London Councils Grants Scheme -under threat.

[snowy]

GLA isn't a funding body is it? It's not set up to fund organisations or give grants.

London Councils funded often difficult and unpopular work. Whilst they were a bit bureaucratic they did at least understand the work that they wanted to fund.

[James Barber]

Hi snowy,

I can assure you Mayor Boris Johnson via the GLA funds all sorts of bodies.

Your premise that allocating funds via a bureacratic body only partially democratic body was great because they understood the need for unpopular work and funded it. We live in a democracy. If funding wont stand up to public scutiny then it quite possibly shouldn't be funded.

We have too many qunagoes with most duplicating each other. London Councils grants is a duplication of so many other bodies adding its own grant giving overheads.

[Bellenden Belle]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I can assure you Mayor Boris Johnson via the GLA funds all sorts of bodies.

....If funding wont stand up to public

> scutiny then it quite possibly shouldn't be

> funded.

James Barber - can you show me some evidence of this? Where London Council funded services haven't stood up to public scrutiny?

And where is the duplication in services? Which other government funding body funds small charities/ voluntary organisations reaching hard-to-reach groups with a London-wide remit? There really is currently no other umbrella funding body and the plan after cutting these services is for money to be "repatriated to local authorities".

Can you give me some examples of GLA funding "all sorts of bodies" because it states quite clearly on their website:

"The Greater London Authority is not a grant-giving body and is unable to assist with funding. Its budget is relatively small and it is not set up to give grants or to sponsor other organisations."

You can see that statement here:

http://www.london.gov.uk/node/672

[snowy]

James you fall at the slightest hurdle don't you?

Are you honestly suggesting that grant funding should be based on populist opinion? If that was the case, the majority of funding would go to Battersea Dogs Home, a Donkey Sanctuary and Hospital Appeals for machines that go Ping.

The removal of this 'bureaucratic' funder* means, as Bellenden Belle has carefully pointed out, that there is one fewer pan London funding body, and that those LA's who are electing to continue to use the allocated budget to fund organisations or projects in the Third Sector, will have to set up duplicate funding and monitoring systems. Not exactly cheap.

*It's bureaucratic because of the competing demands of the publicly elected members who get to decide where the funding goes.

[taper]

Crikey James, this isn't your finest hour.

GLA isn't a funding body. And London Councils Grants isn't a "quango": it's a body that oversees an agreement between all London boroughs to pool an element of their funding, recognising the fact that a lot of VCS bodies don't limit their work to within an individual borough.

Right or wrong, the upshot of this proposal is that VCS bodies in London will receive less cash. Applauding it on the basis that a) it's a nasty quango and b) that in some way the GLA precludes any case for its existence is somewhat asinine.

Sorry!

[James Barber]

Hi Snowy, taper,

You're correct. The GLA doesn't have such funds. I should have stated the Mayor of London. The GLA scrutinise him and other bodies such as TfL, Met, etc.

I think my point still stands. London Councils started funding voluntary bodies when the GLC was disbanded (out of what appeared pique from Thatcher). When the GLA and London Mayor was created for pan London government London Councils didn't stop or hand over this. I think they should have and still should take this role on.

[McCatllar]

Another underwhelming contribution from Cllr Barber (probably wise to check your facts first).

When the Mayoral office and GLA were established, there was extensive deliberation and consultation with regards to those bodies, such as the then London Boroughs Grants Scheme, which might be best managed by the new arrangements.

Since the revenue for the budget of the Grants Scheme comes directly from the 33 London Councils on a per capita basis it was agreed that it would not be appropriate for the new Mayoral and GLA authorities to be taking decisions about what to spend the borough's money on...particularly as overall political control may be different. The status of the Grants Scheme is established in Section 48 of the Local Governemnt Act 1985 and it was confirmed within the statutes establishing the Mayor and GLA structures.

London Councils came from the merged London Boroughs Association and Association of London Authoroities (briefly known as the Association of London Government - ALG).

The Grants Scheme was one of a number of bodies which was subsumed into the ALG in 2000.

