North East Lincs council affairs

Labour are the largest party on North East Lincs Council, but still need some support from the other parties. Having come to their own conclusions they therefore consulted the Liberal and Conservative parties. Some changes were made to accommodate the Liberals, but the Conservatives did not cooperate. Seems odd, as that limits the validity of any criticism they wish to make. The public consultation has had mixed results. Meetings with groups and societies have mostly been successful, but some other public ones have been poorly attended.

In general the aim has been not to close activities down, perhaps instead putting them into slow motion or cold storage. Thus libraries are not being closed as has happened in some authorities.Two children's homes are to close. This has been possible because of the Council's successful fostering policy. All will be settled at the Council meeting in February.

The Council are now well into deciding the budget priorities for 2012/2013. The annual government grant has been received, and given the lack of any protest, is in line with expectations. It is about 4% less than last year which was 8% lower than the year before. Two obvious issues are the need to develop business in our area and to limit any reduction in supporting the seriously deprived areas in the authority. Unemployment and poverty, both growing problems.

Another problem for the future is that the Government are providing 2.5% instead of a rise in council tax, as last year. But as we understand it these additional small grants are not carried forward, so that there will have to be a higher than normal council tax increase in due course to compensate.

Unemployment is in general the responsibility of national government, but local government also has parts to play. There is an economic and development section aimed at bringing new business to the area. Appropriate training and careers advice are needed. All this cannot be done by local government alone, but it is an aim of local government to to have an overall view of local society needs and coordinate activities accordingly.

A small example of this is "buy local" planning. Those firms with local needs are brought together with potential suppliers to the advantage of both parties. It has in the past helped to increase business in the area.

It is now clear that the present system is not efficient. Given the impossible financial straight-jacket forced on the Council the suggested changes are understandable, especially as it might take time for the process to be put right. The main problem seems to be a lack of understanding and support by a small section of the public, with the result that other items than just garden waste get included and thus makes it less saleable.

Britain's record of recycling municipal waste is poor. A number of our European neighbours, including Austria, Italy, Germany and Belgium, recyle 60% or more. The UK rate is around 40%, and North East Lincs appears to be in the lower 30 percent range. So a major public relations campaign seems called for.

To go by the public complaints about the Council, you may be forgiven for thinking that the issues mostly concerning them are brown bins and parking. If only! In normal times such matters could be quickly sorted out. But now the problems are serious financial ones - forced on them by the (Tory) government.

The (formula) grant from the government this year was reduced by 11.92% The reduction next year will be 8.13% The cuts for North East Lincs are amongst the most damaging of any councils, even though we are a relatively poor and deprived area. And these cuts are on top of some made last year.

"What do we pay our council tax for?" say some. But the Government have frozen the council tax for next year, and there are few alternative sources of income. It is already clear that in the budget set last February there are some items of planned income that will not materialise. So the Council has to find some way to fill the gap: hence parking and brown bin charges.

Already the Council has had to make many cuts. Priorities have to be made, to avoid making unnecessary unemployment, to meet the urgent needs of unfortunate citizens, to promote higher educational standards, to raise industrial and commercial prosperity, and improve health in our society. Just a few obvious objectives.

The Coalition have used some odd arguments to support their policies. One of the oddest was to claim that a main purpose in creating academies was to take control of schools out of the hands of local authorities. Yet local government 'control' is mainly to provide various services and sometimes advice when required. The government had the power over how schools are run.

In January 2010 a parliamentary select committee called for councils to take a greater role in school improvement and accountability. This should be part of a move away from the increasing centralisation of schools policy. Barry Sheerman, chairman of the committee, said "most of the schools I go to want a well-informed and positive local authority partnership" and "enthusiasm over the last 20 years for taking power away from local authorities and directing funding to schools" needed to be checked. Government should only intervene when councils had failed in their duties.

Councils still have some responsibilities - most importantly for children needing special needs. Other functions such as occasionally co-ordinating some activity are naturally made more difficult. Accountability for what is going on in academies is very much reduced.

We note that North East Lincs Council are embarking on another outsourcing project. By coincidence, there is an article in this week's Economist discussing this now quite widespread practice. We pick out one or two bits.

"There are signs that outsourcing often goes wrong, and that companies are rethinking their approach to it." It can "go wrong in a colourful variety of ways" and when it "goes wrong, it is a devil to put right". This is just what many of us have observed.

It thus seems odd that a NEL officer is quoted in the Grimsby Telegraph as saying that "this is fantastic news for North East Lincolnshire". Hopefully it will succeed, but this comment looks more like wishful thinking than objective analysis.

Until fairly recently the two of the most important areas of local government were 'Housing' and 'Education'. North East Lincs have already outsourced 'Housing' and through the creation of academies the government and third parties are taking direct control of many schools Part of the "justification" is that it "takes schools out of Local Government control". Local authorities at present provide some essential services and, if called for, some advice. The government exercises control through the national curriculum and by providing finance.

There is now a move in North East Lincs for some primary, as well as secondary, schools to become academies. There is not any financial benefit for schools, though the government pay a lump sum towards the costs of conversion including possible legal costs. Any school wishing to become an academy has to have the agreement of its governors.

When a primary school becomes an academy the new head and governing body would have greater freedom in dealing with staff, setting holiday dates, school times and the curriculum. As an academy trust the school would have many of the legal obligations and responsibilities of a private company, and should preferably have qualified professionals on the governing body.

Academies appear to be part of a government policy to centralise control. It certainly leaves a local democratic deficit. If a number of primary schools become academies the local authority will no longer find it viable to provide services such as finance, clerking of governing bodies and the education of excluded children. Council costs inevitably go up, and there will be a widening split in standards. It is also far from clear what happens when academies fail. No wonder the projects are opposed by, amongst others, the NUT.

(N.B. Type "academies faq" in google to get a Department of Education page answering a large number of questions)

It is difficult to imagine a more difficult set of circumstances under which to take charge. The Labour Group will think it a challenge. They are the biggest group but do not have a majority, and a third of the group are new to the Council.

Labour will be able to modify the budget which is already in place and which incorporates numerous cuts forced on the Council by the government, but it won't be easy. The government in effect bribed the Council not to increase Council Tax this year, but it is already scheduled to go up next year. Their most positive actions will be to change the Council's priorities and give the Council a more progressive and positive direction for future years.

Some would say the elections are about the cuts. But this is more a national than local issue. The cuts are becoming real and will have damaging effects. In terms of elections locally it is a question of priorities, and that is a difficult issue to raise excitement.

