are significant and this report sets out the requirements that the Council must meet. The report also demonstrates the amount we are investing into our capital repairs and maintenance. It's $16 million for this financial year, as well as our major projects program of $28 million for this financial year. And around an estimated $176 million in major products over the next five years, which is obviously a sizable investment. We are still going through a period of alignment after bringing pool and Bournemouth neighborhoods together. However, I think this report enables us to maintain a good level of services to our residents, invest in our housing stock and build much needed new homes. So I'm happy to put forward the report with the recommendations as set out. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Cox, I believe you wish to second. I do. Thank you. Have you served my right? I'm reserving your right. Right. Members, does anybody wish to speak? Yes. Councillor Trent, I see you first. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first of all, I declare an interest because I will be subject to an increase in the garage rental element of it. But I'm not actually opposing it, but I want to make the same point I make every year. We have a limit of on the council tax increase of 4.99%, including all the other elements. Councillor Trent, can you pause the moment, please? Yes. I wonder if the Madam Officer could just have a quick word with Councillor Trent to regard the interest you just declared. Yes. Can you come forward? Councillor Trent, come here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good to say. Good to say hello. He's coming up here now. Councillors, thank you. She's going anyway. Councillor. Yes. Councillor Trent and Councillor Bagwell are going out upon advice. So I'm now looking for any more speakers on this subject. Madam Chair, could I just note that Councillor Bagwell was going to stand up to declare an interest? Yes. She didn't actually manage to do this in the chamber. Has that been noted? Yes. Thank you. Donut, thanks you, Councillor. But we have no more declarations of interest. Do we have any more speakers? Councillor Cox you wanted to reserve your right. Do you want to go now then? No. Nice fine. I'll leave you there. Goodness Councillor Cox I keep trying to make you speak here. Right. So if nobody else wants to speak, can we vote by consensus or do we want to show of hands? Yes. Consensus in. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Councillors, I know it's a bit early, but because it's the budget next, which we need to do in one big lump, can we take a break now? And can this break only be what you're saying to 10 or 15? We said to quarter two. To quarter two, so if you come back at quarter two, then we'll stop. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. I would like to take a little bit of time to outline the first of the two amendments that the Conservative group are bringing forward tonight, both of which address some of the very real issues being felt by our residents across BCP and fully funded within the budget itself requiring no new funding or service cuts elsewhere. Before I do that, I would like to also put on my record my sincere thanks to the entire finance and council team for the work undertaken as part of this process. And actually that thanks extends in part to the administration as well. This time last year I was leader of this council and I know keenly the amount of work that goes into the budget setting process, especially when driving a savings transformation and efficiency program. I'd remind colleagues that while the administration has talked about their £44 million of savings needed this year, last year our budget gap to bridge was £74.8 million. And we did so with £34.5 million of savings as opposed to this year's £22 million of direct savings. It is a tough job. Furthermore, despite what you've heard from elements of the administration, we have not balanced the budgets of the last few years by raiding the historic reserves. In fact, this time last year, and this is on the record, the total reserves of BCP stood at exactly the same level as they were when the authority was founded in 2019. We did however, and I will admit this, each year spend more than the income that we received from council tax, etc. However, in the main, this extra income was a result of the previous year's underspend surpluses, if you like, COVID funding and some use of the reserves, for instance, we used £5.3 million of reserves last year. Now, it always seemed right, in my mind, to use extra money and surpluses when times are tough, to protect and invest in the services which are most valued by our residents. But this very tactic has been attacked by many in the administration as not living within our means, alongside with a promise that they wouldn't do the same. That's right, even if they had extra money in a time of need, they wouldn't spend it because they wanted to look prudent. Which is why, colleagues, it was such a surprise when the budget was unveiled to see it was balanced by £25 million that they've suddenly found down the back of the sofa, that business rates collection surplus reserve. Why have we never heard of this pot of money? Even as a former leader, its appearance in the budget paper was the very first I'd ever heard of it. But putting that to one side, this administration, after all its criticisms of the previous council spending £20 to £30 million every year more than the council tax income, is doing exactly the same. Now, I'm not going to criticise that because, as I've mentioned, when times are tough, you should use the extra cash you have to protect services for residents. What we will criticise is the way that this administration has chosen to use this £25 million reserve. Rather than use it wisely to protect or invest in our place and people, almost none of it is being used to do that. For example, £7.85 million is being used to directly support this year's budget, almost £3 million towards the implementation of specific savings proposals and £5.6 million optimism bias contingency, which is able to cover the non-delivery of other savings. This contingency amounts to about 13.8% of the planned savings and efficiencies, and is the first time in BCP Council's history that a specified amount has been set aside to cover essentially not undertaking your own savings. Normally, that risk is mitigated in the year through the council's long-standing budget monitoring process. Now, colleagues, it's this fund that we think is unnecessary in a time of great service pressures, both across our people and place-based council departments. It's our view that this fund should be used in the main for the council's priorities and to protect the services most valued by local people. However, as outlined in the document that was sent round to all Councillors, we have proposed that whilst most of the proposed funding from our amendments come from this one-off fund, the proposal should only be implemented alongside a rigorous analysis as part of the council's budget monitoring process. And only if the Section 151 officer is confident that the optimism bias contingency is not necessary. And as most of these proposals are one-off injections and services, we feel it's a prudent way forward, identifying now the priorities to protect and invest in services, but only doing so if this planned savings are on track. So in short, this enables a fully-funded set of priorities which will only be funded if the administration stick to their own savings targets and only with the express approval of the Section 151 officer, which in our view removes much if not all of the risk of these amendments. So tonight we have two amendments and the amendment one is focused on restoring pride to BCP and amendment two which I'll introduce as a separate amendment invests in our vulnerable people. So the first one bringing back pride in BCP and this amendment provides a much-needed injection of funds into bringing back a sense of pride in the physical appearance and feel of the form of Christchurch and Paul. The last 12 months for many have seen a degradation of much of the physical and social fabric of our towns and the budget as it stands offers little in the way of investment or recognition in our towns and that needs to change. So firstly, we will triple the 388 town centre improvement fund that Councillor Cox has mentioned and bring it up to £1 million and expect that to be sent on deep cleaning of our town centres, investing into safety measures, getting our high streets, looking and feeling safe and clear. We'd also plan—cancel the planned sale of the Waitrose car park which is going to lose 160,000 of ongoing revenue into this council and directly invest that into CSAS and community safety provision, especially in Paul or Christchurch where its provision has seemed uncertain. We'd also use that income to save the little down paddling pool which is still at risk. We'd save the F Festival for another year. The F Festival is too important to the local economy, £59 million into the wider economy to lose it for the sake of £300,000. It's desperately needed for our tourism and hospitality sectors. We'd protect the 100-year-old Kings Park Nursery for another year to properly explore more options and maintain that asset through further through either commercialisation or community involvement. Finally, within this fully funded amendment, we'd put £150,000 into providing upgrades and investment into our play parks across the PCP area. In summary, colleagues, saving the air festival for another year which keeps £59 million invested in our local economy, saving Kings Park Nursery, saving our paddling pools, £160,000 extra into safety offices across our town, and a £1 million fund to save our town centres. All funded without cuts or new funding streams. We can do this. This is beyond politics, and we'd sincerely welcome cross-party support. The PCP deserves it. Thank you. Councillor Broughton, do you have a seconder for your amendment? Councillor interjecting. I second the amendment to reserve my right to speak. Right, so members, we have before us and we've all seen it. Councillor Tallying, are you declaring an interest, or are you speaking? Yeah, thank you. I need to declare an interest. I'm on the premises board of Christchurch Town Council, who are potentially in receipt of that. So, obviously, with the amendment, I can't be involved, and so I need to recuse myself. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. I've got all the questions. I have two of them doing one. There's a bit of a different interest. Okay, thank you, Councillor Tallying. Councillor MACK-MACK. Thank you, Chair. I have the same declaration. So I'll send you to the same way for the amendment. Councillor COCKS is going to declare that you can stay. Councillor COCKS. Thank you. I'm also a ten Councillor, but I can participate in this debate. I've been given authority to do so, because I'm acting on behalf of the seller. Thank you, Councillors. Is that all, though? Yes, I think it is. Councillor HILLIARD. Councillor HILLIARD. Thank you, Chair. Yes, same as Councillor COCKS. Thank you. So why is he not there? Because they're not on the 20th Street House. Madam Chairman, could we explain why some have to leave the room and others don't? It's very hard to hear what the Councillors are saying if they don't put their microphones on. Could we have some clarification, please? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Councillor, but I'm muttering away up here because I had the same question, but apparently I'll pass it over to the Chief Executive. Thank you, Councillors. Chairman, the situation is that Councillor COCKS and Councillor HILLIARD are, whilst they're members of Christ Church Time Council, they are not members of the premises committee, which is debating whether or not the car park should be purchased by Christ Church Time Council. But Councillors, Tarling and Councillor McCormack have been advised that they are members of the premises committee at Christ Church Time Council. The plain English analogy is that Councillors Tarling and McCormack represent the buyer, the potential buyer, and the potential seller would be Councillor COCKS in this instance. So the interests, because they're dual-hatted, Councillor COCKS declares an interest, and Councillor HILLIARD declare interest at Christ Church Time Council because the primary role is at born with Christ Church and Paul Council. And for Councillors Tarling and McCormack, as you've seen, they've declared an interest here at BCP because their primary interest is at Christ Church Time Council. Thank you, and thank you, Councillor BUCK for encouraging that explanation. Now we know. Right, I've lost my place really, and all this now, so we... We're now going to debate the amendment. We are debating the amendment, Councillor COCKS. Yes. Yes, can you wait a moment? So I had Councillor CANOVAN, Councillor RIGBY, and Councillor BUCKS down as leaders of groups. So you can tend to wait till we debate the amendment. I do hope so. Right, Councillor COCKS, were you standing now? Happy to, Madam Chairman. I welcome the Conservative amendments, not least because it underlines that they have learned absolutely nothing from their humiliating defeat in May. A key element in that defeat was the financial shambles which they presided over during their administration. There's no apology at all for that. An Inspector for Councillor BUCKS, assertion, the Section 151 officer at the Oberyn scrutiny, absolutely disagreed with his analysis that we're using that money for the same purposes that he used it for. That's utterly wrong. You had a humiliating best value notice from inspectors. You had an appalling auditors report which questioned BCP's ability to balance the budget. The architects of this descent into financial chaos are sitting opposite and are making the same mistakes again. In the still draft report of the independent sit for inspectors, the best value notice they conclude, and I quote, BCP have now taken positive steps to improve financial resilience. Members and officers understanding is now clearer with a commitment from the new political leadership to prioritize financial resilience. One of their recommendations was that this Council should be disciplined in ensuring that the savings are baselineed in service budgets to ensure sustainability. Do you really want to jeopardize these improvements? If you want to restore pride in BCP, let's start with the basics. Let's start by balancing the books which you clearly don't want to do. I would recommend that Council should also, there is also a ton of risks which this Council carries. All ed eloquently set out in section 25 report. Last year, savings targets represented 40% of the combined reserves and contingencies. This year, because they spent the reserves, our savings targets are over 80% of the combined reserves and contingencies. There is simply no