Politics RSS Feed


Hampshire County Council faced with making £25m in cuts from children’s services budget


MORE than 180 jobs are to be axed in children’s services at Hampshire County Council as bosses strive to save £25m.

The council said the job losses were driven by cuts in Government funding to reduce the national deficit.

The axe has already been wielded on £6.2m of funding and the council anticipates the loss of a further £15.9m in grants after April 2011.

Meanwhile the council is faced with rising bills from the increased number of children taken into care in the wake of the Baby P scandal and home to school transport.

Managers are now planning to chop £24.8m from the £170m children’s services budget in 2011-12. Schools are funded separately.

For a video of the top stories in today's Daily Echo, click the front page.

A consultation with unions over the 185 posts to be shed, equal to six per cent of the departmental workforce, has begun.

Staff will be offered voluntary redundancy and early retirement in an attempt to keep compulsory redundancies down, Children’s services is the first county department to announce cuts as a result of the squeeze on public spending.

Managers say cuts to services have been “minimised” and no social workers involved in frontline child protection work will lose their jobs.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

Some 46 senior management posts will be shed as the council streamlines services with fewer area and district teams.

Other job losses Other job losses include 25 youth support workers involved in careers information and counselling work in schools and colleges, four social work posts in special educational needs and four departmental communications officers.

Some nine jobs are also to be lost as the number of performance targets the council has to meet is to be cut. The council has had to employ staff to serve the demands from Government for data.

The voluntary sector will also be a casualty as there will be a £1.4m cut in funding with no more grants awarded during the current financial year.

Other cuts include £200,000 from county music education service. This means the service will have to charge more for the hire of instruments and some bands stopped.

Councillor David Kirk, executive member for children’s services, approved the cuts behind closed doors last Monday.

He said: “We face unprecedented financial challenges as a result of spending cuts and are having to make extremely difficult choices.

“Along with the requirement to make significant savings we must balance the need to ensure we continue to deliver high quality services, to keep children and young people in Hampshire safe and to maintain a vibrant educational system.”

The council has warned further job losses are likely after the Government’s autumn spending review.

Peter Terry, regional organiser for Unison, said: “We don’t believe you can make cuts as deep as these without affecting services.”

Mr Terry said he did not believe the job cuts could be justified and the union will be consulting its members of what action to take.


Comments(27)

hulla baloo says...
12:18pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support.
How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u
seless leaflets/work shy etc first.

Paramjit Bahia says...
12:26pm Wed 28 Jul 10

There seem to be no shortage of funds in Conservative controlled Hampshire when it comes to donating extra cash to already over paid fat cats. But under the excuse of cash crisis essential staff is going to be sacrificed, and children will pay the price for Tory values.

Lone Ranger says...
12:36pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Is the mentality "Well its only the kids".........I cant believe that these are among the first areas to be cut

Ben Durutti says...
12:40pm Wed 28 Jul 10

hulla baloo wrote:
Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Oh the irony of somebody suggesting cutting funds to "immigrants", when said bigot actually lives in Turkey.

southy says...
12:59pm Wed 28 Jul 10

one more step closer to that depression heading our way.

Cyber-Fug says...
1:07pm Wed 28 Jul 10

southy wrote:
one more step closer to that depression heading our way.
I think you're already there

southy says...
1:24pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Cyber-Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
one more step closer to that depression heading our way.
I think you're already there
just catching you up, debate will ya and leave the semi insults out of it.

Condor Man says...
1:39pm Wed 28 Jul 10

you have to wonder why there were 46 senior managerial posts in the first place?

RadicalEmu says...
1:50pm Wed 28 Jul 10

hulla baloo wrote:
Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support.
How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u

seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Maybe you could outline how these budgets would be cut.
Cutting budgets for drug services would keep junkies on heroin, not really a good move.
How would we cut budgets for the 'work shy' without affecting genuine cases?
.
On another note; Childrens Services should be far down the list of cuts. More social workers should be employed, and monitored. Youth workers should remain employed.
.
Cut executive pay. No, wait, that affects the decision makers.

StEmmosfire says...
2:19pm Wed 28 Jul 10

hulla baloo wrote:
Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Or maybe stop allowing people that are incapable of looking after themselves have children? It's about time social services interviewed would be mums before being allowed to have children.

RadicalEmu says...
2:41pm Wed 28 Jul 10

StEmmosfire wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Or maybe stop allowing people that are incapable of looking after themselves have children? It's about time social services interviewed would be mums before being allowed to have children.
So, does that extend to forcing someone to have an abortion too?
.
Unplanned pregnancy is quite common.