There is, however, a serious underlying issue that has both national and local implications. North East Lincs has more than its fair share of poverty. It shows up in health, in housing, in crime, in education, and in other areas, for example the well-being of our children. In all these we show up poorly not just locally but also nationally in comparison with other countries.

So what is the common factor that has an adverse influence on all these matters? It is income inequality which has detrimental consequences for the whole of our community. The Labour Party is not committed to putting this right as quickly as some wish, but it is distinctly ahead of the Liberals and Conservatives. Nationally the Liberals support policies that are making society more not less unequal. The local Liberals seem to accept this. Unfortunately inequality is, like the question of priorities, a difficult question to campaign on, and it has only come up as in issue indirectly.

Some Labour Councillors must be wondering whether this is a good year to win elections. The Government have forced councils to make very severe cuts in services, and councillors must fear that they will be blamed for any consequences.. Not being a rich council North East Lincs is being badly hit. The most that Labour can do is mitigate the damage in Labour's priority areas.

Councils have varied enormously in what they have cut. Unfortunately "Sure Start" often figures. Non-statutory services such as libraries, youth groups and grants to charities have suffered. Central services have also been prominent victims, presumably because they are not "front line". Whether this results in administrative problems or other inefficiencies we may never know. Outsourcing has also been a policy adopted by some councils, though often, as we know, it can cause problems.

Labour has adopted the sensible approach in this election of not making dramatic promises it cannot fulfil. Instead, if Labour wins enough seats, the present budget will be re-examined in detail to see how Labour's aims can best be furthered.

There has been remarkably little information about how the North East Lincs Council is making the government's forced cuts. The main point seems to be that the Council has gone for reducing services rather than cutting some out. This seems sensible since it will be possible to reinstate services, whereas , for example, once a library is closed it is not likely to be reopened.

Children's Centres will suffer from a reduced service, but we hope the structure remains. The government could quite possibly reverse the cuts policy when the damage being inflicted really sinks in.

One result of this approach should be noted. Since resources will not be fully employed the services provided will be much less efficient (e.g. library buildings and contents will not be fully used). So much for the claimed object of making local government more efficient.

The other area we know little of is how the outsourced services will be reduced. For one thing it will surely add to the number of employees who will lose their jobs.

Pickles is saying (through his PPS) "The government is not telling nor forcing" councils " to cut services. That is a decision the" councils "are taking."
So North East Lincs Council should not cut any services, and when money runs out the government will provide the balance.

Of course this is playing with words. They are objecting to some London councils that have put out posters about the cuts. And it should be obvious that there was no need to cut grants to councils. If the government wanted to raise money there were many other and fairer ways they could have done it, instead of pretending that all councils need to do is make themselves more efficient. They would be more respected if they would give up the habit of doublespeak.

Yorkshire Forward is part of the government's quango bonfire. Amongst the list of their cuts and deferals is their contribution to the regeneration of Grimsby's fish docks. If this now has to be cancelled it will mean a considerable loss of money and effort which went into all the planning, plus a possible loss of employment.

The culling of the quangos, according to a Select Committee, has been poorly managed, and has probably added to costs rather than having saved any money. The supposed alternative to the Regional Development Agencies is the LEPs which have hardly got off the ground, and are not to the advantage of relatively small authorities such as North East Lincs.

The Council budget this year has been long, complicated and secret. Long because of the way the government has let out information to councils in dribs and drabs and has passed on a fair chunk of its dirty work. Complicated because of changes in Councils' powers and responsibilities and drastic reductions in funding. Secret probably because of the difficulty of negotiating in public when so many careers are at stake.

The list of proposed "savings" of some £22 million over four years is as usual wrapped around with jargon and acronyms and the implications are rarely precise. Here follows a somewhat random selection.

- a Service Review of Children's Centres - £3,300,000
- Review of Caretaker establishment - £140,000
- Staffing review - Community Services - £1,606,000
- Review of BBW Partnership services - £1,273,000
- 16-19 Learning and Skills Budget - £240,000
- Develop and implement demand management strategy - £6,850,000
- Use of rooms in Grimsby Town Hall - 40,000
- Waste Management - charge for bin replacement - £500,000
- Waste Management - reduce winter green waste collection - £80,000
- Fixed Penalty Notices - £200,000
- Maximise income from commercial property rents and parking charges - £3,468,000.
- Cease pre 9.30am concession and introduce a small fee - £150,000
- Residential Care Review - £1,100,000
- Move to all-out elections every four years - £200,000
- Libraries - cease mobile service and reduce opening hours - £285,000
- Resource Centres - decommission - £776,000
- Sports Development - £420,000
- Implement powers under the Environmental Protection Act £1,700,000
- Parks and Grounds Maintenance - scale down service - £1,900,000
- Tourism - event and marketing reductions - £1,120,000
- Integration of Youth Services - £700,000
- SEN and inclusion services - £1,347,000
- Recommission School Effectiveness Service - £690,000
- Early Years - Family Information Service - £436,000
- Non Renewal of ABG funding to third sector - £200,000
- Family Resource Service - £208,000.
And finally
- Improvement in the efficiency programme - £2,775,000

It should be emphasised that all these "savings" are at present proposals, cover a four year period and are often not divided equally between the years. There are lots more items, and these have been selected as likely to be of interest and not at this stage as a criticism of the Council's policies. The Government has given councillors a quite needlessly difficult task.

North East Lincs is one of the councils (mostly in the north) that comes off worst in this year's allocation of money. The government has taken no account of the Council's incomes from council tax. In North East Lincs there are a more than an average number of dwellings in the low council tax bands. As a result a council tax of a given amount produces an income well below most other councils. North East Lincs is already a deprived area. So we become just another example of of the coalition's policy of making the poor poorer.

The process of setting the Council's budget for next year is now well under way. The first draft is strictly confidential, and will remain so until around mid December.

The Council have embarked on a programme of consultation with the electorate. The problems which the Council faces can be usefully explained, but the consultation on what and how to cut is largely meaningless It is such a large and complicated job, and few of us are familiar with the council's finances. And trying to establish priorities is equally dubious.

A more useful approach might be for Councillors to explain what they have in mind and what impacts their decisions will have. Councillors have to be trusted to do their best. That is why we elect them.

When a Party is in control of a government or a council it is the democratic practice for MPs or Councilors of that party to explain and justify the policies of their government or council. To act otherwise implies either a lack of faith in their party or a lack of understanding of its policies.