wiggle room. If you want to fling prudence and good governance out of the window, then vote for the conservative amendment. The conservative amendments want nearly three million pounds of savings to be shelved in the hope that the remaining savings will be delivered in fall and presumably that there will be no zero in year pressures. I would remind Councils at the end of quarter three, there was 30% of last year's budgeted savings which have yet to be delivered. Of course, part of it is the unidentified transformational savings that they shoved in to say nothing of the millions of pounds of in year pressures. I would also remind Council that the first call of any confidence that the targets will be delivered will be the elimination of the freeze and nonessential expenditure. As we have come to expect in BCP, the conservative amendments are irresponsible. It is designed to support political points and to manage the finances. Thank you. Thank you. I find it really remarkable. Firstly, I would like to thank the opposition for sharing his amendments with us before the weekend because it is so much better to have the opportunity before Council to understand what those are. But I would like to remark on the idea of reversing the sale of the bypass car park. When in the administration, the consensus is very clear that it was down to Christchurch Councillors to decide the future of the bypass car park and particularly in terms of keeping weight shows within Christchurch and that that was for them. Now they've turned around and said we need to reverse it. I'm not even sure that six months have passed by in terms of, and they probably have actually, in terms of the ability to change the decision, but a complete reversal. It is regrettable to lose the income, but that's about trying to keep Christchurch a vibrant place and it's important for the Councillors of Christchurch. It's also remarkable that they want to close the Kings Park, really open the Kings Park Nursery. The closure is really regrettable, but it has been losing significant money in their watch over a number of years and we cannot continue to sustain that loss. But in accepting that we need to ensure that we have got the savings underway before we can enact their amendments, the mercy will have already been closed to commercial activity because that's one of the savings that we are facing that we have to make. We've made some really difficult decisions in coming to this budget and just undoing a few of them because their political niceties is really not sensible. In terms of the little down pool, as I understand, that has been sorted out. I really don't understand what planet they're on. Thank you. Councillor Slade, were you requesting to speak? Thank you, Chair. I'll keep it brief because I think what we're seeing here is another episode of Fantasy Finances. What I can't understand is, you know, we've had a lovely list here of the things which the Conservative group would like us to focus our attention on should everything go to plan in the next year and we then don't need that contingency. I'm very grateful that Councillor Rigby has also told us what he would have liked had this fantasy finances word. We know that the Green Group would like us to spend more money on the libraries and we also know that the Labour Group, there are things that they would like to spend the money on. It is ridiculous to suggest before we even go into a year that we undo the potential savings that we haven't yet made and then spend it on something else when we haven't yet made it. But then say, hang on a minute, we're only going to do these things if we make all the savings and therefore where's the money coming from? It's sort of like, the only way you can describe it is fantasy finances because at the end of the day, you know, these people have already been given their notice to close. We've already done a really good job of working with the business and the tourism sector to find a long-term solution for the Air Festival. If we go down this road and we wait to see whether we actually do make the savings or don't make the savings and then reverse it, it'll be too late. The decision needs to be made now and it needs to be made for the long-term and it's really lovely to know that when we have a really good year and Councillor Cox supporting Adam is able to manage the finances through the next year, we've got our list of the first things that the Conservative group would like to save. My suggestion is that what we do when those things calm down and assuming that the government doesn't pull the rug on the front of our feet again, is that we convene an all-member seminar partway through the year and ask members of all groups what their priorities would be. That's the time to do it, not at this point. So unless you've actually got an alternative way of spending that money and making the savings somewhere else, this is just fantasy. Finally, on Christchurch, if we don't sell the car park and we keep it, I'd like to know where the money from selling the car park is coming from for the transformation because that bit isn't covered in this budget. So, yeah, again, another black hole. Councillor Randy Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief because Councillor Cox's outlined much of the Tory litany of failure that I was going to refer to, but I want to give 10 out of 10s of Councillor Bawdhead and the opposition for their sheer brass neck, if nothing else, in talking about pride in BCP Council, and hanging their budget on this, their amendment on the issue of pride. So this is the, just a reminder, this is the remnants of the administration that brought you in two and a half years, huge reputational damage to this authority, financial instability, toxic atmosphere, appalling governance, misleading statements and half truths and spin, a best value notice of breakdown in relationships, an unprecedented level of referrals to standards, and even a cabinet member was trying to spend money in Tory wards to swing the results of the last election. There's plenty more, but I haven't got enough time to go on any longer. So in that context, Councillor Bawdhead and your colleagues, good luck in China sees the pride agenda in BCP. On another note, I wanted to raise something that is perhaps more concerned to me. I noticed that Councillor Beasley joined the Tory sort of communications offensive over the weekend, making reference to the contingency fund in the budget as a £5 million / fund. Now, I assume he was quoted correctly in the echo when he said we think it's important instead to use these funds, where they're most needed rather than having a £5 million / fund sat in the corner. For those of you who haven't had a chance to look up what / fund means, a / fund is a fund or account used for miscellaneous income and expenses, particularly when these are corrupt or illegal. Such funds may be kept hidden and maintained separately from money that is used for legitimate purposes. Now, I am perfectly prepared to accept that Councillor Beasley may know more about these things than I do, but I do wonder whether he might want to reflect, as a former Council leader himself, the leader of Bournemouth Council, reflects on his use of this phrase, which in my view is wholly inappropriate, and you may want to apologise, not least to our professional officers, for the use of the words / fund. I leave that with you. Thank you, Chair. Councillor COOK, I believe you were indicating. You stole my thunder there a little bit. I just want to say, I think it's opportunistic political grabbing, if you like, put aside what everyone said about the legacy that the Conservative Administration that you were heading up has left us to deal with, not only here, but on the doorstep, but it's also the naivety of your suggestions. If you just take one thing, you know, throw a few grand at youth work, it's ridiculous. You know, the assumption that there's the voluntary sector waiting to jump in and volunteer five nights a week at weekends on the evening, yeah, we're going to do that. Where's the money? Well, you've got one year's grace there. To chuck a mental health fund. I'm going to say something which is just as a mental health fund. You can't heal that in one year's bit of money. If you take the workings of Karl Marx, he said that people in the industrial capitalist economy, in the workplace, is what eventually wants of mechanisation and all this kind of stuff, would develop what he called the alienation effect, the impact on the sense of self, the uttermost sense of who we are as individuals. And if you take that all the way through the industries, we are not connected with what we make. We are not connected with what we eat. We're not connected with what we watch. We are passive consumers of everything. We have no idea how to grow things anymore, so it's no wonder that we're all suffering a bit of anxiety. So don't insult us as a human population. By saying a few hundred quid is going to solve the mental health issues of the myriad of young people, the myriad of children and families, the myriad of old people now who are suffering from mental health problems, because they're alone and they're isolated, and the services for them are underfunded. I won't go on, but I was laughing when I read it. I thought,Oh, and what about how am I the paddling pool? Oh, that's not going to mention it. I saved a little down, but don't mention hamworthy. So that doesn't get my vote. Not that I want to be, what's the word? I don't know. Anyway, it just astounds me that that could be put forward. It just astounds me, so thank you for giving me a bit of humour when I saw that. It was great. Thank you. Chairman, may I just remind members we are debating Amendment 1 that has been put forward by the Council of Broadhead, and we will notify you when the debate has finished on this, and then when it's Amendment 2, Council of Broadhead, I presume, will be invited to announce Amendment 2. So we are just talking about Amendment 1. Thank you, members. Councillor Brown, I think you were next. We are speaking to that amendment. Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, speaking to this Amendment 1. Firstly, I read them both amendments, absolutely a gasp when I read through them, and my colleague just thought,Have you not listened to other members, to officers, to the inspectors, to the external auditors? Have you not read what they've said about the last administration's financial mismanagement? Have you not learnt anything from that? What gets me with these amendments? There is no real change to the ongoing revenue budget of the Council. This is very much about one year funding to effectively postpone the inevitable, to try and get the headlines. It's just one year. Then 12 months, we're back where we are anyway. So members need to remember that when they're considering this amendment. I'll just pick up on some of the words that Councillor Broad had mentioned. He talked about the degradation, something along the lines he said, of degradation of the physical appearance of our towns over the last 12 months. He needs to remember that that was his budget that he presented a year ago that delivered that. If he says it's degraded in the last 12 months, I wonder if he now regrets the budget savings that he put through a year ago. Now he's trying to say, oh, a year later, oh, yeah, let's bank some more money back, because obviously he got it wrong a year ago. The King's Park Nursery bit in here as well, and colleagues have mentioned that the ongoing loss is there. King's Park Nursery has run up 1.2 million pounds of losses in the last eight years. That's about 3,000 pounds a week. That's 3,000 pounds of Council taxpayer's money a week running that. It's supposedly commercial nursery. We don't want to lose any of our services, but there's a lot better ways to spend 3,000 pounds a week within this authority, and that is over years and years of Tory mismanagement of the finances of the Council. I'm glad he conceded that for the past few years his administration had spent more than the Council's income. That cannot continue, and it has to stop here and now with the return of financial responsibility and the return of living within our means. Councillor JOSUM, and I think you're next. So, actually, I can get on board with the idea of reducing the impacts of what's ultimately an austerity budget by being less risk-averse when it comes to our potential and make those savings. But to do that, I would have to be really confident that the evidence base behind forecasting what those savings are being, how likely they are to materialise supports doing that. And so, I did ask Jeff about that, and he wasn't actually able to provide me any hard data behind. This is how much we forecast we're going to save, how likely it is. This is the risk and all of that. I mean, as he's too often the case, this Council is really flying blind when making a decision. And I think it's sad this idea wasn't floated sooner, so it could be properly examined. So, I'd really support it. If I was confident, the risks we were taking didn't outweigh the potential benefits, and we were doing things like not saving a meager 1% of the Council budget by closing libraries, which is something I'm really unhappy to see still in the current budget proposal. But it feels like this is something that hasn't been presented in good faith, I'm afraid. And more emotion that's been written up for a press release in the echo, rather than a genuine suggestion of, oh, actually, guys, I've got a really great idea. I think if it was a really great idea, it would have been brought to Cabinet. It would have been brought up in the budget discussions that were happening before this meeting, rather than, oh, I've read it, I think, coming back from holiday over a weekend, I was like, oh, maybe, let's see some evidence. We don't have the evidence to support this idea, I think it probably is just for a nice press release. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think we're probably ready to just vote on this and get on to the Second Amendment and try and get finished by half-eleven. Councillor Connolly, I think you heard your hand up. Did you? Yes, you did. Thank you. I did. I wasn't sure if I was going to speak on this. I listened to the speech from outside. I was feeding the new baby because the breaks time didn't line up quite right. So I wasn't going to speak on this, but I honestly cannot believe the absolute nerve of the amendment. I just think it's not hard to see why we're in the financial situation we're in. The cunning plan is just not to hold any contingency for savings, not going to plan, and then to find other better assets to sell next year, as far as I can tell. I'm abstaining, I don't think this is worth our time. Of course, we all want to reverse these cuts, but the amendment doesn't guarantee that that will actually be possible. So the promises don't mean anything unless you know that you've got the funds to do it. But while I'm here, I just wanted to say that I've really limited sympathy with those that conservative ventures who are up in arms about these cuts. This is austerity. This is what the coalition government and subsequent governments since then have wanted. A decade ago, I was working Westminster. I recall being in a meeting where a number of leaders of local councils took a delegation to the coalition government, and they said very clearly to anyone who listened. Within a decade, we will not be able to provide anything other than statutory services. They said it, they were very clear about it. And the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat, to be fair, Minister's position was,Yes, we know. Get on with it. Tighten your belts. This is austerity inaction. Some of us have been calling it out for years. And it's just now it's coming to bite the things that you care about. Thank you, Councillor BOURKE. Thank you very much, Chair. Normally, I'd speak lots of things on children. I want to insert a word here because we've been talking about King's Park Nursery. Could we insert the wordplanetthere? Because every time somebody talks about closing a nursery, my heart rate goes up. So, I would be very interested in what we're talking about it, offering to keep the nursery open, plant nursery open. So, the people there have been told they're going to be very redundant, and it's going to be closed. But if we make some savings over the next six, eight, nine months, they can have their jobs back. I would really like to understand how that would work. Councillor Beasley, do you want to come in at this point? Thank you, Madam Chairman. I believe I've got just over two minutes left of Councillor BOURKE at the time. So, I've listened carefully to the debate and tried to knock the politics actively just for a moment. I'm very heartened by the comments of the Leader of the Council, which I think, in effect, will deliver much of what we've been talking about, not just necessarily those suggestions from the Conservative group, but those from other groups as well. And I welcome the attitude towards how we will deal with this contingency if it is not required. If I could just make a few comments, Madam Chairman, I think the amendment acknowledges that the budget carries some risks, although my experience of delivering 12 budgets and succession in this Chamber for the former Bournemouth Council tells me that the savings will be delivered and may even be exceeded. That's how it works in practice, as otherwise the cuts would not be proposed by the officers in the first place. So, I've got confidence that that is what will happen. And we're not looking to spend all of that contingency either. We're being asked to accept that this, shall we call it a reserve of £5.654 million, which is 13.8% of the proposed savings of £41 million is actually necessary against many frontline services being cut or removed from residents. I've never come across a Council reserve for optimism bias before, in my 24 years as a Councillor, because if the budget is truly robust, which I have been assured by the Finance portfolio holder, Councillor Cox, that it is, then the contingency is not required. All contingency does in practice is to take the pressure away from politicians and officers to use every endeavour to find the savings and thereby make the exercise less difficult and budget delivery less robust. That is my experience over a long period of time. It is why I've never been in favour of open-ended contingencies. You may wonder, though, what the £5.6 million will be used for when it is not required as a contingency. The Council having cut so many services, and that's why I welcome the opportunity, perhaps, of prioritising some of those areas where we believe and others do too, that money should be spent by this Council. The budget itself is hardly ambitious. All it does is reduce services for residents without having any commercial aspirations to fill the gap. Other than full cost recovery. In reducing services, residents will see no hope of the town centre improvements everybody is crying out for, and that businesses urgently need to stand any chance against the rising tide of neglect and dereliction. Walk through the town centre here and bond with me to see what I mean. Members, this Council can do so much better than this for our residents and the local economy on which so very many jobs rely. This amendment goes a small way towards trying to remedy this and give back something which will make a lasting difference for the future. I urge you to put party differences aside and support it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Beasley. Councillor broad-haired, would you like to sum up? I note from my note that you have two minutes. Indeed, thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll address a few of the points that have been raised by colleagues across the Chamber as part of my summing up. Opened, of course, by Councillor Cox, who claimed that this budget amendment flings prudence and good governance out of the window and was purely designed to score political points. Colleagues will note, I haven't used any political points scoring opportunities whatsoever introducing the amendment. Neither has my seconder, and yet all we've heard from many colleagues across the Chamber is political soundbites and accusations left right and centre. That's not focusing on the issues at hand. There's one side that's trying to score political points, and it's not this side. Councillor Hadley talks about Christchurch car parkers, the sale being necessary to continue to make Christchurch a vibrant place. But of course, the intended lease which the Christchurch Town Council are proposing to enter could be done by BCP. So whether it's Christchurch Town Council or BCP makes no difference, it does make a difference to the Council's finances that we here represent. Councillor Slade described this as fantasy finances, couldn't understand it. Councillor Slade is quite simple. This year you have an extra £25 million which you're spending, and you're simply not using it to protect services. When not saying spend all of it, we're saying use 50% of one of your contingencies, which is a brand new contingency, to invest in the places, but only if the Section 151 approves it. And also, as Councillor Beasley said, the Section 151 has confirmed that this fund could be used at any time by the administration for their priorities. So let's see what they want to do with it. Councillor Brown said he's aghast and confused, don't understand what a one-year difference will make. Well, you know what? Councillor Brown, one year is one year more than a lot of these savings, such as King's Button Nursery that you're doing immediately. King's Button Nursery had its best financial year ever this year, 90,000 ahead of budget and does deserve to be saved. The final point, thank you very much to Councillor Samman for the support. I understand, you know, the point you're raising, particularly around risk, but there are two options here. Our amendment, which carries the veto of the Section 151 or the status quo. It's a very simple choice. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Portet. No, I believe we can do this by a show of hands. Can we monitor officer? Right, so a show of hands for the amendment, who's voting for. Councillors interjecting. Members, members against? Councillors interjecting. And abstentions? Yes, the amendment is lost. Right, so, to move the second amendment. Councillor Portet, do you want to move your second amendment now and get that? Yes, thank you. Councillors interjecting. We'll just wait for the musical chairs, and then we'll ask Councillor Broadhead to address his second amendment. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'll be much briefer on this one because I've done a lot of the preamble. Colleagues, the second amendment is focusing on protecting and investing in some of the most vulnerable people across BCP. The cost of living situation coupled with the huge growing demands in support for our most vulnerable mean that now it's just in our view simply not the time for wide-scale changes to our provision in this area. More time is needed to move to more sustainable outcome-based offers, whose services design not just for our most vulnerable, but with them in consultation. Key to this is the dramatic move, which has generated an awful lot of a press, to shut many of the adult day centres, the areas adult day centres, starting this year and continuing the following year. Now, I know this has been scaled down with the recent financial look government uplift, but this drive is still determined to save 1.28 million and could have serious service offer consequences if rushed. And also could and would, in my view, likely lead to further cost pressures down the line. As a Councillor, it actually could be in danger of just shuffling the problem from one area to another. People that use these facilities don't just go away, they present another forum. So what this amendment does is it stops the current India changes to these proposals to give time for proper consultation and plans for a more sustainable future for these services, which is just simply not possible at the pace it's suggested. So therefore this amendment will propose, proposes to use 684,000, which is the proposed saving for this year, which was facilitated by closing these adult day centres, and instead leave them and give them time for a proper plan working closely with the users and the community. We've also proposed to move back some of the changes, proposed changes to the children's services function. As we all know, it's going through a period of immense change as we continue on the road to improvement, as well as navigating the implications as we've heard tonight of possible safety valve process. It's just now is not the time for large cuts in this area. In theory, it's time for investment in this area because actually that could indeed help save money in the future. Again, I note that the administration have rolled back on some of the children's services savings, again because of the extra money from government as opposed to their original budget proposals. But there are still some beefy savings proposed in there that we could defer and then again give more time for more joined up plans. And notably these are around a £400,000 saving of revised delivery models and £57,000 in early years workforce savings. And again, just to be really clear on those, these reductions will be predicated on the use of the contingency bias fund, but only to proceed if the budget monitoring process was deemed that that fund was not necessary with agreement with the Texans 151 officer. Also under the theme of children's services and education, we'd be looking to provide a £300,000 fund, which would be devolved to our chill areas schools to manage for the purposes of providing mental health support to pupils and really crucially go after early intervention to reduce SEMH provision and AP provision. And again, could and should save money in the long term. I heard a colleague earlier on stray into this area in the First Amendment and call it a bit of a drop in the ocean or a gimmick. But actually, I think if you spoke to many of our school heads, who many of us have been speaking to with the Children's Services Panel over the last few months, you will find that it doesn't take an awful lot of money to do early intervention in this area. And we're actually proposing £300,000 which would go directly to the schools and I think it's exactly what they need. And actually, I think it would save money in the long run as well as improve outcomes. So it's not a gimmick, it's not a small amount of money. It could really help our most vulnerable children. And then finally, around our young people again, we looked to create a £100,000 youth centre fund. Now again, there's been a bit of thought that's gone into this. This isn't just chucking money around. Many of us are involved heavily in our communities. And we know that there are great community volunteers, great activists in the community that will give up their time to help our young people help set up youth centres. They just need sometimes a bit of a kickstart, a little bit of grant funding. And the idea with this proposal is that we'd set up a youth centre fund that those could be into with their proposals for a little bit of grant funding to get them off the ground. Because we've heard very much from the administration, they want to be an enabling council, but sometimes you've just got to put a little bit of money and a little bit of thought behind it. So that's the purpose of this Second Amendment, focusing on some key areas. We're trying to save our adult day centres. So we've got more time and I noticed that one of the, a number of the parliamentary candidates are saying fill out a consultation to save the day centres. Well actually the way to do it would be to vote for this amendment and have the time to do that properly, to protect our children's services as we're on that road to improvement. And really just to give a little bit of hope to our youth and to our young people in areas that are really important. All predicated again on only the use of the contingency if the savings are on track. So again, no political points scoring from this side. Just a plea that we should put this as a, as a proposal forward to invest in our young vulnerable people. Thank you. I'm assuming you're not seconding leader, so. I need to declare an in. I need to declare an interest, I need to recuse myself as the chair and lead youth club member. It'd be inappropriate for me to be voting presumably in the same way as Christchurch would it? In that case, Councillor Broadhead, who is your seconder? Councillor Beasley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. Not scoring political points. That would be a first for Councillor Broadhead. That's why you sent it to the echo first, so that we could all read it in the echo. So, fellow Councillors, we now move from the Trussonomics family wing of the Conservative Party amendment and that's all spin and no substance. We all want more money spent on children than adult social care. We all want more money spent on youth services and mental health services, but playing fast and loose with our finances does not achieve that. As I have already indicated, an independently verified by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants this administration is making good progress from the financial disaster of the previous administration. The proposals set out by the Conservatives are just a kick in the teeth to financial resilience. Councillor Beasley talked about robustness. It is robust, it's robust because we have contingencies in there. That's why it's robust. And I'd remind the Councillors also, which I've already said, that at the end of quarter three there were 30% of last year's smaller savings, budgeted savings, which had yet to be delivered. So, you