WALTHAM FOREST: WALTHAM FOREST: Cabinet agrees to axe 300 jobs (From This Is Local London)

WALTHAM FOREST: WALTHAM FOREST: Cabinet agrees to axe 300 jobs

11:03am Friday 12th September 2008 in Local Politics

Leading councillors have rubber-stamped plans to axe more than 300 council jobs.

Members of the council's cabinet voted through the first phase of the efficiency review, which aims to save £23.7m over three years.

A total of 308 posts will be deleted, and 133 new jobs created, meaning there will be a net reduction of 175.

The review has been carried out to meet a government requirement, known as Gershon, which obliges authorities to re-invest savings.

The cabinet voted for the job cuts, which will contribute £6.2m towards the first year's planned savings of £9.4m.

Liberal Democrat Councillor Keith Rayner, finance cabinet member, said all authorities have had to make the cuts and the efficiency review ensured that it was the council and not central government that dictated where the axe fell.

Cllr Rayner said: "The council's commitment is to make sure we remain as an authority that is not cutting frontline services.

"We have made sure that it is back-office functions that are affected."

Deputy council leader Cllr John Macklin, also of the Liberal Democrats, said the review is about "delivering excellence".

He said: "This is about re-directing resources to areas we want to."

But the efficiency review has not been without its critics.

Public sector union Unison has been critical of the council for spending £1.4m on hiring consultants KPMG to advise the authority on how to save the money.

Unison also believes that there will be a disproportionate loss of jobs at lower grades when the new structure is looked at overall.

At the cabinet meeting, Unison Waltham Forest branch secretary Dave Knight told councillors: "I ask you to be very carfeul about what happens to workloads in the review.

"Please be mindful that when you delete posts it leaves the remaining workforce with increased workloads."

Councillors accepted a number of recommendations made by members of the authority's overview and scrutiny committee.

This included a pledge to review the staffing levels of the authority's scrutiny unit.

Members also accepted an amendment put forward by Unison which retains a borough Health and Safety advisor on the council's books.

A delay to the efficiency review cuts means the council now has to save an extra £4.5m this year, it has emerged.

Jobs cuts under the review were scheduled to be come into force from the end of July.

But the scheme is four months behind, meaning redundancies will not now take place until the end of next month.

This means in order for the authority to meet targets it needs to make an additional £4.5m, over and above the £3m originally budgeted for overspends.

Cllr Michael Lewis, Conservative group deputy leader, said: "They should really have spotted this earlier, when they were budgeting last year.

"I would like to know where the extra money is going to come from."

Cabinet members refused to make more cuts to the council's corporate communications department as part of the efficiency review.

The authority's overview and scrutiny committee were disappointed that the first phase of the review only shows one job cut from the department, which is responsible for producing council publicity, including the fortnightly magazine WFM.

Liberal democrat councillor Councilllor Bob Sullivan, who chairs the overview and scrutiny committee, said: "Members thought we could look at reduce the costs of corporate communications, as the department does not tend to become involved in members' portfoilos as much."

Cllr Michael Lewis added: "We are disappointed, I think the council just wants to keep producing the spin."

But the cabinet decided not to accept a recommendation that it alters the review to look at making savings in corporate communication back office functions.

Cllr Keith Rayner said members could not accept the proposals because the delay caused by re-structuring corporate communications could put the "whole process" of the review at risk.