So, in the arguments about Whitgift school, it was surprising to find Liberal Councillors talking as though they did not support their party or have any part in the making of its policies. It certainly gives the impression of a group at sixes and sevens. When the Coalition cuts really start to bite, we wonder whether some Liberal Councillors will admit to even belonging to the same party.

Many implications of the cuts set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review are gradually becoming clearer. Local Government is especially badly hit, and amongst local authorities North East lincs comes off worse than the average.

Funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government is reduced by 28% over four years , the reduction for the year 2011/12 being 8.4%. This is addition to the cuts made in June, and North East Lincs has also lost some special programmes aimed at relatively poor authorities. Capital expenditure is to be cut sharply. The cost of local authority borrowing is also going up.

Transport grants are to be cut sharply, so expect less road maintenance. Rights to free bus travel to continue. The bus subsidy is to be reduced by 20%. The non schools education budget will fall by 12%, but it is not clear what exactly this means. Sure Start is protected. Council Tax Benefit will fall by 10% and from 2013/14 local authorities will have greater powers in implementing it.

Funding for the police will probably fall by about 14%, and 25% for the fire service. The consequences for police activities are not known. Might it, for example, mean lower neighbourhood policing, and might some of the cost move to councils' budgets.

There are still many uncertainties, especially as we are not sure how some funding operates now. Adult social care is a case in point, and although councils may have to reduce the amount of money they allocate, there is some extra government funding for this purpose. Next we will have to see how all these cuts and changes impact on North East Lins.

You may think this is a joke. Not so. Government ministers are urging councils to change their planning policies so that farmers can convert disused buildings into affordable housing. See the "Inside Housing" web site.

It is not always easy to know what coalition "cuts" will actually mean in practice. In the case of social housing it means that as existing programmes end the building of new social houses will grind to a halt. "DISASTER" is the right word.

Many of those who have examined the Governments proposed reforms of the health service are very concerned about the effects it may have here. The resolution put forward by the Labour Group (moved by Councillor Lindley) was passed by the Council on 16/9/10.

The close relation between the Council and the Health Service through the Care Trust Plus is ahead of the rest of the country. It is beginning to have a significant and beneficial impact on public health, and there is a great danger that this will be lost.

The resolution passed by the Council was:
"This Council notes the Government's radical pro-market agenda in health care by
1. Handing GPs a control of multi-million pound budgets which are currently handled by Primary Care Trusts
2. Abolishing Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities
3. Giving private companies an even greater stake in the NHS

Council calls on the Government to re-think its agenda for the commissioning of NHS services, in order that the impact of such changes on local health planning, health services and staffing levels can be fully assessed."

The Labour Government in 2003 introduced a programme, 'Supporting People', with the aim of helping vulnerable people to live independently and keep their social housing tenancies. The North East Lincs Council outsourced an important part to Shoreline Housing, who welcomed the opportunity to keep in touch with many of their tenants.

The new coalition government have cut the programme. With no prospective income, the Council asked Shoreline to quote for an extended service. The quote was not successful, and Shoreline had the chance to improve it. However, they could not afford to and in any case felt the proposed service would be an inferior one. So the Liberal/Conservative coalition have started their cuts by penalising some of the most vulnerable and needy people in our society.

Councils are asked to produce their proposals for a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in their area by 6th September. There was a paper from the Executive Director of Regeneration to the N E Lincs Council Cabinet on 26th August. This met at 1 O'Clock and its minutes were on the internet that afternoon. It usually takes weeks for minutes to find their way onto the net, but in this case the issue was to be raised at the full Council that night.

A LEP is a group of councils working together to pursue some of the same objects as the Regional Development Agencies which are due to be abolished. The paper sets out some of these aims. Perhaps the clearest one is to "create the right environment for business and growth in their areas by tackling planning, transportation, housing and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise". However they will not have responsibility for Inward investment, Sector Leadership, Business Support and Innovation and Access to Finance. These are all functions to be carried out by government nationally.

So what other local authority are we going to join with? North Lincs., yes. And who else? At the moment there seems to be no agreement.

The North East Lincolnshire Council has already lost some important powers, because of the policy of outsourcing housing and other services. That was before the cuts. It is becoming apparent that there will have to be local cuts far more than the 10% implied in the literal meaning of the word 'decimation'. It is said that local government is likely to lose up to a third of government funding.

We will have to wait a while before finding out all the details. Meanwhile some facts about the affect on Housing Benefits have become clearer. In future the local Housing Allowance will be at 30% of market rents instead of 50%. The National Federation of Housing has said that the budget proposals " will leave around 936,000 people" (nationally) with serious problems, "with a high proportion of them ending up homeless".

The Liberals moved an amendment regretting the government's "necessary" action. When put to the vote the result was 14 each. The Mayor's casting vote was against the amendment. When the motion was put to the vote it was defeated 14 to 12. There were 10 abstentions - all Liberal.

The government's policy has serious implications for local authorities such as ours and the government should have been made aware. It was an important debate, though not reported by the Telegraph.

An ambitious project is ended. We could understand the programme being slowed down, but we cannot understand why it should be drastically cut, and apparently cut indiscriminately. It seems to be in line with the government's policy of cutting investment - or you could say "cutting our future". For a government looking for efficiency, it is both wasteful and inefficient.

North East Lincs comes off less worse than some other local authorities, though we had to have academies to get some of the schools rebuilt. Even so, our programme is cut in half, and education in this area will suffer. It's a loss we can ill afford.

It's difficult these days to discriminate between what has been cut, what will be cut, and what might be cut. Sure Start is to be cut. The grants to Local Authorities will certainly be cut. £25bn is the total grant to LAs. The possibility is that that may be cut by a quarter, though it would take place be over several years.

If the coalition do what they say, all parts of local government will suffer, and badly. The most worrying policy if it is pursued fully is the withdrawal of support from some of the poorest and most deprived children at the very beginning of their lives. That would be really reactionary.

We come off worse than the majority of local authorities. This is because the cuts are from grants for specific purposes and for specific authorities. They were to help poor and relatively deprived areas, and that means us.

The total cuts amount to just over two million pounds, which is 1.5% of total revenue. The projects affected include Supporting People, The Working Neighbourhood Fund, LEGI (money to help budding enterprises), Cohesion, and Education (the largest amount).