know, it's absolutely needed more than ever. And not to forget that last year's budgeted savings were the biggest ever of this authority. And this year's are even bigger. So, we do need contingencies to make sure that they can be delivered. The savings can be delivered with care. I think Councillor Broughton was talking about, he wants to make sure that the contingencies are not rushed. The savings are not rushed through. That's exactly what we're doing. We're actually making sure that the savings targets are not rushed through. That's why we have the contingencies, so it gives people time to embed the savings that we've put through. So, I would remind the Councillors again that the first call on any confidence in the savings target will be the unfreezing of the non-essential expenditure. If there is spare money, this administration will spend it on children's and adults' care, on regeneration, on climate change, on public safety. And they will do so with new models of delivery, which will benefit most and not splash the cash on cheap political points. But you don't have to listen to me, listen to the experts, listen to the SIPFRA, listen to the Section 151 officer, because that's exactly what we're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cox. Do I have anybody else wishing to speak on this second amendment? Councillor Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I have to speak on this really. I was really disappointed when I read through this second amendment about the statements contained within it, so disingenuous around the day centre provision. It talks about serious service offer consequences if it's rushed. This has not been rushed. This day opportunity strategy has been two years in development, in co-production with users and their carers, and this is the culmination to bring the day centre strategy. It will be coming to Cabinet on the 6th of March for a final decision. So it's not been rushed, and any changes will be implemented over a two-year period. It's certainly not rushed. It said it could and will likely lead to further cost pressures. No, it won't, because the way the day opportunity strategy has been developed is so that it doesn't, and that's one of our prime aims, actually. It talks about giving time for a proper plan. It talks about time for a proper consultation. We've had public consultation on the changes on the day opportunity strategy and proposed changes to day centres, which ran through December and January. We've had a massive response to that. We've had over 600 responses. We've got lots of views from the people that use the centres, from their carers, from the staff. I don't know quite what extra consultation he would want us to do in terms of saying there's time for proper consultation, there has been proper consultation. I'd really like to thank the officers, actually, who have done that consultation, who have attended all the day centres to talk to people at drop-in sessions. It talks about time for a sustainable future for these services. That's what the day opportunity strategy is all about. It's not a closure proposal. It's about modernising the opportunities provision to move away from high-cost building-based services to community-based services. The budget proposal is about the implementation of the day opportunity strategy that his administration initiated two years ago. It's about expansion and investment in private and voluntary sector provision. His proposal to not make those savings is effectively saying they want to continue to mothable the three-day centres that have been closed during the pandemic and are costing Council taxpayers every week in utility bills, etc. He just wants to waste more money keeping buildings closed. When that money, with our decision, with our budget, can be recycled to actually push the community and voluntary sector provision and micro-provide provision in day opportunities. He wants to ignore the outcome of the opportunity strategy at the public consultation. He wants to extend the uncertainty and anxiety about the future day centre provision because this is only one year funding and he wants to leave buildings empty just because he wants to take more time to make a decision. We need to get on and make the decision. Councillor MACKRER. Hello. Just a very quick calculation. 86 secondary schools in BCP, 44, 86 primary, sorry, 44 secondary, 300,000 equates to 2,300 per school per year. What's that per child? Councillor HADLY, did you have your hand up? Thank you. Yes, Mr Chair, thank you. Councillors, ever so quickly, in an earlier debate, I heard the leads of the opposition say that we shouldn't be pushing things down the road. There's always a danger in making things happen later. I wrote it down because I thought, well, that's exactly what this amendment is about. It's deferring, say, is doing exactly what they did in an administration. It's deferring the hard decisions and pushing the can down the road. The reason we have a four-year balanced MTFP is because we're taking really difficult decisions this year so that we can provide stability, restore some pride in the BCP as an organisation, with partners and with government and with all the other agencies that we need to deal with. That's what we intend to do and I would recommend to fellow Councillors to vote this down. Thank you. Councillor BUTCH. I think I have some small confusion in what Councillor Cox is saying as opposed to what's being proposed by Councillor Broadhead. In that, the book's not balancing with regard to this new amendment. It states Section 25 of the Chief Finance Officer that having reviewed the proposed amendment, I can confirm that it complies with the Council's financial regulations and that it enables a balanced budget for 24/25 still to be delivered. So could we have clarification to the exact point that Councillor Cox is made? Because my understanding was that he was saying that it was quite the converse to what I've just read. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to—I'm happy to— Yes, Councillor COOK. The point I was trying to make was that actually we've balanced the budget not just for 24/25, we've balanced it for four years. By doing this, he's actually adding £10 million worth of pressures to our medium-term financial plan. He's kicking the can down the road exactly as Councillor Haby has said. And that's why, I mean, he's not balancing the budget. He's just kicking the can down the road. Thank you. Councillor Rhampton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wasn't going to speak, but I just had to, when I heard Councillor Brown, talking about the consultation on the day centre closure with the co-production group. Obviously, I was on the co-production group before, you know, a year or so ago. The consultation came out, and it threw something in there, through a curveball in there. It said,We can either close five day centres, or we can close them all, or close all eight." That did not go before the co-production group. That did not go to carers. That did not go to service users. That was thrown in at the last minute. Councillor Broad's amendment does not talk about keeping open three day centres, which were mothballed during the pandemic. It does not say that at all. But it is trying to protect the closure that you are proposing in the consultation of all the day centres. And you are aware that there will always be people who need building-based day services. Councillor Canavan heard from users at his Health Overland Screen Committee, who were absolutely incensed and really, really, very upset at this lack of consultation with the co-production group. So, I really think you should revise what you've said, Councillor Brown. Thank you. Councillor BAGuell. Thank you, Chair. How can anyone balance the budget for four years? I don't see how you can guarantee that because nobody knows what's around the corner. And as for the consultation and residents having faith in us, not one resident in BCP as any faith in anybody in this Council, not one. They really, really don't. All they see is Council tax going up, rents going up, et cetera, et cetera, and their services going down. And nobody can say that the consultations work. Consultations are stated so as you have to get to the answer that whoever created the consultation wants you to get to, as we found with the Leave Pool Park entrance open. Thank you, Chair. Councillor ADAMS. Come on. I'll get there eventually. The recent Member of Youth Parliament Hustings, which I attended along with many of my colleagues across the Chamber, we saw so many exceptional young people speak so eloquently, or at least a bit better than me, about issues that are a concern to them and their peers. Almost every single one spoke passionately about the mental health crisis in schools. Councillor Cooper mentioned, will be on the wrong amendment, that £300,000 won't solve the mental health crisis for children or adults. I completely agree, but someone who's lost a family member relatively recently to mental health, I think it's surely better to try and sit there and do nothing. I've heard Councillor Cooper often speak about youth centres and provision for young people, and I all quite often hear from the former Kingston Labour Councillor and all-round legend Ted Taylor, who used to work in youth clubs and is still passionately speaks in support of them to this day. The amendment would create 100,000-pound funds to establish or re-establish youth clubs across BCP, which could enable as many as four or five new ones across the conurbation, while still fitting in with the stated ambition of the leader as being an enabler. Again, should the financial position allow, surely it's better to try and do something rather than nothing, supporting our vulnerable adults, supporting mental health in schools and supporting young people. I'd like to assure you it wasn't our intention and those that know me, it definitely wasn't mine. To point score, or be malicious by suggesting these things, I thought they were relatively uncontroversial. But for the reasons I've spoken about specifically for the things that I've mentioned, I hope people support the amendment, but I think I'm fighting the losing battle. Councillor Fyler, I think you were next. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I'm really incensed to hear people talking about investment and prudence. Investment in the future are not considering that the investment in our young people isn't the most prudent saving of all. Those young people who I've met this year, and I know you have too, and I know several of us have, who are lucky enough to go to youth centres, to have some purpose, to go to cadet forces, to go to AIM, which is so ably run by Councillor Armstrong. You see, young people there who are given the confidence whose mental health is so improved by having a purpose in life, and youth centres are the best investment in our future, and there are volunteers. I've never met so many volunteers as I've met this year in every aspect of life, not just with young people, but many, many, they need the funding. And as for day centres, I'm at the other end. I'm not a young person, I've got young, I've got grandchildren who themselves have suffered mental health issues through COVID. And at the other end, I've got friends who are desperate for those day centre places, for their loved ones, who have absolutely no purpose, and who will be a complete drain on the economy, and on the NHS, unless we invest in them. This is a priority. Thank you, Councillor Filer. Councillor Earl. Thank you, Chairman. I completely agree, you know, I can't disagree about mental health in schools or about youth services, youth centres or even, you know, day centres and anything else. I actually don't think anyone in this room disagrees with those fundamental points that you're making. The problem is, is we have to look at this for what it is, which is a contingency that we may or may not need to use to stabilise this council. If we can't stabilise the council, all of these services go anyway, along with everything else in our non-statutory spend. And that's what we've got to focus on. It's not about one off spending in different areas. It's about taking that whole approach to making sure that we have a stable council and we don't need to go down to section 114 routes. And just to say, you know, we discussed it all in the previous debate. These are things that we would love to be able to deliver if we can realise that saving. I think Councillor SLAY's leaders' commitment to listen to all of our groups, understand what their priorities are and what their needs are and their communities' needs, is actually, you know, what we want to do. So no, we are not voting against mental health support in schools. We're not voting against youth centre funds. What we are voting against is taking a, you know, very irresponsible view to our finances, not keeping that contingency in place and having that discussion actually as a council when we get to that point where we can release some of those funds. Thank you. I think we have Councillor CUMMOND. So I've got to remember what the context is for this discussion. If BCP Council had existed in 2010, then comparatively to now, we've lost £100 million in funding from central government. That's a political decision made by a government headed up by a man who's currently worth £750 million, quick. That's a reality of a situation. Now, I think we've already had this debate 10 minutes ago on the last amendment. There isn't the appetite within this Council Chamber to risk us getting a section 114 notice, whatever you call it, because we've played fast and loose with our ever shrinking finances. You know, it just doesn't exist. Not supporting this amendment doesn't mean we oppose funding things like day centres and all of that. It's just acknowledging the reality of a situation where we've had this discussion. It's like we're stuck in a time loop. I think we're ready to move on to a vote. As you say, Councillor CUMMOND, we're going to move on to the vote. Oh, I'm so sorry, John. So sorry, Councillor BEASLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I knew you wouldn't forget me. So, another interesting debate. But this proposal means that we believe that the Council could do much more to save services for adults and children. And that the Council should defer the savings and have proper review of adult day centres. I've defended adult day centres for years, particularly in times of austerity, because they're so important to save other costs for vulnerable adults later in their lives. And in the old days of Form of Council, it was something that I always put front and centre into the adults part of the budget. In terms of the proposals for children's services, these have been thoroughly thought through and are affordable. They will really make a difference for the children who need these services the most. We believe these proposals are prudent within the savings from the optimism