Budget proposals - Back to the Future unacceptable

After long and hard consideration the Labour Group has put forward a number of amendments to the SNP Administration's budget proposals. Our amendments do not indicate that we are happy with the budget as a whole but we need to work within the parameters which have been set by the Administration and the secretive Changing for the Future Board.

Our message is clear we want to invest in education. We believe that the changes proposed to the education budget would have a detrimental impact on the education of young people in Dundee. We want an education system fit for the challenges of the 21st century, the Administration propose a staffing structure agreed in 1972. This Back to the Future approach is unacceptable.

Our proposals are reasonable and in the best interests of the city of Dundee we hope that the Administration will have the good sense to accept them. We are also prepared to look at any other proposals put forward by any other party and put party politics to one side and make a decision in the best interests of the city of Dundee.

You can read my colleague Kevin Keenan's statement on the budget below:


'Whilst we continue to work with Officers to explore the possibilities of savings, this has been extremely difficult with the policies that this SNP Administration have voted through over the last two years.

Their proposals for saving £14.5million for this year's budget will be extremely damaging to services across the City in areas such as Social Work and Education. Their Culture Company will see employee's conditions of contract diminish in years to come. It will therefore be very difficult for us to support the proposals that they have laid out for this City - but they have time to change.

It will be a "Back to the Future" programme, when we see their budget forced through on
10 February 2011 it will see our Educational Service back to an operational model from 1972. I don't know how they can ever describe their vision as "Changing for the Future" when it is, in fact, the complete opposite.


Education Convener, Councillor Fordyce the only person who believes her own propaganda in that £4million cuts will improve the Educational Service and the opportunities for our children.
Cutting Depute Head Teachers, Teachers and Senior Staff in our schools is to be condemned. All these members of staff play a vital role in school life, in particular Depute Head Teachers with responsibility for disciplinary matters, ensuring that the quality of lessons are delivered and holding responsibility for child protection issues - perhaps something that had less focus in 1972 - things have moved on in every walk of life.

We therefore proposed the following to save £350k which we would like used to off-set the SNP's proposals to cut £323k from the Devolved School Management Scheme. These proposals will short-change schools to the tune of £120k in sickness absence cover. Cut the continuous professional development for our staff by £175k and reduce the number of children that will be presented for SQA Qualifications by £28k.

We propose that the full £350k be placed in the area of Devolved School Management as we believe that Head Teachers should be empowered to make educational decisions in the best interests of the children and young people we entrust into their care.

We would not ring-fence any monies for sickness absence or Continuous Professional Development (CPD), Head Teachers can decide, but we would like to see more of our children presented for SQA Qualifications. It is vitally important that we give every child the best opportunity to attain Certificates that would help them as they present themselves to employers in the future.

Our proposals therefore are:-
To surrender the Lease on the current TS1, the Lord Provost's car, and therefore producing a saving of £6k - thus leaving only one Civic Car.
Another saving we would propose is from the Chief Executive's Department of £78K. This is a fund which we understand the Chief Executive uses to resolve issues of spend where it is unclear as to which Council Department should foot the bill. We would suggest that any such future needs be more clearly identified and taken from an individual Department or contingencies.
The third area of spend is from the City Development's budget under the heading "Bus Route Development Grant" of £266k. We trust that this will be deemed competent as we have taken this saving, based on the information given by the Director of City Development. His comments were "this expenditure is used to make improvements to the bus network and infrastructure throughout the City. If the budget were cut, then the current trend of modal shift from car to bus would unlikely to continue and may reverse." We have given this considerable consideration and feel that this is a saving that can be taken. We have also given consideration to the bus service that has been offered to this City over the last two years under the SNP Administration's tenure and I would ask the public to consider if they feel they have been given value for money. Bus routes have been tinkered with endlessly and it looks to me like we have spent £266k creating chaos for bus users. Perhaps the Administration should deliver an apology? We fully expect an incoming Labour-led Scottish Government to bring about significant changes in the bus industry and consider ways in which it can be better regulated and that any public investment can be directed towards delivering real results for the travelling public.'