The purpose, as we have understood scrutiny, is to challenge and review two broad aspects of local government. First, whether the strategies are fit for purpose, and are being adhered to, and second, whether action plans relating to strategies are carried out efficiently and effectively and in the interests of the people of North East Lincs.

The role has been widened to include the scrutiny of such bodies as the Local Strategic Partnership. Rumour has it that some scrutiny panels were cancelled last year through 'lack of business'. This leads to scepticism that their purpose has been misunderstood.

Conclusions drawn should be based on evidence and ought not be an excuse either for continually backing up the the ruling group, or for cosy meetings led by chairmen of the same party.

In an ideal world scrutiny should challenge responsibly and be furnished with sufficient information, opportunities for observation and questioning witnesses (as in the Salt Marsh select committee) to be able to produce independent and well researched conclusions which the cabinet must seriously consider.

Deal or no Deal? In the real world of politics, especially in the present set up of 15, 15, 10, 2 leaders have to "keep the show on the road" so that business can go on. But any arrangements for continuance should not compromise scrutiny or prevent it from challenging and probing wherever there is need. There will be more than enough to go at to keep the Panels busy!

With the parties 15 (Con), 15 (L/D), 10 (Lab), and 2 (Ind), who is to run the Council ? Labour's proposal was to run it jointly, each party taking places on the cabinet in proportion to their Councillor numbers. Lib/Dems and Conservatives would take the posts of Leader and Deputy Leader. It could surely work for a limited period.

However, this presently looks unlikely. And the reason: personalities. The Cons and Lib/Dems have fallen out big time. The Labour Group is too small to take a lead. So it appears it will be the Lib/Dems who will rule as a minority administration. How long before some issue creates a Council crisis?

Following criticisms of our Council for not doing enough to coordinate policies between departments, it was interesting to note that the IDeA has highlighted a scheme in Dover that showed how health, planning and regeneration could improve outcomes by working together.

The Council have agreed to outsource a significant proportion of its work to Balfour Beatty, this for a period of ten years. It is a major policy decision. It is also an admission of failure and abnegation of responsibilities.

In many important ways our local social problems are greater than in most other places in Britain, and also worse than in most other rich countries. It is sad and distressing that our Council has itself given up trying to help so many people in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The problems are well known. They include health inequalities, levels of obesity, housing, educational standards, and violence in our community. Tackling these should be a challenge, not a retreat.

The Liberal cabinet does not seem to understand that these and other problems demand a coordinated and integrated approach. This is well documented, For a local instance see Dr Tony Hill's recent comprehensive report on public health. Parcelling out responsibility to different agencies is a policy for disaster.

And what about democracy? It is difficult to comment in detail, since the whole project has been woven in secrecy, though we have to say that experience elsewhere does not fill us with confidence.But why could not the policy not have been put to the electors. There is, after all, an election is only a few weeks away.

At this rate we soon won't have any local government here at all, let alone a Council that is truly answerable to the people.

The Council should work for the economic benefit of the whole community (20.3.10)

This is surely axiomatic. The Council can have an important influence, both direct and indirect, on the local economy. Council employees spend a significant proportion of their income locally. When services are outsourced to outside bodies, some of such benefit for the community is lost. The same principle applies to purchasing council supplies locally. That was the idea behind the 'buy local' campaign. Provided the prices paid are competitive, it means that more money is circulated locally, to the benefit of the whole community. We certainly have the perception that our Council does not think in this way.

The compendium "The Social Determinants of Health and the Role of Local Government", produced under the auspices of the IDeA (Improvement and Development Agency for local government), gives an overall survey of health problems and possible solutions, from a local government point of view. It can be downloaded here.

There are also lots of examples of how various local authorities have dealt with all sorts of health related problems. How did Warwickshire tackle the problem of child obesity? What did Sefton Council do to help improve air quality? How did Halten tackle poverty using children's centres and the CAB? How did Dorset set about organising help for the aged? An excellent source of ideas.

Unfortunately the practice and apparent philosophy of our present Liberal dominated Council are completely at odds with the ideas in this booklet. What is needed is a comprehensive and integrated approach. Our Council is implementing instead a number of initiatives (often worthwhile in themselves), but without any coordinating council input.

"Losing so many millions in Iceland has paralysed the Council. They've kept £11 million of the Working Neighbourhood Funding which the government gave them to fight the recession. They turned down government money for free swimming for kids, couldn't even be bothered to apply for the government funding on offer for free school meals, refused its offer of money to build council houses (which East Riding grabbed) and refused to bring school building plans forward.

"Why don't they use the money the government is giving them to improve our town? Scared? Or just stingy? Look at the state of the roads!"

Lindsey school got itself into a financial mess. What we find disturbing is that the Council allowed this to continue for (we understand) five years.

Lots of schools have had trouble at one time or another in balancing their books. It is the job of the Council to see that such imbalances are put right quickly. That they did not do so implies there was something seriously wrong somewhere.

We now read there is a deficit remaining of £350,000. Who is going to meet this, the council tax payers or other schools? I can't think either is going to get ready agreement.

We noted in December how difficult it is for outsiders to guess what the Council's list of ""Efficiency Proposals" mean, and what effect they may have.. Some job losses will take place. On a separate page we give a few examples of "efficiences". To see, click here

After a little careful manoeuvring, the proposal to outsource council housing to Shoreline was agreed to by a majority of council tenants. That was five years ago. The politicians now running the council are adopting plans for handing over the control of other services to outside bodies. Yet we know of no serious study of any lessons that could be learned from this first outsourcing

The trouble is, that after giving control to Shoreline, the council seem to have taken little interest in housing, as though having got it off their chest it was no longer anything to do with them. It looks as though the policy of giving control to others is motivated not by the desire for greater efficiency, but simply by ideology.

An indirect result of this lack of interest is the "red flag" the council were recently given by the Audit Commission - a clear vote of no confidence in the council's remaining housing responsibilities.

In a survey of candidates in elections last May (there were no elections in North East Lincs), Plymouth University come up with some interesting findings.

71% of candidates were male - thus only 29% women. The average age was 57. Only 7% were 35 or younger. About a third had a university degree, and nearly another quarter had a higher degree. About 20% had reached A level or equivalent, about 1 in 6 had GCSE - leaving fewer than 10% with no formal education. Roughly 40% had retired, and 20% were self employed.

Candidates standing for political parties had mostly been active in their party for some years. When asked about how they campaigned for the election, 19% had used telephone canvassing. Over three quarters of them had distributed leaflets, and more than half had leafleted all addresses in the wards they were fighting.