bias contingency reserve. I would remind Council that they account for 50% of the 13.8% contingency, the contingency of exceptional size for savings, which we can then have confidence of being delivered. I hear what the portfolio holder has to say about the size of this contingency. But you can't have it both ways. Either the savings proposed are robust, and if they are, and they've been proposed by officers, I have every confidence in them being delivered, as I'm sure you have to, to be honest. But if not, then yes, this contingency would need to be in place. The contingency of this size is beyond anything I've ever seen in local government before. So these amendments, as proposals, will make a real difference, in our opinion, to those who need them the most. And I would urge that all members put their party differences aside and support the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Broughtt, can you sum up in two minutes, do you think? Of course I can, Madam Chair. And look, it's a tough act to follow, because Councillor Beasley has very adequately summed up many of the reasons why I think this amendment should be supported. But I do think it's worth just a final reminder to colleagues. There are no additional funding or savings needed to fund this amendment. We've heard from colleagues that it's not robust and it's not responsible. But actually, we've worked really, really closely, you know, a number of meetings with the Section 151 and taken on boarded comments to make sure that it is robust and responsible. And that is why it will not commit the money unless the administration is essentially doing their own job. And as Councillor Beasley has outlined, this is not using all of the contingency bias. It's using half of it, half of a huge contingency bias that we've never even seen before. But again, only if the administration is doing what they're supposed to be doing. I did take some good news out of some of the comments that came out of the last debate, particularly from Councillor Cox, who has committed, well, first of all, he's admitted that he will be using that fund if and when their savings targets are on track. But it's committed in this Chamber that if there is room, they will spend it on children's services and our town. So I think that gives me some confidence that we're not going to see proposals later on in the year using this fund for 20-mile-hour speed remits or residence cards or other things that aren't in your budget. So let's just wait and see on that one. But again, just referencing Councillor Brown's point. We're ignoring the outcome of consultations or kicking the can down the road. That's not what this is about. This is about giving time to make sure we can do these things properly. So colleagues, rather than summarise what I think voting for this amendment does, I can stand to remind members of what voting against this amendment means. Voting against this amendment means that you want these adult day centre changes now rather than having time to do it properly. It means that you want to see these children's services reductions happen now. It means that you don't think it's a good idea to be devolving money to schools for mental health. And it means that you don't think it's a good idea for investment into youth services. It sounds quite dramatic to put it like that, but that is the reality. Let's work together and I'd urge you to support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Members, we are now ready to go to the vote. So move on to a show of hands. All those in favour of this second amendment? Those against? Yes. And abstentions? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Members. So the second amendment is lost. Thank you, Leader, as if by magic. Right. We now are able to take the non-administration political group leaders or their nominated spoke person five minutes to speak to the substantive budget proposal. And that's I've got down here first Labour group, Councillor Canavan, are you speaking? Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. This local authority in common with many others is facing a financial crisis. A crisis caused by years of austerity and years of government underfunding. Councillor Cox and I were candidates in the same general election campaign in 2017. My cousin now comes by quickly, but I didn't want you to feel lonely in your criticism of the dubious decisions made by the previous administration. So may I join you in that? The forthcoming general election Madam Chairman means that we're out on the doorstep and talking to residents and they tell us that they understand all these challenges. But they still expect the Council to empty the bins, clean the streets, cut the grass, provide libraries and the list goes on. And the public a right to expect those things and they know it costs money. Therefore they expect the Council to make the right decisions about council tax and about how that money should be spent. But the approach in this budget was originally to make £41 million worth of savings in the next financial year. And by and large, take the hit now and make the MTFP less painful later. That's a political choice. The trouble with our approach is like pulling a sticking cluster off quickly to limit the pain, but without considering the wound it leaves behind. So this isn't a budget that the Labor Group can support, but the alternative in my view is not to start from an approach of head down, budget setting, desperate to show that you can take the tough decisions. I mean, don't get me wrong, these decisions are tough. We acknowledge that, but situations like this call for more than just balancing the books. They require hope, aspiration and a plan to drive innovation, deliver serious regeneration whilst supporting the most vulnerable in our communities. So we are unable to support an approach which seals the financial envelope and advises strategies afterwards. And neither can we support the approach that has been taken around consultation. I really do disagree with comments that Council Brown has made about consultation. We've had a series of consultations, a timing of which seem both odd and confusing. A consultation around some aspects of the budget, but only selected items, separate consultation on day centres, which hasn't yet concluded. A consultation on library opening hours, but another one on library strategy. And the latest consultation is on family hubs and early help services. And that talks about buildings and hubs, but isn't that what we're already talking about in relation to day centres and libraries and with asset management more broadly. It's piecemeal and it's disconnected and it's set against cuts that have already been determined in this budget. The consultation on family hubs talks about youth centres and it appears at £1.1 million is going to be taken out of that budget. But where's the joint up thinking around CSAS, community safety or the assessment of any of that against a possible correlation with anti-social behaviour? I don't see it. And the same is true of Kings Park Nursery. So we've seen a situation with Kings Park Nursery where despite the work that's been done, I've had confirmation, Madam Chairman, that those staff have already been issued with redundancy notices. So despite the consultation, despite the spot you, those staff have received those notices. That doesn't feel right to me. It's like a giant dot to dot puzzle that's not actually being joined up. And we can have strategies and corporate visions, but if the main driver is cost cutting, that's all you're going to get. Finally, I do want to acknowledge the work that's been done to look at the additional money that's been announced by the government and where that might be allocated. I've nagged Councillor Cox and others about retaining the three connected day centres as well as retaining them all down. And I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that that might now be possible. So I am hugely grateful if that proves to be the case. But there's still too much in this budget that we can't support, Madam Chairman. And we welcome the comments from the leader earlier, but if we can seriously have a collective rethink about how we'd re-drive, how we drive regeneration, develop our town centres and provide an offer that visitors can really want and support those who live here, then we would support that. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Canavan. Next on my list is the Green Group, Councillor Chris Rigby. Would you like to speak, Councillor Rigby? I would like to speak. Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And first of all, I will say, well done, on ballads and the books, I think you have bounced the books in this. And what you're doing is the same thing that the poorest in our society are doing every time the price of bread goes up every time. Every time it has to happen, we have to keep going back and looking at our finances and cutting something from somewhere to try and balance somewhere else. I am tired of it. I am absolutely tired of it. This is the fifth time I've sat in this room while we've been setting a budget in every single time. We have been cutting more and more and more, and it's choosing where these cuts come from and where they're coming from. You've just said this is the biggest cuts that we've ever had to do ever since last year with the biggest cuts that we ever had to do ever. And what's next year, right? How much are we going to be cutting then? Where is it going to be coming from? I'm tired. I'm tired of playing this game. I'm tired of having the agenda set by central government on what we can and cannot do. There were surveys which we've gone out recently. We know, Birmingham, Nottingham, Nottingham, and the latest councils to do the Section 114. Morning five council leaders believe that they're going to declare a Section 114 in the next 15 months. 24% of local councillors nationally think they're going to be doing the same, and we're not doing anything. Rebel councils used to be a thing. Rebel councils used to fight back against the government. We used to say, no, we're not playing your game in the 1980s. Council's push back against the rates act. Liverpool, Lambeth, Islington Sheffield refused to set balance budgets and to quote Margaret Hodges. That is a break the law. That's a break the poor, right? And yet no one is doing it now. Even near closer in time in the 2000s, I think it was in South Cambridge. They applied for at least a judicial review following Labour's decision to cap the rate of council tax rises because we're stuck now with what we can do there as well. And even in 2009, the LGA supported legal action against the government when it withdrew the decent homes from the short notice. The power imbalance between central governments and all of us sitting in this room is getting bigger and bigger. That gulf is increasing and we sit here and we take the brunt of it from residents. Residents don't know what we're dealing with on a day-to-day basis. When they say, oh, the town centres are falling down, we're not getting people in. The business rates are too high. We don't set them. It's central government. We administer them and we get a cut. We have so little impact of what we can do from this room. And yet still, we don't push back. We don't fight back. We take what we get in our settlements, whatever it was this time, 6.3 million, something like that. And we try and fit it around to save these services and to save so few services and try and make them as good as we possibly can. And we've all got different ideas of what that looks like, the amendments from the Conservatives looks different to what's being put in place by the Libden ones. Yeah, they're all the same. It's just choosing your priorities and where it is. Everything's a priority. As soon as we start failing one person, we start failing everyone and we are hamstrung in what we can do. I have abstained on a lot of things tonight and we're going to carry on doing it because I'm tired. I'm tired of playing this game. I'm tired of us not fighting back. I'm tired of all the councils not coming together and saying enough is enough. And that's what we need to do. Maybe we need to defer our decisions. Maybe we need to say no. We're not going to set a budget because we can't set a budget because we don't have the funds to deliver what our communities need, what our residents need. Everything we've heard tonight from the safety file right through to this point has been how difficult it is, how we want to help people with mental health, how we want to help kids with sand needs, how we want to give as much as we possibly can and we can't because all we're doing is having things taken from us. The money has been taken from us. It's austerity and this is the results of it now and it's hitting really, really hard. So I can't support this budget. I can't support any amendments. I can't support any budget. Where would you say no? Let's stop this now and that's properly fund all the councils and deliver services that we deserve in this country. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Rigby. Pool Engage group, Councillor Judy Butte. That's a problem with coming last, Madam Chair, and everything's been said and very eloquently by both previous speakers. I think, yes, the budget as it sits is an uninnovative, lackluster budget for all the reasons that we've heard. When we go back in time when we were not an amalgamated authority, when we were separate, we were Christchurch, we were Bournemouth, and we were Paul, we lobbied government. We lobbied government constantly. Councillor Beasley, your good selves, through Dorset, about getting improvements, about getting fair funding. And we made some inroads. That hasn't happened since the amalgamation of BCP, regrettably. We have had various administrations. Administrations haven't perhaps had the time or the inclination, certainly the first administration that took over, and then the second, then the third, then we're back into another. And there's never enough time to continue with our three towns alliance. I'd be careful how I say that. It might insult somebody, but our three towns alliance. The lobbying isn't happening. And I agree, totally, with Councillor Rigby, that we are just tired of being kicked in the teeth, basically. And this budget is, for me, and also for my colleague from Council Bagwell, it's a kick in the teeth for the residents, because it's not taking us anywhere other than keeping a sanding still, cutting back, and again, we'll be doing the same next year. Or, hopefully, perhaps we will have made some inroads, and Councillor Rigby and Councillor Cavanagh will have been able to take something forward with support, and with everybody getting together. The Council's getting together as one to work together rather than splendid isolation, as we do now. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Bartlett. Chairman of the Overview and Screwtney Board, Councillor Bartlett, would you like to speak and you have five minutes? Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to congratulate Adam Richards on the work that his team put in on this budget, and I have to say that, you know, it's quite remarkable. First of all, I can remember that we've had a budget that's balanced and for the subsequent four years, it's quite encouraging. And I'd like to suggest, actually, that we're starting to see some of the good work of transformation coming to fruition with more confidence in that program. Having said that, we've listened tonight about the real detail that every director has gone through on its budget, every single line of its budget has gone through detail. And we've been hearing about all of the cuts that are resulting from that. But there's one area, which, and I'm approaching this from the scrutiny perspective, where I've got some real serious concerns. And that's the lack of scrutiny on the pay and reward system. Now, you may ask, why am I questioning that? The reason I'm questioning is because 50,000 staff and payroll are somewhere in the order of 220 million pounds. And what have we mentioned about that tonight? Not a word. Within the budget, you will not see payroll, 220 million pounds. You'll hear about the services of the directors. So 220 million pounds. Now, as I said, I'm coming this from a scrutiny perspective. I'm not criticizing any of the negotiations being on with unions. And I'm very sensitive to the fact that the offer made to the unions by a council is currently under ballot. And so I'm going to be very cautious about what I say. I have no intention of trying to influence that debate. But it is incumbent on me to point out that that offer has not been through scrutiny. It has not been through cabinet. Only those in unions and those negotiating that will be aware of what's been offered. Now, when you approve this budget today, if you approve it, you are effectively underwriting not only the pay scheme and what the costs of it are, there are costs open above the national pay board. There is a cost of implementing that pay scheme. It also commits the council to that pay structure for many, many years to come. So it will affect our costs going forward. Now, we don't know that unions will accept this or not, but I'm just flagging this out because we as a council have not had an opportunity to look at in detail, or even the, you know, the broadest arrangements for what is the biggest expenditure that the council faces. It's 220 million pounds. We've been talking about 7,000 pounds for a pedaling pool. You know, we really need to focus on where the big money has been spent. And I'm not suggesting for a minute that the offer is not to be fair. I'm not trying to, you know, I'm just saying we need to understand what it is, what the implications are, and whether the best option of several that were considered were the best for the council in the longer term, not just in the short term, but in the much longer term. We don't know, and we're going to vote. But if you vote that budget tonight, you're effectively going to be sanctioning that arrangement. What I will say is I'm delighted to see that having had the Cabinet Forward Plan, it was on there for two years, Cabinet approval of the pain and reward system. It disappeared suddenly. Six weeks later, tonight, it's reappeared, not in quite the same structure, not for approval, but for review by the Cabinet. It's a foregone completion. We can't really do much about it now because it's been offered to the union, so if they accept it, but we need to understand what it means. So it will be coming to scrutiny at some point, and let's see where that takes us. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. We've gone through the leaders of the groups, and we've gone through the Chairman of the Oberlin Screwtney Board. Thank you very much. Members, it's over to you, and you each have three minutes. Goodness. Yes, the Chief Executive has said it isn't compulsory to speak, but everybody wants to. I don't know where to start. Councillor Chatman law was first. Councillor Chatman law, you're first. Good evening, and thank you. We've had a lot tonight about the history of the area and the history of the finances, and that sort of thing, completely, and I've completely lost my place. When I decided to stand to be elected, we were in the middle of the melee years, they could convince me to stand, and that I could make a difference, make things better for our residents, and over the last year, I definitely have, in small ways. Having said that, I hate this budget. I didn't stand in the election to cut services, to close things down, to reduce hours of libraries, to sell off council assets. But to anybody with limited skills in finances is obvious that we have more money going out than coming in. This budget is what we have to do to meet our obligation to set a balanced budget to avoid a section 1-1-4 notice, which would be far, far, far worse. I'm saw some of you will have views on the choices, if I know some of you have views on these choices. At the end of the day, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul, we're just moving money around. There is a running theme tonight, and rightly so. The blame for these cuts lies in two places. The previous administration raided the piggy bank, and over a decade of Tory government austerity, resulted in the council having £100 million a year less to spend on vital services compared to 2010 levels. £100 million a year. This is a budget that happens when we allow the Tories to asset strip the country. A general election is the only way out of this, and it cannot come soon enough. Councillor TARLING. Thank you very much, and thank you, Councillor Chatman-Law. Like Councillor Chatman-Law, I'm in with the new intake here. But prior to joining here, I have actually worked for central government departments, and one thing I would say about contingency is that if I'd submit it a business case, some of the business cases I've worked on have been much larger budgets than this council's budgets. If we'd submitted a business case without contingency in there, it would have been laughed out of the Minister of State's office. The reports I used to write would go to various ministers, and if they'd seen something without contingency on there, it would have been laughed out. So I recommend this budget on the basis that we do have contingency in there. But I think it's already been pointed out, and as Councillor Canavan has already made a claim for the first bit of that contingency when we go past it, certainly every quarter when we get our reports back, and this contingency is unspent, but it can be reallocated. So I will hold Councillor Coxe to that as well, Councillor Canavan. I'd like to also, I wasn't going to raise the point of personal clarification, that the Chair of Viewing Scootney was talking about the pay-in reward. That wasn't actually mentioned as I recall in the last overview of Scootney Board, so I believe that this is personal statement rather than that of the actual board itself. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Waters. [silence] [silence] I don't know if it helps. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Andy Martin. Thank you, Chair. We have an important item coming up a little bit further in the agenda about the Russell Coates Museum. By and large, however, we don't talk about arts and culture much in this chamber. So can I take this opportunity to thank my Cabinet colleagues and our officers for their support during this very long arduous budget process, which has led us to protect the bulk of our cultural budget at a time when many local authorities have significantly cut theirs or remove them altogether. And as a reminder, this is non-statutory spending and we are protecting it. I'd also like to thank colleagues for their recognition of the incredible work that our professional cultural partners and grassroots arts and community organisations and groups deliver across all our communities, including health and well-being, education, working with disadvantaged communities and isolated communities with dementia patients in care homes and hospitals with the disabled and in public health more widely, as well, of course, in terms of economic regeneration, destination and revitalisation. But there is so much more potential ready and waiting to be unleashed. And that's why I'm very pleased to thank the Leader, particularly, for the new investment of 76,000 to help community arts groups. And this could be considerably more with the new award improvement funds should members decide to invest in arts and culture in their wards. It all adds up to, it can all add up to quite a lot, and in arts and culture we can do a lot with a little. Last month I met with the Arts Council and Bristol to talk about this Council's commitment and belief in arts and culture, and something I believe our friends at Arts Council England hear and acknowledge. It is clear there are exciting opportunities ahead if we choose to take them. Finally, let me give my thanks to all our arts and cultural organisations and our brilliant national portfolio organisations, Lighthouse Pool, Pavilion Dance South West, the world-renowned performance symphony orchestra, activate and arts by the Sea Festival, along with our own fantastic arts development team for all they do, collectively and deliver to our communities on and off the stage. We must remain committed to the power of arts and culture to change lives. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Moore. Thank you, Madam Chair. So most people think of bins, potholes and grass cutting when they think of the Council, but of course the largest proportion of our spending is on social care, adults and children's social care. When a Council has to fund care packages costing over £1 million a year for one person or for one family, it's not surprising that the largest proportion of the Council's budget is spent on social care. And post-COVID, Councils across the country are experiencing an increase in need from both adults and children's services. Sadly, without the corresponding increase funding from government to go with it, the funding of social care urgently needs to be addressed at government level. And to take Councillor Rigby's point, I will be fighting back. I will campaign and I will vote at the next general election. But locally, I think this administration's main job since the last election in May has been to sort out and stabilise this Council's finances. I'm pleased and more than grateful that we've returned to try and tested traditional budgeting methods, none of the risky flash-golden stuff of the past. We're not trying to set the world on fire, there's no bells or whistles here, this is neither the time nor the place for any of that. The previous administration had run the budget dry and bankruptcy was lurking around the corner. But now, after eight months, hard work, this is no longer the case. There are still financial risks, but they're manageable risks, as long as we remain sensible. I will be supporting this budget. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ward. Councillor Ekenhead. Thank you. Actually, I think I'll sit down if that's OK, because it will find you a bit difficult to stand up with this desk in front of me. So I share the frustration of everybody here who has talked about the fact that we all accept that cuts are needed. The frustration of the years of austerity, the successive governments who have caused this problem, Conservative and Liberal Democrats, governments who have put this council in the position it's in now. And I sympathise with the idea that we need to lobby the government, but I think actually we're now in the position where that would be a waste of time, and what we really need to do is for people to just stop voting for them. I will just mention that if a Labour government does get in, they have committed to ending the one-year funding settlement. So that would mean that we as a Council would be able to do much more long-term planning. I hope that there will be more commitments as time goes on, but it's very difficult when we don't know what sort of a state the country is going to be left in. But what I would like to say is that the main reason I don't like this budget is because I think we could do better in the way that we do the budget process. I was really interested to hear the list of things that we're not cutting for the first time tonight, where did those things come from? Did we ever have choices for those things? All I've seen here and at the scrutiny committee is the finished recommendation that I could either say yes to, I can say no to it, or else I can move an amendment that will almost certainly be rejected by the administration who have been very impressively, very disciplined in their voting tonight. So my vision is that we should discuss options early before there's a final recommendation for next year, particularly in scrutiny. I'd like to see meaningful public consultation with real choices. I'd like to see ideas about what we should or shouldn't cut amendments put in advance, not at the very last meeting. And actually, although we may always disagree on some things, there are some things that I'd like to see us try to achieve more consensus than conflict. And I'd like to see us try to do that through the scrutiny, through us doing our scrutiny different. Thank you. Thank you. I think Councillor Samu you were next. Sorry, all of us really need to act together and stop mucking about. And I don't mean just us as Councillors, honestly, not just us as Councillors, but I think all of us who work in politics as civil servants or as MPs and whatnot, because it just isn't good enough, despite the best efforts of the administration, doesn't address the needs of our communities for housing, health and education and all that, does nothing for climate change. We're nowhere near what we need to do to tackle climate change, nowhere near. We've got to be focused on identifying the actual things we can do that will sort our problems out. And I hope it wasn't missed when Chris spoke about the radical actions of councils in the past, when governments were failing to deliver, councils used to do far more than what we're proposing to do this evening. And if there are so many people in this room who recognise this budget just doesn't work, not just us as Councillors, if there are so many of us as Councillors who know it's not going to work, why on earth that we're about to vote for it, you know? And why on earth for we as employees of BCP Council, whatever else we do while us, why are we about to execute this plan that we must recognise. This is suicide. The track we are on as a society is ecological suicide. We are so close to climate tipping points, you know? And that's if we've not already passed them and we are taking about at the edges ultimately with things like these budgets. We have to, honestly, sooner or later we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and take radical action, potentially radical action that is outside of the existing legal and political frameworks that exist. We're going to have to do that sooner or later. If that's the reality of a situation, I'd much rather we do that sooner than we were able to get on with that this evening. That's it. I've wound myself up. I've drunk too many end of new drinks to stay awake. I'll pipe down for a rest of the evening. But we are so close. We've got to do more. That's it. Thank you, Councillor Sammon. Councillor Hadley. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to remember that the extremely hard work from our officers in supporting us in coming to this budget, it has been excruciating looking at your services and trying to see which bits we can cut, how we can get away without things. That's really difficult and has been really difficult over a long period. I was struck and actually it was just mentioned in the consultation, the top four services that were valued by our public are all sick within my portfolio and collecting rubbish, parks and playgrounds and sea front, maintaining roads and pavements, keeping our streets clean. The universal services that our public wants and expects us to be able to manage. The limited funds that we got via the announcements from Michael Grove at the last minute are really welcome, but they're just not enough to carry on as before and it hasn't able to restore some of the funds to the services that the public find helpful, but not enough. I have enormous sympathy with the sentiments expressed by Councillor Rigby. I've certainly written emails to lobby government and I will continue to do so and I think that's something that we all need to do more of. And indeed also with what we've just heard from Councillor Sammon. The allocation reserved to better prioritise the realities of our changing climate and the ecological collapse is very welcome. We will be working to accelerate our efforts to mitigate the climate impacts of climate change. Will it be enough? I'm not sure it will, but we've got to do what we can. It's a hill we've got to absolutely climb and have the ambition to get on with. On the contingency, again I've done business case models for treasury and you have to have contingencies in there. We've got to recognise that costs are always going up. We don't have the power over all that and again just on things like waste management, these things are daily changing on an international scale and we don't have control of those things. And it's really important when you look at the sensitivity analysis on page 151 of the report that looked after children can be £1 million per child if they're a complicated case per year and intensive home care packages for the elderly, £270,000. It doesn't take very many of those to really change the stability of individual budgets. The budget set by my colleague, Councillor Coxe, with input from many other people is a prudent plan to restore our financial health of this Council, to avoid Section 114 bankruptcy and to enable us to rebuild the future and I think it's really important that we go for it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I think I have Councillor Slade, Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. We all knew when we stood for Council last spring that BCP was staring into the abyss with a smashed reputation, but even I was shocked when I was told the depth of the financial hole during my first meeting with the Chief Executive. Although the budget from the previous administration was balanced and undertaken eventually using traditional methods, the medium term financial plan was not healthy. Many cuts avoided in this year's budgets had simply been deferred for a year, becoming problems for the next administration to sort out. Thank you very much. And within hours of taking office, we were told about millions of pounds worth of assumed but uniting by savings that had already been baked into the modelling for the next year's budget. Every saving we've sought to roll back has meant a difficult decision elsewhere, but we have no choice but to balance the books and to restore the financial stability in order that BCP Council remains in control of its own destiny. And by balancing the four-year MTFP, we hope we will avoid the need to sit here again and again and be able to restore some of Council's faith in the system. In finding over 40 million of savings, we have also uncovered excess spending in other places. We know the closure of Kings Park, plant nursery was unwelcome, but it cannot be right that the Council was losing nearly a quarter of a million pounds every year on this. So it's right that in closing it as a Council facility, at the same time we asked the community groups to take on the site and continue its work. We know the air festivals are a popular part of our summer event programme and want to retain it, but we cannot justify £300,000 every year of taxpayer subsidy. So it's right that we're funding it this year, but collaborating with partners to find a long-term business-led solution from next year, exactly as the former leader said he would do in an echo article on the 1st of March last year. You will not find bigger fans of libraries than members on this side of the room and within the Alliance, but while the Bournemouth Library PFI contract takes over a third of the total BCP Library budget, we must find ways to future-proof the other libraries by sharing their space with communities and making them the beating heartbeats of our communities. And if that means shrinking the number of staff at the moment or adjusting their hours so we can secure them the long-term, then that's what we must do. We have prioritised establishing, enabling communities to take more control, which is why we're actively working with the tourism sector on the accommodation bid. Why today we've launched the Bournemouth Action Partnership, chaired by the MP Secona Burns, to lead on the renewal of Bournemouth, and why we're placing funds back into every ward with the ward improvement funds. If we're going to thrive in a future where funding is insecure, the cost of living is rising and changes in society means that we have to spend more protecting the most vulnerable. The only way to reshape councils is with our communities, with them not doing it for them. Things will look different in each town and neighbourhood, they're all unique and with less funding, we're determined to bake the building plots in place to make better places for the future. We will continue to lobby the Government, yes, Councillor SRI, not just me, but Councillor SRI, in his role as well. Thank you. Councillor KAubran. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak about libraries this evening as that's part of what we're looking at here. So as we started our session here this evening, several of our local libraries, mine and Charm Minister included, were just closing. They might well have been the only Council building still open that far into the evening and would certainly have been the only one on a residential street. They represent warmth, learning and opportunity to our residents, the ultimate community space and Council service. We're being asked to take half a million pounds out of the libraries budget with no strategy in place for how that might be done or assessment of the impact on those who need them the most. Assessments were done on football and other usage data apparently, and yet the library in my ward, and I know of others, was earmarked for an extra day's closure on its busiest day of the week for local groups without consulting the staff. I must thank the portfolio holder for helping me rectify that situation, which was acknowledged as an error, but was it? Or was it an example of siloed thinking and making savings and savings just seen as lines on a balance sheet? We know why we need these savings, we've rehearsed the poison legacy of the Tories and the neglect of central government. I understand that money must be found and all departments must play their part, but it's precisely at times like these that the choices we make matter the most. How those savings are made will affect our residents' lives for years to come. Libraries really matter. It's no surprise that 60% of the budget survey respondents disagreed with the proposed closing times. They use the IT, keep warm in the buildings, and borrow the books and DVDs they might not otherwise have access to. They go to the talks, learn about local history, and may have their only social interaction of the day there. And just a couple of months ago, Charmenster Library was the only place a distressed teenage girl could think of to go when she found herself out on her own in the dark, scared and upset. My concern with the cuts proposed for libraries is the same one that runs through much of this budget. I can't see that there's an integrated approach to the thinking behind them. How is it that both libraries in the Boscombe and Southbourne area will be closed at 1pm on the same two days? How does that fit with a wider, warm places strategy, for example? The library opening times need to be coordinated so that they're staggered and complementary as much as possible and that adjacent ones are not closed at the same time. I'd like to make a plea that these hours are rethought with this in mind. When you're elderly or have children in your home is freezing, there are often places you can go to keep warm during the day, but you dread the long evenings where there are far fewer places. The same reasoning applies for people who need to use the library for schoolwork or after work. There should always be one open, not only reasonably far away. I'm asking for ways to be considered that minimize the impact of the cuts. This is the vision we need, reassuring residents and staff that they are at the heart of our decision-making. I was disappointed that my concerns about losing experienced staff were brushed aside at the O&S. Thank you, Councillor. If these cuts have to be made, please rethink how they're made. Councillor, thank you. I was. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Broadhead. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Apply me. Madam Chairman, it seems like I'm the only person in this room who isn't a parliamentary candidate. Frankly, people... I'm fine, thank you, I'm fine, thank you. People may criticise our amendments, but at least you're up. Councillor Broadhead. Yes. There's a problem up here. Can you explain? I'm up. Chairman, Councillor Broadhead has already spoken as part of the group leader. He did speak on the substantive motion, and part of that speech you proposed an amendment, and therefore you have spoken on the substantive motion. I had so much to say, but I will graciously defer, except to say that if in future, if we want our campaign pitches, could we keep them out of the chamber? Otherwise, the next 12 months is going to be bloody unbearable. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Broadhead. That was quite gracious. Thank you very much. Oh, right. In that case, Councillor Brown, you seconded the motion, so you reserved your right, I'm imagining. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I seconded the motion so that I could speak, but reserved my right to speak later. I'll keep it reasonably brief. I really welcome this budget report. It's the result of eight months of really intensive work, and I'd like some colleagues. I'd like to thank all our finance offices. Also, I'd really like to thank the offices I work with in adult social care and within health. Adult social care is one of the biggest cost centres of the Council, but they really, and I've seen over years, have a reputation for not simply just cutting services that are going to affect vulnerable people, but actually managing the health care system in ever more effective ways to make sure that those people that rely on us do get services provided, but take on the responsibility of actually doing it in a much more cost effective way. So I'd like to thank all the offices I've worked with on developing this budget. I have quite a unique perspective stood here. As I stood here four years ago, unfortunately, Facebook reminded me yesterday that and showed me a picture that I stood here four years ago as the portfolio holder for finance for the first BCP budget setting for 2020-21, which was passed and amended. That was the last BCP Council budget, which didn't rely on raiding the Council's reserve to make the suns other, the last traditional prudent sensible budget until tonight's budget. This balanced budget, a medium-term financial plan, is a real result and I congratulate my colleague, Councillor Cox. For me, one of the key changes and differences that this administration brought in to make that work was by separating the leader and finance portfolio holder role. For me, that was the real issue, the last few years, that the budget and the finance proposals could be whatever we wanted because the finance portfolio holder was the leader and didn't have anybody to answer to. And that separation, I think, is key change that has helped us sort the budget problems out. And I congratulate officers actually in working through this budget. We got close to getting it sorted until the chance stood up and gave us autumn statement and increased the national living wage both more than anybody had expected, increasing the national living wage from £10.42 an hour to £11.44 an hour, which are support and is good for those people, particularly care workers, that will receive that. But as a major employer of care workers, just so members are aware that that will cost BCP adult social care care services £12.5m additional cost per year. That's greater than the full Council tax increase. The full £9.99 brings in just over £12m. So the full 5% Council tax increase doesn't even cover the cost of national living wage increase for our care workers. And that's the kind of financial difficulties we've had to face and work on as a cabinet. So even by getting knocked off course by that announcement by the Chancellor, we've managed to work our way through that. I would just say that Councillors are not all financial professionals. We rely on professional financial and audit advice when we're developing the budget and when we're voting on it here. And for lots of new members, I really would recommend reading the, I think it's an appendix 10, the section 25 report from our section 151 officer and with the Chief Executive as well. And that statement goes through in detail, the advice and the responsibility that we have. We need to have due regard to that section 25 report. We need to have due regard to the best value notice from D-Luck. We need to have due regard to the assessments of the external auditor. In previous years, as new members won't know, that section 25 report has noted that the Council expenditure is exceeding its sources of income. As Councillor Bort has