Notes from today's full council meeting
Today was the budget meeting of Cumbria County Council.
Points to note
1) The Budget
The Conservative group moved an amendment, in three parts, to the administration budget which would have allocated more money to local committees to provide innovative means to support community transport and improve local roads. It would also have provided more support for families in difficult circumstances.
In accordance with the council's latest rules of procedure for the budget, the Conservative amendments had been amendments had been submitted to council officers several days previously to be checked for practicality, legality and affordability and had received signoff as meeting those three tests. In spite of this a lot of time was spent in adjournments while the administration raised constitutional points about these amendments. Eventually after a lengthy debate the Labour and Lib/Dem groups voted against spending more money on improving the road infrastructure or supporting local transport initiatives.
The administration budget, increasing the county council share of council tax by 3.99% was then put to the council and passed with all the Labour and Lib/dem councillors voting in favour and all the Conservative county councillors and one independent voting against.
2) Statements
There were a number of statements by senior councillors and officers including a statement by the portfolio holder for Public Health about the Coronavirus
3) Questions
Questions were asked on issues including
Coronavirus
West Cumbria Mining
Indpendent Nurseries
Special Planning arrangements
Bus service operators grant
I asked a question about the redundancies which Family Action are making at the Howgill centre, particularly with respect to the Breastfeeding co-ordinator.
4) Urgency Procedure - Grants for short breaks fur children with disabilities and Mental Health provision
The leader of the council reported on grants which had been made under the urgency procedure.
5) Speeches.
There were two speeches, one by Councillor Clark and one from myself. The latter was on post-sixteen school transport, highlighting concerns that a number of sixth form school students are not being allowed to go to school on school buses despite there being places available. I will explain in more detail in a subsequent post.
Points to note
1) The Budget
The Conservative group moved an amendment, in three parts, to the administration budget which would have allocated more money to local committees to provide innovative means to support community transport and improve local roads. It would also have provided more support for families in difficult circumstances.
In accordance with the council's latest rules of procedure for the budget, the Conservative amendments had been amendments had been submitted to council officers several days previously to be checked for practicality, legality and affordability and had received signoff as meeting those three tests. In spite of this a lot of time was spent in adjournments while the administration raised constitutional points about these amendments. Eventually after a lengthy debate the Labour and Lib/Dem groups voted against spending more money on improving the road infrastructure or supporting local transport initiatives.
The administration budget, increasing the county council share of council tax by 3.99% was then put to the council and passed with all the Labour and Lib/dem councillors voting in favour and all the Conservative county councillors and one independent voting against.
2) Statements
There were a number of statements by senior councillors and officers including a statement by the portfolio holder for Public Health about the Coronavirus
3) Questions
Questions were asked on issues including
Coronavirus
West Cumbria Mining
Indpendent Nurseries
Special Planning arrangements
Bus service operators grant
I asked a question about the redundancies which Family Action are making at the Howgill centre, particularly with respect to the Breastfeeding co-ordinator.
4) Urgency Procedure - Grants for short breaks fur children with disabilities and Mental Health provision
The leader of the council reported on grants which had been made under the urgency procedure.
5) Speeches.
There were two speeches, one by Councillor Clark and one from myself. The latter was on post-sixteen school transport, highlighting concerns that a number of sixth form school students are not being allowed to go to school on school buses despite there being places available. I will explain in more detail in a subsequent post.
Comments
"Cumbria County Council said in a statement: "We understand that this is a matter of significant interest to the public and one upon which people will have strong views. Unfortunately it is not possible to comment on any aspect of the West Cumbria Mining decision as it is currently subject to an ongoing legal process known as judicial review.""
In light of the above it would be interesting to know what was the question regarding WCM and, equally, what was the answer.
Interestingly, a degree of topicality was added earlier this week when it was reported that the post Brexit EU will shortly be adding the BOT of Cayman Islands to its financial black list. The overwhelmingly largest shareholder in WCM is a Cayman Island registered private equity fund, of course.
That is not to say or imply that there is tax evasion going on with WCM, obviously. It's just to point out that CC Councillors should remain aware of their collective financial monitoring responsibilites and not simply rely on officers, Mr Haggin or Ms Crellin in paticular, to be conducting adequate due diligence.
Stuart Young replied that he had not been invited to do so, but if he had he would have declined to comment because of the possibility, now an actuality of judicial review proceedings.
Personally I have often suspected that those who refusing to say anything at all because a legal process is ongoing are using this as an excuse as frequently as they have genuine legal reasons to do so.
Those who have a good case but fail to make it may win in the court of law but lose in the court of public opinion.
Where a lawyer says "Don't say X because counsel for the other side may be able to use it to undermine your case" such advice should almost invariably be followed.
But where a lawyer advises you to say nothing at all, there are certainly some occasions where you should take that advice, but if you are not am accused party who is as guilty as hell and hoping to get off on a technicality, there are also times when you should reply, "That is not acceptable, tell me what I can say without weakening my case."
Having been present at the DCR committee and heard the discussion including the questions asked by members I do not consider that they failed to pay due diligence to the reports being presented or to consider the planning issues for themselves.
On the completely separate issue of the council's financial affairs, while vigorously disagree with the present council cabinet on many things, I have heard too much and too detailed discussion at full council meetings on this subject to believe that the administration fails, whatever else they may get wrong, to pay due care and attention to how the council's funds are invested. These investments are also gone over by the audit committee with a fine tooth comb.