As usual "Efficiency Proposals" can mean several different things. It may mean an increase in charges, it may mean cuts in services, and it may mean a reorganisation which increases efficiency and thus saves money. Or it may be a mixture.

To take one example. "Reductions in long term care cohort following targeted (sic) interventions" could be achieved by an increase in charges (already agreed), by reducing the amount of care provided, because some old people are getting more care than required, or because some alternative is possible (such as better facilities in old peoples houses) or by some combination. The estimated savings are given as £150,000 next year, £300,000 in 2011/12, and £550,000 in 2012/13.

These are substantial amounts, and given that the number of old people is rising steadily, suggests that ways are being found to avoid providing care for many who in the past would have qualified.

An Act of Parliament requires us to chose between our Council being run by a leader, as at present, or a Mayor, who would be directly elected, but with powers similar to those of a leader.The cabinet favour the Leader model, and this comes before the full council on Thursday - 17th December.

It is likely that all the parties will prefer the present set up, though the leader will have some extra powers. There is a feeling amongst some backbenchers,that already they play only a small part in running the Council, but represent wards which are very much larger than they used to be. The move to more centralisation is perhaps going too far, but this is not a decision for our Council.

Consultation with the electors of North East Lincs is planned for January - March next year. Whatever is finally approved will come into operation in May 2111.

Of the 343 councils inspected, 14 were given a score of 4 (the highest), 185 got a 3, 133 got a 2, and 11 got a 1. District councils were the majority in the lowest grade. The grade for North East Lincs was 2. The CAA inspections were generally stricter than those for the old CPA , and the results for the two kinds of inspection are not really comparable.

The total number of green flags given was 74, and of red flags 62. North East Lincs got a green and two reds (more than our fair share!).

The CAA is successor to the CPA (Comprehensive Performance Assessment), and is different in many respects; the most important being that it considers public services as a whole, rather than only at those provided by the Council. It is a logical extension of the concept that councils should take some responsibility for the community as a whole.

One innovation is that the report flags up any areas that are particularly successful or which present serious problems. In North East Lincs they give a "Green Flag" for the "Numbers of 16 to 18 year olds in education, employment or training". The key figure is the percentage of NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) has gone down over five years from 10% to 6%. Tribute is paid to many bodies who have each contributed in their own way - Connexions, Schools, 6th Form College, Grimsby Institute, Care trust Plus.

On the other hand two areas get a "Red Flag", Child Health Inequalities and Unsafe and Unhealthy Housing. Child Heath was the problem of obesity and too many young girls getting pregnant. Both have a detrimental effect on the education and life chances of those involved. Both are familiar issues locally, are worse than elsewhere, and have not been tackled as persistently and actively as they should have been.

Housing quality and services are improving, but "services to vulnerable people including those who are homeless are poor and are not improving fast enough". Plans for improvement are in place and the Council's aim of helping people to avoid becoming homeless is having some effect. Yet more still needs to be done.

Overall the North East Lincolnshire Council comes in the category of ""an organisation that meets only minimum requirements, Performs Adequately". It is judged to be 2 out of 4. This is slightly below average and roughly speaking in line with previous judgements.

North East Lincolnshire was an early signatory to the 'Nottingham Declaration', which committed the Council to tackle Climate Change at a local level. To see the Council's approach in 2001 click here

In 2006 the government made it clear that local authorities should play an active part in reducing carbon emissions. Our Council in June 2008 agreed to produce (in 10 months) a carbon management plan. In September 2009 the cabinet decided to seek a loan for £250 thousand and put in an equal amount from reserves (invest-to-save), the object being to measure the Council's existing emissions, and find ways to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.

In June 2008 the Council produced quite a detailed Corporate Environmental Action Plan, which amongst other things aimed to reduce the Council's overall carbon footprint by 20% by 2015.

So the Council is very much committed to the climate change agenda. For some background about climate change click here

Congratulations are due to the Council for the improvements in its website. Looking through the Environment section, we were impressed with both the way that information is provided and the clarity of the pages.

In a democracy the governing body, locally or nationally, must explain and justify their actions and policies. These can then be criticised and tested, both in general and in deatail. With the local government structure in North East Lincs this is mainly the function of scrutiny committees. The opportunity to do this in full Council meetings is very limited. So, how effectively are they working?

The Council website sets out clearly what scrutiny committees should do. But they do not seem to live up to their ideals. The scrutiny committee for Childcare and Young People appears to have had only one meeting so far this financial year (24/10/09). There was one in July and a second is scheduled in November. Regeneration and Housing has had four. That for Healthier Community and Older People have had three.

It is the the practice to have select committees for particular issues. There have been two this year. One, to consider the important question of what to charge for home care, was asked to choose between three sets of charges only.

There is a suspicion that the Council are trying to save money by not providing enough highly qualified officers to service the committees. It would be good to see some committees considering the principles behind Council policies, rather than dealing with single, often minor, issues. The world of local government is changing fast, and all Councillors should be involved in seeing how new opportunities can be best applied.

What is a Public Interest Report ? It is a special report, not a normal one, and in fact is quite uncommon. To quote the audit commission website: "the appointed auditor is required to consider whether to issue a report in the public interest on any significant matter coming to his or her notice in the course of an order, and to bring it to the attention of the audited body and the public".

The report is critical of both officers and councillors. "There were serious weaknesses in the Council's overall governance arrangements". "Weak oversight and insufficient scrutiny by members meant the Council was not aware of deficiencies in the Council's control framework". The report can be found here

In response to this report Labour Councillors are moving a vote of no confidence in the Council leader and the portfolio (at the time) holder on Thursday 16th

Austin Mitchell's letter to the Council re not advertising in the Telegraph (26/6/09)

"I am writing to you in a dual capacity as MP for Grimsby and Chair of the Parliamentary National Union of Journalists Group to object in the strongest possible terms to the decision by North East Lincolnshire Council to withdraw its advertising from the Grimsby Evening Telegraph.

This decision is totally unacceptable, unjustified and wrong. You should neither attempt to bully the newspaper nor interfere with the freedom of the press in this fashion. You’re trespassing onto very dangerous ground.

Moreover, you’re doing so at a particularly difficult time for the Telegraph and, indeed, all local media, with advertising revenues down and jobs endangered. Not a time to hit below the belt, particularly at a time when the Digital Britain report is encouraging the development of local media funding.