already conceded this evening, they were spending more than their income. We all know in our personal finances you can't carry on like that. That's a recipe for disaster. This year the section 25 report does not say that. But for that one reason I would urge you to support this budget because we are now with this budget planning to live within our means and we are not draining our savings account simply to live day to day as a council. On that basis we will be able to develop over the coming years to read the medium term financial plan. We need this stable financial basis so that we can start to be more innovative, more ambitious in the future. Councillor HANA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I wasn't actually planning to speak and I don't want to detract from all the common sense that we've just heard from Councillor France. But it was listening to Councillor Joe Salmon that inspired me to say yes, I agree with virtually every word that you said. The system is a mess and the system has to change. The one bit that I can't agree with is I still plan to vote for this budget for all the positive reasons that have been said by others. We do need to set a budget. We do need to keep Council services running. We do need to keep supporting residents as best we can so we do need a budget and I'll be supporting it. The key thing though that struck me during the whole of the discussions that have taken place, not just this evening, but throughout all of the planning, is the figure that's already been referred to by Councillor Chapman Law. The 100 million pounds. The reduction in government grants that has been imposed over the past 13 years. If we still had that 100 million pounds, we wouldn't be holding the kind of discussion that we've been holding this evening. We'd be spending a lot of money providing all of the things that people have been saying they would like to see happening. When I hear members opposite saying they would like to spend really very small amounts on youth clubs, adult services, mental health. Of course, we all value those, but that was crocodile tears because if we had that 100 million pounds that was cut by the government that they have supported, we wouldn't have those issues. We would be spending money on youth clubs, adult services, mental health, libraries, right down to the potholes that people keep complaining about all of it. We would have a Council that we could really be proud of, whereas at the moment we can be proud simply that we are managing to keep things going. And then I hear Councillor Hadley, and indeed the leader, referring to the fact that they have been lobbying central government. The government isn't listening. The government doesn't care. The government is talking about tax cuts, not providing essential services to residents who are crying out for them. Thank you. Councillor Armstrong. Thank you, Chair. I know there's quite a few of us in the room who weren't planning on speaking this evening. I was one of those because I felt that my views and the views of my residents were fed through very eloquently through Chris and through Joe. But back in 2010, I started while I was working for the Council as a program lead, and it is absolutely heartbreaking. In fact, it's like Groundhog Day sitting here in the same conversations about the types of cuts, the cuts to the bone to services that have already been running on less. It just absolutely blows me away. For all these years, since leaving the Council, I've worked in the voluntary sector, and thank you, Councillor Fyla, for the acknowledgement. So to be here, and to be here as a Councillor, and to feel this hopelessness and this sense of dismay is quite overwhelming, actually. Every week, like many of us here, receiving more and more emails from families, from single parents, absolutely living in the most horrendous of circumstances because they are struggling with paying their rent, they are struggling to provide for their families, and they are struggling to keep a roof over their head. And I am tired of working in the community, trying to make a difference, and after nine months in Council, I'm also tired of the fact that we just seem to be so stuck. So I just really echo what my colleagues around me are saying, and I think we've really got to take some direct action because this is really not OK. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Trent. Thank you. I think we've heard a lot of, you know, ringing of hands and so on, and I agree that we're definitely not where we want to be, and I would much rather have seen the extra £109 million or whatever that we would have had if we hadn't have been cut. But something we ought to be able to take out tonight is, let's lobby, let's lobby clearly. The very first debate that we had this evening was about the deficit on special needs education. The government had talking about their £10 billion fiscal headroom, a quarter of that would clear that deficit, a half of it would actually put the funding right. If the government were to spend some of that money on supporting local authorities and not grubbing around to try to find the tax cut that will win the most votes, then we wouldn't be in trouble we are in future years. We really do need to lobby the government to actually look after what matters the services at the cold face that people enjoy, and they can do it. They have this fiscal headroom, they're boasting about it, let's ask them collectively to use that fiscal headroom to actually help mend some of the damage they've done. I don't see any more speakers, Councillor Cox, do you want to sum up in two minutes? It's a might struggle, I'll do my best. Basically, I'm going to try and answer a few of the questions people have raised and points they've raised. Councillor Beasley, you said it's not ambitious, it's actually balancing a budget over four years, how much more ambitious do you actually want it to be? Councillor Rampton, you actually said that they were closing all day care centres, that's rubbish, we're not. Councillor Rigby, you said you're sick of it, I agree, so am I. Councillor Butte, you said we're not innovative enough. Well, we did innovative, you back to the innovative, look what kind of financial mess we got ourselves in. Councillor Bartlett, you said we've got 50,000 employees, unfortunately we don't, we've only got five, but never mind. Five thousand employees, yes. It's grossly unfair, the position we're in at the moment, pay and reward has to be achieved because people at the moment are being paid different amounts for doing the same service, it's grossly unfair and it needs to change. Councillor Aikenhead, you said there was a liberal German government, if only there was. Councillor Sammon, no mocking about, I agree. However, I am not prepared to break the law. The last time that happened in Liverpool, the Tories used it against everybody and look at the mess that they got themselves into. And Councillor Carbone, Councillor Carbone libraries, I completely agree with you. We should not have silo thinking, silo thinking does happen, officers are human, it does happen and when it happens and when you see it, call it out like everybody else should be doing. So what I'd like to say is this Council, this Council is not doing a 21% increase in tax like they are in Birmingham. This Council is not having hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts like they are in Birmingham. This Council is not having to ask the government for billions of pounds in rescue funds when they're going to have to sell assets to pay for that. This is a good budget and I would ask you all to vote for it. Thank you. Thank you, members. Right. As you know, for this vote, it has to be a recorded vote. And I'm going to ask the chief executive because I'm still unclear and he's told me three times, I still can't grasp it, which bits we're voting on. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my understanding is we take a single recorded vote on items A to E and then a single recorded vote on item F, which is the agreement to the Council tax. Okay, so if you're okay to go to the vote, we will do this. Thank you. So for new Councillors who may not have, I can't remember if we've done one of these since the new Council, but I read out every Council's name in alphabetical order by surname so you can get ready to switch your microphone on. If you vote in favour, say for, if you want to vote against, say against, if you want to abstain, say abstain and we will record the votes against your name and then we'll tell you the total at the end and the outcome of the vote. So to start, Councillor ADAMS is ready, so this is on sections A to E on item agenda item 11, recommendations A and A goes on with nine subsections and then BCD and E on mass. So, Councillor CASSIDY and ADAMS, Councillor SOO, Aikenhead. Oh, sorry. Sorry, my mic wasn't, so I'm voting against. Against? Thank you. Mr. Hazel Allen. Nice. Councillor MARX, Andrew's. Definitely four. Councillor SOAR, Armstrong. Stay. Councillor Judy Bagwell. Against. Councillor Stephen Bartlett. Four. Councillor JOHN BEASLEY. Against. Councillor PHILIP broughthead. Against. Councillor DAVID BROWN. Four. Councillor LIVIA BROWN. Four. Councillor SUMMING BOOLE. Epstein. Councillor RICHARD BIRTON. Four. Councillor JUDEBART. Against. Councillor PATRIOT KANAVAN. Against. Councillor SRIOR and CarBRAAN. Against. Councillor BRIAN CASSLE. Four. Councillor ADRIAN CHAPMANLOR. Four. Councillor BRIAN CHICK. Four. Councillor ELLENDA. Councillor ALLANDA O'CONNELLY. Against. Councillor PETER COOPER. Against. Councillor MIKES-COX. Four. Councillor LESLIEVE-DEBMAN. Four. Councillor DAVID ALSTON GIBBSON. Against. Councillor BOBBY-DAVE. Against. Councillor MURPHY. Against. Councillor MURPHY. Against. Councillor MURPHY. Against. Councillor MILLIOLL. Four. Councillor JUCKIE-Edwards. Four. Councillor DRIAN FYLE. Against. Councillor DRIAN FYLE. Against. Councillor DRIAN FYLE. Against. Councillor ANNE FYLE. Against. Councillor MATTHEW GILLET. Four. Councillor CRISPING-GURDLE. Four. Councillor ANDY HEDLEY. Four. Councillor MAY HANDS. Against. Councillor JEFF HANNER. Four. Councillor EMILY HARRMAN. Sorry. Four. Councillor RICHARD HARRMAN. Four. Councillor RICHARD HARRMAN. Four. Councillor RICHARD HARRMAN. Four. Councillor RICHARD HARRMAN. Four. Councillor BRYAN HITCHKOCK. Four. Councillor MARK HOWL. Four. Councillor ALLASTER KIDDY. Abstain. Councillor MARRILLA-PEDDVEEN. Four. That's all right. Sorry. Councillor MARRILLA-MACKROW. Four. Councillor RICHARD HARRMAN. Sorry. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Councillor RICHARD HANNER. Thank you, Councillors. Councillors, there were 44 votes for 23 against and 6 abstentions. So those parts of the motion and the budget are carried. So we now need to repeat the exercise. I'll try and be a bit smoother but for recommendation F on item number 11. Yes, so does anybody want to change the vote? Okay, it has to be recorded vote, I'm afraid. So we'll hopefully refer you to the Chamber. We'll get some new technology. So Councillor CASSIDY. Cameron Adams. Four. Councillor SUACAN. Head. Four. Councillor Haysleallen. Four. Councillor MARX. Andrew's. Four. This is getting easier. Councillor interjecting. Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, are you voting four against? Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillors, we have three different numbers between the three people that are counting. One of those numbers gives a majority, one of the numbers does not and the other one to adjourn the meeting. Please stand now to vote in favour of the adjournment. Councillors interjecting. Sorry, it went to the law standing. Councillors interjecting. Sorry, and Councillors, we need to all be standing while we start the vote and remain standing till we finish the vote because we're getting different orders. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Members, can you sit down again now? Councillors interjecting. Members, prior to adjournment, the chief executive would like us to go to item 19, which is very basic. So we haven't taken the vote against. Councillors interjecting. Councillors interjecting. Which item is it? Item 19. Members, item 19, before we adjourn, can we please look at item 19 and I'm going to pass the vote against item 19, because I actually haven't got this on my sheet for some reason. Oh, yes. Recruitment of the chief operations officer. Councillor Slade, you're going to move the recommendation and have a seconder. We can cover this if there's no debate before we go and it's vital to get it done today. Councillor Slade. Thank you, Madam Chair. Seconder, Councillor Margaret Fipps. Just very briefly, some of us were lucky enough to be involved in the recruitment process for a new chief operations officer last week. It was a really great day. It was a really robust process with a very substantial lot of interest in this position. And I think that that is testament to the direction that this Council is going, that we had such a lot of interest from really high-quality calibre of people. Quite a number of Councillors in this Chamber were involved in the process along with senior officers. We have all got the details of the candidate that the recruitment panel has recommended. That information is not public at the moment because we are waiting to align them being announced where they are leaving. We don't want to be breaking the news for their public. But before I recommend that you vote on the appointment of the candidate who is in the confidential appendix, I have to just say a few words about our outgoing chief operations officer, Jess Givens, as this is her last meeting with us. Yes, exactly. Although technically, as we've adjourned the second half of the meeting, we might have to give her another clap of next week. But just to say, Jess joined us a couple of years ago. Certainly myself and Councillor Broughton were involved in her recruitment panel. It certainly has been a journey, Jess, because Jess has not been with us all that long, but she's certainly brought lots of her infectious laughter and an imitable style to cabinet and CMB meetings over the last couple of years. So we will miss you, Jess. Jess is going on, most of you will know, to be the chief executive at Brighton and Hope Council, and I look forward to working with her again in work that we do along South Coast Unities. So thank you for your work, Jess, and I commend the candidate that we have hopefully appointed to you so that we can do this officially and get them on board. Councillor FIPS, do you want to speak? No, just very happy to say a second, thanks. Thank you. Members, I don't think there should be any debate about this. Can we just have a consensus vote? Thank you. Thank you. Now, just before you go, sorry, I know you can't go. We're moving the adjournment. We have moved and agreed the adjournment of the meeting until Tuesday 27 February. So see you back here then. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO] BLANK_AUDIO