[snowy]

Given that today saw Eric Pickles launch the localism bill, with a distinct aim of getting LA's to shared back office services (such as grant making), I thought it might be a timely bump to ask Cllr Barber to respond to the last post.

[McCatllar]

It's decision day tomorrow!!

The Leaders of London Councils decide the fate of the Scheme tomorrow morning.

Peaceful demo taking place outside 59 Southwark St, SE1 - starts 10.00am organised by UNITE).

Will probably make tomorrow night's local news.

[PeckhamRose]

Details. Southwark is minus 8.44% down if I understand it right.

[James Barber]

Hi snowy,

I still think London boroughs chipping in money to a committee of the London Councils body who then redistribute to pan London voluntary groups is daft.

We have pan London democratically elected Mayor of London who should be accountable for pan London voluntary funding. We need to simply government not keep unnecessary extra levels of complexity that skim an avoidable percentage.

And of course council leaders will vote to keep it. They give themselves extra allowances to hold this responsibility.

The money given originally to London boroughs is based on complicated needs formula so to then give some up to a London body subverts those calculations.

[McCatllar]

Dear Councillor Barber

It may interest you to know that the Mayor's expressed preference was that it was important that the Grants Scheme continue with the same or similar level of funding it currently administers. This is because the Mayoral office, and the GLA, has an appreciation of the need to tackle some of the most difficult problems strategically and not in the a piecemeal way. As an earlier contributor noted, many of the services provided are deeply misunderstood by the general public, are costly and not 'vote'winners....nevertheless, they are essential.

I believe you are a Liberal Councillor. Perhaps you should discuss this issue with your colleagues in Sutton and Kingston (who control their councils) who are supportive of the Grants Scheme and understand its relevancy to the overall needs of London as well as those of their own borough.

Interestingly, Southwark has lost out being a net beneficiary...ie, the value of the voluntary sector services it receives is greater than the annual contribution it has made to the Grants Scheme to date. So, you are a turkey voting for Xmas, plus several varieties of stuffing to go with it. Perhaps you should ask eg Southwark Law Centre what they think about losing their grant which enables them to provide specialist services across a large number of boroughs (but, primarily, Southwark).

Perhaps you should actually make sure you know what you are talking about before you make posts on a local and public website. In my experience, making comment on an issue when you are clearly inadequately briefed is unlikely to garner votes at the next election.

[James Barber]

Hi McCatllar,

Of course the Mayor of London thinks the system should stay exactly as is and shame on anyone who changes it. Politically I would'nt expect him to say anything else. It doesn't come from his budget and clearly the potential changes and reductions are unpopular with people. He's up for re election in 18 months time and that mayoral election has all but started.

I understand Southwark historically has been a small net beneficiary. This doesn't make it a great scheme or idea to be run as it has been.

And, yes I do know that London Lib Dem run councils have stated they'd like to keep it.

I'm sorry my difference of opinion has antagonised you.

[Huguenot]

A valid post from McCatllar that turned into a string of insults. Tidy yourself up please mate, it's not big and it's not clever.

[DJKillaQueen]

Oh the irony.....

[snowy]

It seems like the law courts don't agree with you James!

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/8194/london_charities_win_judicial_review_against_10m_funding_cut

London charities have won a judicial review challenge against London Council?s decision to cut its London Boroughs Grant Scheme by 63.5 per cent.

The judge held that London Councils? consultation process was flawed and that they had failed to meet their statutory equality duties. He quashed all the funding cut decisions for the 200 plus projects

[tobyhall101]

Dear Councillor Barber,

You said above in November "The GLA scrutinise him and other bodies such as TfL, Met, etc." Erm... wrong I'm afraid. The GLA don't do that at all.

The GLA aka the Greater London Authority, is the body employed via the Mayor to undertake his work programme. The body that scrutinises the Mayor is the London Assembly (not the Greater London Assembly either, so no mistaken acronym here either!).

This is London politics 101 stuff. As a councillor, I would've thought you'd know how your city's governance is structured. But it is commendable you're on here doing your bit answering questions and the like. So I'll let you off this time :-)

cheers

Toby