Finally, you have to accept the importance of the Telegraph in our community. It is the basic and essential channel of communication for the council, for politics, and for all local organisations, and the council not only has a duty to use it but to support and sustain it, not indulge in this petty, dictatorial tactic which is undemocratic, illiberal and wrong.

The Budget - problems and benefits for our Council (24/3/09)

From next year the Council will have to make some extra efficiency savings. This could in fact take the form of cuts in services, but as we have seen from past reports there is still plenty of scope for making real savings. Perhaps the Council already know this since it is said that the are planning to take on a partner in place of Capita (the likes of Mouchel Parkman who are doing similar work in Lincolnshire district councils).

The budget has provisions for new funding for councils with high unemployment; also for traineeships for young people in the care sector. WE hope some of this money comes our way. The local economy might benefit indirectly through the freeing up of money for building, and some more money for insulation. We await to see what eventually comes.

There is a change proposed in the housing benefit system, and a schedule of (not unexpected) increase in landfill tax.

Why Jon-Paul Howarth joined the Labour Party

"I became a Councillor, at 18 years of age, the youngest ever in Grimsby history, as a Lib Dem, but quickly found out that myself and the Lib Dems had very different views on key tasks facing the Council today - such as Regeneration. And when I found out the Council planned to cut the budget allocation to the Citizens Advice Bureau, I reacted angrily and challenged this. When I found out that the Labour group had the same concerns about cuts to vital services as me, I joined the Labour Party, as I feel that they are the only party who fight for the vulnerable people within North East Lincs.

Save Our Libraries

When the Lib-Dem/Tory coalition took control of the Council they tried to close a number of area libraries, but they met with fierce opposition. Users in Scartho, Nunsthorpe, Yarborough, and above all Grant Thorold were up in arms.

The Labour group fought against such mindless cuts, and succeeded in keeping Grant Thorold and Scartho open, but with reduced opening times.

The children and parents who use Grant Thorold were out in force again this week, with 'Save our Library' posters and lots of noise - all led by our newest Labour Councillor, Jon-Paul Howarth. The Labour leader and supporters of the library were all there. It is rumoured that if the Tories take control at the Council's AGM they would close it. "Bring it on" is what we say.

The daft thing is that the Planning Committee rejected plans drawn up by the Environmental Culture Vulture boys. Why these things can't be sorted before coming to Planning beats me. And if there were to be a formal appeal, taxpayers money and further planning fees would be wasted just because there is a hole in the cabinet's head where common sense should fit in.

Council Losses from Icelandic Banks

The North East Lincs Council is today (26/3/09) identified by the Audit Commission as "one of seven authorities displaying negligence during the days leading up to the collapse of the Icelandic banks on 7th October 2008".

North East Lincs was the only local authority to deposit money (£1.5 million) after 2cnd October 2008.

The Audit Commission says the reason for the disaster was because councils were "over reliant on credit rating agencies and external advisers to the exclusion of other information".

This confirms the criticisms we have made all along. (See below and on our comments page).

The latest CPA Results

The overall result of this year's CPA report (comprehensive performance assessment) was a 2 star, as expected, but within that judgement were some welcome improvements. The Telegraph printed quite a full report. There was one small mistake, as the Council's "Use of Resources" was actually a 2 star, not a 1star. It was "Financial Reporting" that only got a 1 star.

The most serious weakness this year was the downgrading of the Council's "Direction of Travel" from "Performing well" to "Adequate performance", which is defined as providing "only at minimum requirements". In other words, the Council's efforts to improve services have slowed down.

The 2* performance still puts our Council in the bottom 20%, despite the extra money received from the government, but perhaps we are getting closer to the borderline to become a 3*. There still remain serious problems and injustices that demand attention.

For comments on the "Supporting People" programme last year see "Typical Council Failure" by clicking here.

Council charges to go up

In a year when inflation will be falling, and when many vulnerable people will be facing hard times, why has the Council decided to make an average all round increase in charges of 3%? This decision was contained in a resolution at the Council meeting in February, and was opposed by all Labour Councillors.

They apply from 1st April. They cover all not legally prescribed fees and charges. So there is likely to be more to pay for car parks, entry to council events such as the Discovery Centre and Heritage Centre, rents for rooms, and lots of other things.

Three Year Council Budget

One little table in the budget documents shows how Council income is planned to increase over the next three years - from £240,000 in 2009/10 to £645,000 in 2011/2012. Charging more for council services is one way to limit a rise in council tax.

Since the consultation budget was made public, some small changes are now proposed. Arts development will now face a reduction of £50,000, instead of £130,000. The reduction in CAB funding is postponed, as is the saving from changed working hours in libraries.

In the pipeline for regeneration investment is the relocation of the central library, as well as office accommodation, and "meeting space".

The report on the budget consultation showed just under half of respondents would like the same level of service, with council tax no more than inflation. A little under a quarter of the replies, on the other hand, favoured reduced services and minimum tax increases.

Liberal Councillor joins Labour

The Labour Group today (5/2/09) welcomes John Paul Howarth. He has resigned from the Liberal Democrats, because, we of disagreements over the budget. He won East Marsh last year with a comfortable majority.

Functions of a Portfolio holder

One definition reads: "to be responsible for ensuring that the objectives set by the Council and by the Executive in respect to his/her portfolio are met, and that adequate systems are in place to monitor performance against those objectives."

A cabinet member with departmental responsibility (otherwise known as a portfolio holder) should keep in regular contact with departmental officers as well as his colleagues. He, or she, is there to question, probe, suggest, and discuss. They do not directly run the department.

The Portfolio's job is not full time, but nor is just an occasional job. They nowadays receive a substantial allowance and if they are not on top of what is going on in their department, they should not have the job.

The Lib/Dems are claiming that the possible loss of £7,000,000 was due to procedural and administration errors and that the blame lies entirely with the officers concerned. If the Lib/Dems really believe this then they do not understand how a council should be run. They should resign.

An irresponsible Council ? - Yes

North East Lincs Council had invested £2,500,000 with Landsbanki and £4,500,000 with Singer & Friedlander Ltd. Both these Icelandic banks have effectively gone bust. How much does the council stand to lose? Almost certainly the interest , probably around £300,000 (on an annual basis) and very likely a good proportion of the capital as well.

Councils do handle large sums of money, and have a duty to avoid any risk. But the risks in this case have been obvious for some time. In February Moody's Investors Service cut its rating on all the major Icelandic banks. Standard and Poors only rated one Icelandic bank, Glitnir, and cut its rating from A- to BBB in April.

The North East Lincs Council relied on Butlers to advise them. Butlers provides information on any change to credit ratings, which are received from S & P, Moody's and Fitch, with parameters set by the relevant local authority.

BUT - Butlers does not provide advice on what deposits the Local Authority should make with which banks.

In other words the Council has boobed. No way can senior Councillors evade responsibility. Their only excuse is that a number of other councils and public bodies have also boobed. Hardly a good excuse. It is all taxpayer's money. We await resignation(s

Accountability of the Police

At present the Humberside police are responsible to a board on which the local authorities in the area are represented. The government, in a new bill, proposed that such members should be directly elected. This has now been withdrawn.

The Conservatives are arguing that one or more senior police officers should be directly elected. This does happen in the US. The question that arises is; how far should the police be open to political pressures? Labour thinks that would be a real danger.

The North East Lincs Labour Council group are opposed to direct election. We suspect there is also opposition in the other parties. By the cynical it will be said that that is because it gives one or two members of the ruling group an extra perk. However, the Council carry a wide responsibility for the welfare of their area, and therefore a close working relationship with the police is essential.

Ofsted on Children's Services

This year's Ofsted from the Audit Commission gives North East Lincs a 3. That is technically a 'good'. For us it is very good. It has to be said that it is based on information provided by the Council, rather than by their inspectors coming here. It is none the less welcome for that.

The report is necessarily rather short, with comments to emphasise the strong and weak points in each section. The summary in the Telegraph covered them well.

Child Abuse in North East Lincs
It should come as no surprise that in this area we have an occasional case of child abuse. It is, however, rather disturbing to read that North East Lincs is one of twenty eight Councils where "serious case reviews were judged (by Ofsted) to be inadequate".

We know nothing about the case in question. Some details are inevitably confidential. In the past there have been problems in our social services department, which has now been split into two parts, adult and children's - the latter being combined with education. No doubt the Council will be giving priority to ensure that any weaknesses in this area will not reoccur.

The Council is a big business. It is easily the largest employer in this area. The possible loss of part or even all of £7 million invested in two Icelandic banks has been the occasion for light to be focussed on a little known part of Council affairs.

The Council has produced a list of how much and where they had money invested. The investments are all for fairly short periods, mostly a few months. The list makes interesting reading

The total amount invested at the end of September was £89 million. It was distributed between 19 different bodies. Half of them were foreign. They were Riyad Bank, National Bank of Abu DHAB, Unicredito Italiano, Anglo Irish Bank, the DEPFA Bank (Irish and needing help), and 7 British Building Societies. £2 million was placed overnight with Nat West.

There has for a long time been underlying differences between Grimsby and Cleethorpes, based no doubt on somewhat different histories and cultures. Humberside failed to bring them together, but in North East Lincs there have been valiant efforts to combine the two areas into one coherent whole.

So it is sad to see differences (perhaps inadvertently) still persisting. Each town feels it has its own special interests. The idea that seaside resort equals tourism is long out of date; tourism is more important for many cities than it is for most seaside resorts. Yet in North East Lincs tourism too often means just Cleethorpes. Similarly with Britain in Bloom. It could arguably be of more importance to Grimsby than to Cleethorpes.

Some say it is Councillors looking after their own. We suspect it is just some Councillors who still have too narrow an outlook. Let us hope that the recently set up tourism working party think more broadly.

The recent local government white paper has not received wide publicity, no doubt because, with an important exception, its proposals are modest and uncontroversial. The aim is "to shift power, influence and responsibility away from existing centres of power into the hands of communities and individual citizens".

Thus there are proposals about petitions, neighbourhood communities, information provided by councils, the provision for complaints, and the powers of tenants in social housing. Just to mention a few.

Another aim is to make the police more accountable. This, however, appears to be tied up with more pressure on councils to move over to directly elected mayors. If that is accepted the police accountability would be via councils. If it is not, then it appears that there would be some other form of local police accountability. Elected mayors are not popular in local government circles; hence the bribery element.

There is great pressure on councils to increase the proportion of rubbish to be recycled, and thus to reduce the amount of rubbish going to landfill. Both the targets and the penalties for councils are high.

Biodegradable waste in landfills accounts for 40% of all UK methane emissions, methane being one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. the aim is to cut out completely all of this type of waste going to landfill.

NorthEast Lincs is favourably placed to meet its targets, as the incinerator, or as it is now called the CHP (combined heat and power plant), planned under a Labour administration, and in operation since 2004, takes care of much waste. The preferred Council strategy is to encourage a higher rate of recycling, increase the number of households from which garden waste is collected, and build a second CHP. This should enable the Council to meet its targets for some years to come.

Labour have been keen to emphasise the amount of money from the government coming to North East Lincs to improve conditions here. Sure Start and Children's Centres are an obvious example. True enough, but surely any government would be providing such money?

The important point is that there have been a number of special projects, which have only applied to N E Lincs because we are a relatively poor and deprived authority. There are serious inequalities within our society. These are well known, a major one is the differences in health between different parts of the community. We ought to be aware that Labour has given priority to correct these inequalities.

An Efficient Council - is not a subject that has figured much in this election; no doubt because it is complicated and unglamorous. Yet anyone following the aborted efforts to form a partnership with Capita, must have been amazed at the sheer size of the savings they anticipated making, as well as major improvements in the standards of service.

A series of reports by expert outside bodies showed how much needed to be done. Council services have improved somewhat; so they should have done, but there is great potential for more improvements. This is a common theme of recent Audit Commission reports.

You would have thought that either the Tories or the Lib/Dems would have ambitious plans of their own. But no; it's just a case of continuing the same non policies.

The Buses - the Council's climb down over bus passes was a victory for Labour. It was a symbol of how the Lib/Dems and Tories were prepared to sacrifice the interests of some less well-off people for the sake of perhaps saving a relatively little money. What applies to the bus service applies in many other Council areas as well.

Housing is a major concern for local authorities. Council houses were, and in some places still are, a direct council responsibility. Austin Mitchell has taken a leading part in calling for many more houses to be available for those who cannot afford to buy. At a time when house prices are sky high, and an insufficient number are not being built, it is surely right to allow councils to build.

Speaking on 31st March in a debate on the Housing and Regeneration Bill in the House of Commons he also pressed for ballots that Councils organise to be conducted more fairly than they have been in some areas. He instanced this area as an example, as the final voting date was brought forward before some of those opposing the privatisation had time to develop their case.

