The Liberal Democrat budget amendments are designed to mitigate the real terms cuts in the cabinet's proposed budget

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

In particular, the effects of the admin review in the youth service will have an adverse impact on how Youth Officers do their jobs, and will actually make them less efficient. So we propose to reduce this saving to £35,000.

The countryside service has been working for many years on the definitive map, and the savings here will slow the production down even more. We do not think that this is acceptable. A cut in the footpath maintenance is not an “efficiency saving” - but an actual cut in the level of service; and at a time when we are told by the Ramblers Association and others that more money is actually required to be spent to make our footpaths up to an acceptable standard.

The Cabinet's proposed savings in social inclusion in education in Annex 4 will harm those children who are most in need. The £121,000 “re-organising services to reduce posts” etc will mean a reduction in officer support, a reduction in the hours of home tuition provided to children excluded from school and not filling vacancies. The £90,000 in “SEN & Social Inclusion” will mean cuts across the SEN spectrum, including: the behaviour support service in schools, Education Social worker hours, educational psychology hours, PRUIS for excluded pupils, Communication Language and Sensory Service, and services to looked-after children and children with a physical disability. These are not acceptable cuts - falling as they do on the most vulnerable children in our schools.

Adult social care has already met the lion's share of the overall `efficiency savings' referred to above, and the cabinet budget shows actual real terms cuts in services for older people's budget, because of increasing demographic pressures - the over 85s are by far the fastest growing group in the county's population, and tend to be heavy users of services. NHS cuts and the cut in the Supporting People grant from government will put further pressure on this budget. The reductions will mean fewer nursing home placements with the possibility that some people might have to move between homes; fewer respite beds which will increase demands on carers, as will the halting of the day services programme. There will be longer waiting lists for assessments and care packages. And these are the very services that topped the list of priorities for more investment in the recent Oxfordshire MORI survey. The Liberal Democrat group's amendments puts in a further £1m towards pressures left unfunded by Tory `reprioritisation' of older adult services.

We consider that certain services should not only to be protected from cuts, but actually have greater investment, either to improve the level of services or even to keep them an acceptable level given the pressures upon them.

We are proposing £50,000 for Foster Plus, to implement the recommendations of a scrutiny review which was accepted in principle by Cabinet in July 2005. This review recommended strongly that the Council increase the remuneration of those carers with the most experience who are fostering the most challenging children, usually teenagers. This would help to attract and retain those exceptional carers, whom we need in order to avoid having to pay independent agencies and/or out-of-county specialist placements. This is a 'invest to save' bid - as the costs are much reduced this way. Savings might not occur within months but by the end of the first such year they should start to accrue. Other authorities do make such payments- and national recommendations include the payment of retainers to carers between placements so that they have something akin to a salary rather than spasmodic payments while fostering. Such carers also need more support available at times of crisis than is currently available.

We are informed that the youth service are being told that they must pay for broadband themselves, and this will, in effect, create another pressure in that service that they will struggle to find without cuts in the actual level of service. We are proposing a very modest £10,000 towards this.

We are aware that the prices of bus tenders are likely to rise faster than ordinary inflation again next year. An increased budget is the only way of avoiding cuts in rural buses. We have therefore created a “fund” to be used, as necessary, to protect some of these services and keep them running. Bus services are a lifeline to people without cars in some of our rural villages.

The Youth Offending Team is being cut because of cuts in the grants from Government. We consider that the work they do is so important in diverting some young people from a life of crime that the County Council should mitigate some of the effect of this cut. We are therefore proposing an additional £50,000 for this service.

Set against this additional expenditure, we consider that there are some areas where savings can be made. We do not consider that the two new posts in the Chief Executive's Office in external relations and change management can be afforded at this time. We also consider that the Council is spending too much money on glossy publications - where cheaper, less glossy leaflets could do the job of informing and helping our residents just as well. The number of consultants employed by the authority is huge and we believe that some savings can be made here - we have opted for a small amount in relation to the money spent so we do not believe there will be any effect on services. And, given that most councillor development is required in the first year after the council elections, we consider that next year the councillors' training budget can easily be reduced.

Our proposals to review fees for skips and scaffolding is mainly aimed at reducing traffic congestion, but will also produce a welcome saving. We believe that higher charges should be introduced for skips and scaffolding that stay on the highway for longer periods. They block roads, reduce parking space and add to traffic management problems whilst they are there. We hope that introducing higher charges for second and third weeks will encourage builders to remove them as soon as possible - the current flat rate charge does not.

We believe that the £1.5m set aside for the pension fund will prove not to be necessary. If this is the case, then we will use part of the money to improve highway maintenance, and particularly that for pavements and cycleways. This is one area where we receive a large number of complaints, and is one of the services that was also highlighted in the MORI survey as important, but where the council was failing to spend enough money.

The Speed Indicator Devices are a road safety measure that has attracted a high level of support from the public and parishes and we therefore are ensuring that the funding continues in future years. The Waste Reduction initiatives have been very successful in reducing waste from business and communities, and we are also ensuring that these continue.