My name is Janke, Leader of the Council. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
The glorious leadership of Bristol City Council meets for its (second) Cabinet meeting of June 2010.
Cabinet members:
- Cllr Barbara “Magnanimous” Janke (Lib Dem), Leader of the Council
- Cllr Simon “Luvvie” Cook (Lib Dem), Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Culture, Sport and Capital Projects
- Cllr Clare “The Goat” Campion-Smith (Lib Dem), Executive Member for Children and Young People
- Cllr Gary “The Tache” Hopkins(Lib Dem), Executive Member for Strategic Transport, Waste and Targeted Improvement
- Cllr Bev “The Beard” Knott (Lib Dem), Executive Member for Neighbourhoods
- Cllr Anthony “New Boy” Negus (Lib Dem), Executive Member for Strategic Housing and Regeneration
- Cllr “Nice Guy” Jon Rogers (Lib Dem), Executive Member for Health and Care [and Bikes]
- Cllr Mark “Bulldozer” Wright (Lib Dem), Executive Member for Efficiency and Value for Money
Cabinet Business
1. “Blimey, we managed to not spend some of that money we don’t have”
ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT OF OUTTURN POSITION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES
Lots of jargon in the appendices. The “£2m saved” message is largely spin. As well as over £1.2 arbitrarily deemed no longer required for contingencies, the Health and Adult Social Care department managed to overspend their budget by £3.5m.
Decision: Cabinet is asked to tell the Evening Post that they’ve saved money, and then spend it next week when no one is looking.
Barlow’s view: £2,000,000 is about £10 per Band D equivalent household. Can we expect to see a rebate in next year’s council tax?
2. “The Money’s gone to Iceland. And they’re keeping it”
TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2009/10
The Council’s Capital Financing Requirement is an expression of the money – borrowed with your cheque book – that they need to pay for pet projects. Last year it was £427.8m, which assumed PFI projects were off the books. This year, it is £633.3m – about twice the annual operating budget of the council. For perspective, the typical household income in Bristol is about £30k per annum.
Wisely, having changed their underwear and composed themselves, the Council Treasury team propose a “suspension of long term borrowing in order to reduce investments and thus exposure to counterparty risk”. But such strategies depend on councillors not pushing their own vanity projects.
Oh, and “the status of the Local Authority deposits with the Glitnir and Landsbanki banks have been referred to the Icelandic judiciary for resolution”. The Icelandic people have already resolved that we can piss off and die, thus I wouldn’t hold out much hope.
Decision: Cabinet is asked to put their fingers in their ears and shout “la la la” whenever the subject of paying for stuff is raised.
Barlow’s view: Bloody vikings. And bloody councillors too.
3. “Seriously, stop spending money on tat”
CAPITAL OUTTURN 2009/10 AND FIRST MONITOR 2010/11
Another financial report explaining that there is no money left.
Decision: Cabinet is asked to remember that there is a £14m gap in the current capital budget before swapping the Suspension Bridge for a bag of magic beans.
Barlow’s view: See above
4. “Bring out your dead. And burn them sustainably.”
ABATEMENT OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM CREMATORIA
Notwithstanding all the previous reports about the absence of money, this report proposes to spend the best part of £2m on technology to reduce mercury emissions from Bristol’s crematoria by 50%. This is because:
“Government has set a target for Crematoriums [sic] to abate mercury emissions by 50% before 31 December 2012”
In this context, Government means the European Commission (see Directive 2008/1/EC for the rubber stamp from Parliament), rather than the toy parliament in Westminster.
Rather oddly, throughout this document there is never any discussion of real physical quantities of mercury; just the same mantra of “a reduction of 50%”.
A typical stiff contain 0.9 grams of mercury (http://bit.ly/9ubWuc). 75% of stiffs in the UK are cremated (http://bit.ly/9DTtlo), and the UK’s crude death rate 10.02 deaths per thousand population (http://bit.ly/cWumOe)
Thus Bristol, with a population of maybe 500,000 [including some Wiltshire and Somerset stiffs], probably produces something like 4kg of mercury a year. So £2m cuts that to maybe 2kg?
Decision: Cabinet is asked to instantly forget the previous three reports and approve nearly £2m for replacement of the existing cremators (2 wide and 1 standard) complete with mercury abatement equipment at South Bristol Crematorium, to abate about as mercury annually as would fit in a sphere 14 inches in diameter (bit bigger than a standard football) about the size of a tennis ball (see Mark Wadsworth for correct calculation).
Barlow’s view: Well if it was based on law out of Westminster, we might have some wiggle room. But since it’s European law, we’re stuffed.
4. “Hopkins’ Glory”
NEW EARTH SOLUTIONS CONTRACT UPDATE AND INTER-AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
It must be great being a councillor. All the fun of taking entrepreneurial risk and spending huge wodges of other peoples’ money, without the tedious meetings with venture capitalists and shareholders. New Earth Solutions is the Council's latest commercial partner for getting shot of organic waste. The Council recently agreed a £32m, 20 year deal to feed New Earth’s beast of a composter with cardboard and the contents of your brown bin.
Lots of legal exemptions on this item. But one can comfortably assume that any negotiations between commercial entities and council officers will be comparable to a cage fight between a Velociraptor and a sofa cushion.
Decision: That Cabinet agree the proposal to implement the option to extend the contract with New Earth Solutions (NES) for an additional four years.
Barlow’s view: So when are the council-issue plastic chamber pots due to arrive? If you see former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten hanging around the council house, then it’s time to move to another city.
5. We’re “good”
OFSTED ANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF SAFEGUARDING AND LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN SERVICES
Services in Bristol to keep children safe, and for children in care, are “good”, according to the latest independent inspection by Ofsted, published in May 2010.
Note that just because they are “good”, doesn’t mean they are good. As I previously explained, Ofsted grades can be difficult to intepret. For childrens’ services, the marking scheme is:
GradeOfficial DescriptionLayman's GuideGrade 4: OutstandingA service that delivers well above minimum requirements for usersNo children have diedGrade 3: GoodA service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for usersNo children have died recentlyGrade 2: AdequateA service that delivers only minimum requirements for usersNo children have died this monthGrade 1: InadequateA service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.There is a mob of reporters outside
Decision: That Cabinet agrees to put “Ofsted says we’re good” in their next electoral pamphlets.
Barlow’s view: Bristol hasn’t corporately murdered a child since 2007. I suppose that’s something to celebrate. But it horrifies me to know that their are local authorities out there that make Bristol’s Childrens’ Services look “good”.