Havelok Homes have been here since 1970, and have done a good job. The council houses in North East Lincs were transferred to Shoreline Housing in 2005. Their record cannot be said to have been brilliant, and it would have been much easier for the council to develop its housing policies had they been still their direct responsibility

The largest proportion of the Council's income is from government grants, the main one of which is the Revenue Support Grant. This showed an increase of 15.4%, but for several reasons had to be netted down to an increase of 6.8%. This was still a very good outturn for North East Lincs.

Given that the anticipated increase in wages is 2.5%, and that fees charged by the Council are increased by about 3%, it was not too difficult to limit the council tax increase to 2.8%. The Labour Party thought the council tax rise could even have been slightly lower but for some money wasted (e.g. on preparations for the aborted Capita project). At the very least, however, some cuts that were made should not have been. The main one was the cutting out, for those who presently qualify, of free bus travel before 9.30 in the morning.

Following the annual inspection of our council, the Audit Commission make
two judgements. The main one is of the overall performance of the council,
which this year was two stars, indicating that performance was adequate but only at minimum requirements.

Their other judgement was of the "direction of travel", which is an indication of current performance. North East Lincs is "improving well", which puts us on a level with 63% of other councils. This was the same as last year.

Unfortunately North East Lincs suffers from many deep seated problems. For example, there are major health inequalities, relatively high unemployment, much poor quality housing, and a well above average amount of crime and anti social behaviour. Such problems cannot be put right overnight, and in the past have not been fully recognised. We wonder whether, even now, many councillors fully understand the position and give it the necessary priority.

We suspect that the extent of our problems is one factor making it difficult to make real progress and therefore to bring us more stars.

Capita - the Council's Transformation Partner

It was due to begin on November 1st 2007, but alas is now no more. It would have been an opportunity to bring the North East lincs council up to a high standard in a relatively short time. Most of us who are used to our present standards cannot appreciate how much needs to be done. Now alternatives should be worked out.

The Cost of Arson
In a recent report to the "Safer and Stronger Communities" scrutiny panel, there are some interesting statistics about arson. In the last full year there were over 1730 cases of arson in this area. Two thirds of them were fairly minor, such as bin fires.

In 2006 there were 321 cars deliberately set alight. The estimated cost of dealing with these was over one and three quarter million pounds. The cost of arson of occupied dwellings was almost two million pounds. Even the cost of the less serious fires mounted up, with an approximate cost of £200 each.

The overall cost for the year is not given but probably amounted to well over £7 million. An exceptionally large fire, such as that of the Bird's Eye factory in Ladysmith road, would be enough to raise this figure significantly.

Corporate Assessment - the real test is still to come

The Corporate assessment gives us, in effect, the Audit Commission's judgements on the North East Lincs Council's strong and weak points. We have chosen to quote some of their unfavourable comments, not to demonstrate what a terrible local authority we are, but rather to show what must be done to bring us up to an average, and hopefully above average, local authority.
For two pages of these criticisms click here and here

May 2007 Local Elections in North East Lincs

The overal result was little change, but it wasn't a question of all parties holding their existing seats. Labour lost Sidney Sussex, but gained Croft Baker. The Tories lost Freshney, but gained Humberston and New Waltham from Independent. The Lib/Dems gained Freshney, Sidney Sussex, and Yarborough (though they won it four years ago with Tattersdale who later went Independent), but lost Croft Baker.

Because of the end of the Tory/Lib Dem pact and because of the number of candidates in all wards, it would be meaningless to calculate swings or compare with previous years the totals of votes cast for the various parties. Only to note that the seats won are not in proportion to the number of votes cast - the LibDems being the gainers.

The Future is Looking Up for North East Lincs

It has taken a long time, but at last there are signs that North East Lincs may have a promising future. The following sequence of events shows how slow it has been. (CPA stands for "Comprehensive Performance Assessment" which is the judgement of the Audit Commission after making a full inspection)

Council Affairs

The latest CPA Results

Council charges to go up

Three Year Council Budget

Liberal Councillor joins Labour

Functions of a Portfolio holder

An irresponsible Council ? - Yes

In other words the Council has boobed. No way can senior Councillors evade responsibility. Their only excuse is that a number of other councils and public bodies have also boobed. Hardly a good excuse. It is all taxpayer's money. We await resignation(s

Accountability of the Police

Ofsted on Children's Services

Child Abuse in North East Lincs
It should come as no surprise that in this area we have an occasional case of child abuse. It is, however, rather disturbing to read that North East Lincs is one of twenty eight Councils where "serious case reviews were judged (by Ofsted) to be inadequate".

Capita - the Council's Transformation Partner

Corporate Assessment - the real test is still to come

May 2007 Local Elections in North East Lincs

The Future is Looking Up for North East Lincs

This latest CPA judgement is very welcome , but as can be seen when our results are compared to other councils, North East Lincs is still amongst the bottom fifth of councils.

The government has chosen 40 areas "to lead the Respect programme". What's it all about, and why is North East Lincs not one of them ?

Council Affairs

The latest CPA Results

Council charges to go up

Three Year Council Budget

Liberal Councillor joins Labour

Functions of a Portfolio holder

An irresponsible Council ? - Yes

In other words the Council has boobed. No way can senior Councillors evade responsibility. Their only excuse is that a number of other councils and public bodies have also boobed. Hardly a good excuse. It is all taxpayer's money. We await resignation(s

Accountability of the Police

Ofsted on Children's Services

Child Abuse in North East Lincs It should come as no surprise that in this area we have an occasional case of child abuse. It is, however, rather disturbing to read that North East Lincs is one of twenty eight Councils where "serious case reviews were judged (by Ofsted) to be inadequate".

Capita - the Council's Transformation Partner

Corporate Assessment - the real test is still to come

May 2007 Local Elections in North East Lincs

The Future is Looking Up for North East Lincs

This latest CPA judgement is very welcome , but as can be seen when our results are compared to other councils, North East Lincs is still amongst the bottom fifth of councils.

The government has chosen 40 areas "to lead the Respect programme". What's it all about, and why is North East Lincs not one of them ?

Child Abuse in North East Lincs
It should come as no surprise that in this area we have an occasional case of child abuse. It is, however, rather disturbing to read that North East Lincs is one of twenty eight Councils where "serious case reviews were judged (by Ofsted) to be inadequate".