Our full response to the Budget Consultation can be downloaded here. This includes specific responses on a number of proposed cuts, along with detailed papers. Below is a summary of the general points in our response.
We have also submitted a seperate response to the proposed changes to the Devolved School Budget which can be downloaded here
Moray UNISON represents a large percentage of staff working for the Council, excluding teachers. Our response represents the views collected from our members. These members are providers as well as consumers of Council services. They are also constituents of the elected members and voters.
There is an indication on each of the proposals as to whether an Equality Impact Assessment is required. This has been decided on the basis of the impact on customers only, not on staff. Our position is that this should be carried out for every proposal that has in impact on the consumers of the service and/or staff - in other words for virtually all the proposals. This is based on the Council’s Equality Duty. A large proportion of staff affected by the proposals either through redundancy, e.g. toilet attendants, or cuts in hours, e.g. school support staff, are low paid women. The cuts to services predominantly target vulnerable groups in society, including the elderly and children.
Whilst it is not within the ethos of a trade union to advocate the loss of any job by any worker, what justification is there for concentrating on front-line services while many areas of the council are relatively or actually untouched? In the interest of fairness, we would ask that all services be treated equally. There is an increasing emphasis on preservation and mushrooming of bureaucratic functions to the detriment of services which affect people directly.
In order to avoid compulsory redundancies and reduce cuts to services, we believe that any access to voluntary early retirement or voluntary severance schemes should be open to all staff. That is, where their post would create a redeployment opportunity for an employee whose post is at risk. Clearly there would need to be a selection process based on the need to make financial savings and the needs of the service.
This states that front-line services will be protected which contradict the content of the proposals.
Surely local authorities should be more robust, through Cosla or independently, in challenging the introduction of initiatives such as the Council Tax freeze and the need for compliance with ever-increasing bureaucracy.
While we understand some of the arguments in favour of the consultation process and are mindful that it is good that there has been consultation, we feel that many members of the public have not had a say in this consultation through lack of access to the Area Forums.
Many of the figures given in the individual proposals are not seen by our members as being accurate. We question many of the figures and how they were arrived at. In UNISON’s consultation response papers there are two particularly well argued cases which demonstrate this and these have been submitted in separate papers at the end of this response. They are on the proposal, Budget Reference C36, to reduce the cost of contaminated land services, and Budget Reference 93, to reduce fraud service provision. In both cases it can be demonstrated that there would be a potential net loss to the Council which would outweigh any savings achieved. If this can be demonstrated in these cases, it would suggest that there should be scrutiny of the accuracy or otherwise of other proposals.
There are a number of proposals to which we would like to respond but where it is not clear what is currently the position as structural changes are taking place, for example in Community Learning and Development.
Irene Sinclair (Branch Secretary), 14th December 2009