StEmmosfire says...
2:46pm Wed 28 Jul 10

RadicalEmu wrote:
StEmmosfire wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Or maybe stop allowing people that are incapable of looking after themselves have children? It's about time social services interviewed would be mums before being allowed to have children.
So, does that extend to forcing someone to have an abortion too? . Unplanned pregnancy is quite common.
I leave that open to debate but I do question the motive behind some of these parents. It's crazy, if you want to adopt an animal in this country you get a home visit to make sure you are capable of looking after it!

hulla baloo says...
3:11pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Ben Durutti wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Oh the irony of somebody suggesting cutting funds to "immigrants", when said bigot actually lives in Turkey.
Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I am self sufficient and do not need handouts to survive.

Atpost says...
6:28pm Wed 28 Jul 10

hulla baloo wrote:
Ben Durutti wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Oh the irony of somebody suggesting cutting funds to "immigrants", when said bigot actually lives in Turkey.
Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I am self sufficient and do not need handouts to survive.
Yes - a big teabag in a little cup. - Nice!

The Edge of Reason says...
6:59pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Condor Man wrote:
you have to wonder why there were 46 senior managerial posts in the first place?
The answer may be because Ken Thornber gave jobs to his friends at his local Con club.

The Edge of Reason says...
6:59pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Condor Man wrote:
you have to wonder why there were 46 senior managerial posts in the first place?
The answer may be because Ken Thornber gave jobs to his friends at his local Con club.

Condor Man says...
7:56pm Wed 28 Jul 10

The Edge of Reason wrote:
Condor Man wrote: you have to wonder why there were 46 senior managerial posts in the first place?
The answer may be because Ken Thornber gave jobs to his friends at his local Con club.
if that's the case I drink at the same Con Club as Royston Smith so perhaps I should have tapped him up for the new SCC's chief ex job?

The Edge of Reason says...
8:24pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Royston is more astute than Mr Thornber, therefore he wouldn't give you such a high profile job, there is only one Chief Exec so you would be one of forty-six, however if you were not so right wing he may sorted you out.

The Edge of Reason says...
8:24pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Royston is more astute than Mr Thornber, therefore he wouldn't give you such a high profile job, there is only one Chief Exec so you would be one of forty-six, however if you were not so right wing he may sorted you out.

Maine Lobster says...
8:52pm Wed 28 Jul 10

The Edge of Reason wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
you have to wonder why there were 46 senior managerial posts in the first place?
The answer may be because Ken Thornber gave jobs to his friends at his local Con club.
That's probably near the truth.
After the "bonus bung" shame of Thornber and his cronies,this whole episode is thoroughly distasteful, but sadly all too common. Public services need to be rid of these hyenas and not governed by them.We would all then be better off.
The public should be given the power to fire these parasites.

mummsie says...
10:28pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Blooming right for once !

mummsie says...
10:34pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Cut Clives Websters wages in half first!

fraggled says...
10:58pm Wed 28 Jul 10

I know this is going off tangent slightly, but your comment is a very valid one.
The tragedy in Fordingbridge is a clear example (and I know that I’m going to get a load of abuse for saying this).

It is reported that Andrew and Vicki Case had entered in to a debt management plan (IVA) to clear their debts back in 2006 because they couldn’t manage. Their eldest daughter was only two years old. Therefore, having only been in the agreement for just over a year, Vicki fell pregnant.

The Police suspect that Andrew killed his family as they were facing bankruptcy. If they could not manage back in 2006 and entered in to a five year plan to try and clear what they could afford from their debts, why go on and have TWO children at that time?

sass says...
1:09am Thu 29 Jul 10

Ben Durutti wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: Great. Reduce funding for most vulnerable and those that need the support. How about cutting the funding/budgets for the drug abusers/immigrants/u seless leaflets/work shy etc first.
Oh the irony of somebody suggesting cutting funds to "immigrants", when said bigot actually lives in Turkey.
Well he is an emigrant not imigrant.

Condor Man says...
8:44am Thu 29 Jul 10

fraggled, small kids don't cost that much money and with increases in child benefit and tax credits there would have been enough money for their clothes and food.

Hants says...
12:18pm Tue 3 Aug 10

What concerns me is the effect of services for children being cut is going to have on Adults Services in years to come. Without preventative work with young people now, money will have to be made available to aid them later in life, and where will this money come from?
No doubt Conservatives will be out of power by then so will once again blame another party for 'over-spending'.

georgefjoyce says...
11:49pm Thu 12 Aug 10

I would just like to say that I am one of the youth workers from eastleigh, and after being told when the Tories first came into power that Frontline jobs in Childrens Services will NOT be affected by any new legislation brought forward by new government. i found out a few days ago that my job is at risk and i dont know about anyone else but i would consider my job a "frontline" position.

Am i missing something here or is the government we have now all a bit backwards compared to what any of the Election candidates were offering just a few months ago?


Hampshire County Council County to axe 185 jobs

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses