Wirral Council to stop running day nurseries to save £772,000 a year

Wirral Council to stop running day nurseries to save £772,000 a year

Wirral Council to stop running day nurseries to save £772,000 a year

First published in News Wirral Globe: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

DAY nurseries across Wirral will no longer be run by the council as part of plans to save £772,000 a year.

Nurseries in Liscard, Birkenhead, Claughton and Rock Ferry will be taken over by neighbouring schools - if the move is approved by the borough’s ruling cabinet on Thursday – but will only operate during term time.

In a report to Thursday’s meeting, the authority admits that New Brighton’s Day Nursery is the only one to have received a confirmed offer from outside organisations.

Discussions are still ongoing over the future of Miriam Place day nursery, based at Bidston St James Centre, who have “expressed a tentative expression of interest” in developing a social, not commercial model for the two, three and four year old education on offer”.

Although parents pay for their children to use the council’s nursery service, it still requires a £772,000 a year subsidy from the council.

The plans, agreed last year as part of the council’s budget options, will enable that money to be saved by removing the need for the council to subsidise the service.

Councillor Tony Smith, Wirral’s cabinet member for children and family services, said:  “As there is already provision across the private, voluntary and independent sectors, and at this time of considerable pressure on budgets, we as a Council are proposing to stop delivering this service.

“We will support any family affected by working with them to manage the transition to another provider. This will include drawing up individual plans in partnership with each parent or carer, and preparing contingencies to enable us to provide support if we need to.

“Staff affected have been briefed and we are asking schools to ring fence posts of a similar nature for those whose jobs are at risk.”

The nurseries are New Brighton Day Nursery, Honey Bees Day Nursery, Reach High Day Nursery, Miriam Place, Windmill Day Nursery and Little Ferries Day Nursery.

Last June, the council’s ruling cabinet approved plans to outsource day nursery provision to mitigate against budget cuts.

The council asked interested providers to offer the service for a five year period but of the 65 suppliers who registered an interest, only two completed applications were submitted.

Of those, only the application to run New Brighton Day Nursery, developed by staff, was taken forward.

If this move is endorsed by the cabinet on June 19, a target date for transfer for that nursery has been set for September 1, 2014.

The day nursery service delivered by the council was originally supported by grant funding made available through the national Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative and Surestart. 

Neither of those funding streams remain available today, leaving a shortfall of £722,000 to be met by the council.

Local authorities’ responsibilities for childcare has also changed, from ensuring childcare is available, to one of offering a brokering service to support families to find and secure childcare.

Families in receipt of government funding for two, three and four year old children will still continue to be able to access nursery provision elsewhere in the borough, but instead of accessing council-run nurseries, those affected will be given support instead to find alternative providers in local schools, or in the private, voluntary and independent sector.

Wirral’s ruling cabinet will discuss the move at Wallasey Town Hall on Thursday.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:02pm Mon 16 Jun 14

WirralAl says...

Save more money so that they can spend it on the town hall and polishing Steve Foulk us's refreshed ego!!
Save more money so that they can spend it on the town hall and polishing Steve Foulk us's refreshed ego!! WirralAl
  • Score: 11

9:02pm Mon 16 Jun 14

hobroW says...

At this point surely Labour will forget expenses and resign in protest leaving the coalition partners to execute the cuts. The cuts are so radical that principle demands this action.

The Echo points out that Europa pools will be closed; the open spaces are overgrown;Lyndale school may be closed. Executing these cuts must be against socialist principles so why isn;t Labour resigning and simply abstaining in any votes to implement them.

The cuuts are probably necessary but their radical nature demands that the ruling coalition parties carry them out. Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor.
At this point surely Labour will forget expenses and resign in protest leaving the coalition partners to execute the cuts. The cuts are so radical that principle demands this action. The Echo points out that Europa pools will be closed; the open spaces are overgrown;Lyndale school may be closed. Executing these cuts must be against socialist principles so why isn;t Labour resigning and simply abstaining in any votes to implement them. The cuuts are probably necessary but their radical nature demands that the ruling coalition parties carry them out. Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor. hobroW
  • Score: 5

9:50pm Mon 16 Jun 14

JohnON says...

" Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor."

I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal.
" Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor." I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal. JohnON
  • Score: 2

8:52am Tue 17 Jun 14

hobroW says...

JohnON wrote:
" Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor."

I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal.
Self-respecting with self as the operative word!

The above would be that much-used term "party-politicking".


Reasonable observers may determine that the Labour group is indeed instituting cuts that it needs while at the same time enjoying the luxury of complaining regarding them. A Vichy government in all but name
[quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: " Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor." I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal.[/p][/quote]Self-respecting with self as the operative word! The above would be that much-used term "party-politicking". Reasonable observers may determine that the Labour group is indeed instituting cuts that it needs while at the same time enjoying the luxury of complaining regarding them. A Vichy government in all but name hobroW
  • Score: 3

10:14am Tue 17 Jun 14

JohnON says...

hobroW wrote:
JohnON wrote:
" Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor."

I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal.
Self-respecting with self as the operative word!

The above would be that much-used term "party-politicking".



Reasonable observers may determine that the Labour group is indeed instituting cuts that it needs while at the same time enjoying the luxury of complaining regarding them. A Vichy government in all but name
Well, yes, I think the cuts were inevitable whichever national Government was in control. But I'd bet, country-wide, they're done with a great deal more thought and 'compassion' when national and local governments are the same and there's no over-riding hidden agenda.
[quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: " Labour doing so indicates rather a love for the perquisites of officew than a management of them in the interests of the poor." I would suggest that Labour doing so ensures that the necessary savings are targeted in such a way as to make the coalition Government as unpopular as possible - which is any self-respecting Labour group's primary goal.[/p][/quote]Self-respecting with self as the operative word! The above would be that much-used term "party-politicking". Reasonable observers may determine that the Labour group is indeed instituting cuts that it needs while at the same time enjoying the luxury of complaining regarding them. A Vichy government in all but name[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I think the cuts were inevitable whichever national Government was in control. But I'd bet, country-wide, they're done with a great deal more thought and 'compassion' when national and local governments are the same and there's no over-riding hidden agenda. JohnON
  • Score: 5

11:51am Tue 17 Jun 14

Llamedos 1 says...

I would consider investigating why 65 suppliers expressed an interest and only 2 completed the applications. This might tell us something about the councils over complicated and complex tendering processes
I would consider investigating why 65 suppliers expressed an interest and only 2 completed the applications. This might tell us something about the councils over complicated and complex tendering processes Llamedos 1
  • Score: 3

12:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

PaulCa says...

Tories in power versus Torylite phantom 'opposition'.
And if a Torylite government is returned in 2015, Wirral Council's bogus justification of 'central government cuts' will melt away.

They're slashing and burning while they can. Hacking away at jobs and services and blaming it all not on their own ideological desire to offload and farm out, but on nasty Tory "cuts".

Expect a lot more of the same before May 2015 - but very little after. It will then grind to a halt - because it would only reflect badly on Torylite S*n worshippers Miliband, Balls and Field.

it's self-service dressed up as "public service".
Tories in power versus Torylite phantom 'opposition'. And if a Torylite government is returned in 2015, Wirral Council's bogus justification of 'central government cuts' will melt away. They're slashing and burning while they can. Hacking away at jobs and services and blaming it all not on their own ideological desire to offload and farm out, but on nasty Tory "cuts". Expect a lot more of the same before May 2015 - but very little after. It will then grind to a halt - because it would only reflect badly on Torylite S*n worshippers Miliband, Balls and Field. it's self-service dressed up as "public service". PaulCa
  • Score: 3

12:26pm Tue 17 Jun 14

yesandorno says...

all councils of all colours are corrupt , thats a fact , but even the most corrupt still manage to do good things to attract business and tourists ..... not wirral though , its one of a few truly inept councils and ive lived in many areas of the uk and looked at from the outside , wirral council is , and always has been , a joke , and not a funny one.
its not the fault of any party , but the of the people running it.
all councils of all colours are corrupt , thats a fact , but even the most corrupt still manage to do good things to attract business and tourists ..... not wirral though , its one of a few truly inept councils and ive lived in many areas of the uk and looked at from the outside , wirral council is , and always has been , a joke , and not a funny one. its not the fault of any party , but the of the people running it. yesandorno
  • Score: 3

12:20am Wed 18 Jun 14

barrier36 says...

I am confused. Those who chose to have children are complaining that they are not getting free support funded by those who have no children? Yes or no? If yes, why did you have children if you cannot afford to maintain them? I really am confused by the 'pay me for my choices' society. I expect nothing from anyone else. I accept responsibility for my actions. Dumb, I know.
I am confused. Those who chose to have children are complaining that they are not getting free support funded by those who have no children? Yes or no? If yes, why did you have children if you cannot afford to maintain them? I really am confused by the 'pay me for my choices' society. I expect nothing from anyone else. I accept responsibility for my actions. Dumb, I know. barrier36
  • Score: 4

8:03am Wed 18 Jun 14

JohnON says...

barrier36 wrote:
I am confused. Those who chose to have children are complaining that they are not getting free support funded by those who have no children? Yes or no? If yes, why did you have children if you cannot afford to maintain them? I really am confused by the 'pay me for my choices' society. I expect nothing from anyone else. I accept responsibility for my actions. Dumb, I know.
At some point during the previous government's time, the Benefits system took a peculiar turn. Instead of being a safety net for individuals who fell upon hard times through no fault of their own, it became an automatic 'right' for everyone to plan their futures by.

As a single male who was very fortunate enough to have never had a single day out of work from the day I left school until the day I retired, and who has therefore never taken a single penny from the benefits system, I tend to agree with your sentiment.
[quote][p][bold]barrier36[/bold] wrote: I am confused. Those who chose to have children are complaining that they are not getting free support funded by those who have no children? Yes or no? If yes, why did you have children if you cannot afford to maintain them? I really am confused by the 'pay me for my choices' society. I expect nothing from anyone else. I accept responsibility for my actions. Dumb, I know.[/p][/quote]At some point during the previous government's time, the Benefits system took a peculiar turn. Instead of being a safety net for individuals who fell upon hard times through no fault of their own, it became an automatic 'right' for everyone to plan their futures by. As a single male who was very fortunate enough to have never had a single day out of work from the day I left school until the day I retired, and who has therefore never taken a single penny from the benefits system, I tend to agree with your sentiment. JohnON
  • Score: 3

12:40pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Local Govwatcher1 says...

Anything can happen when there is effectively no opposition. Why are we surprised?
Anything can happen when there is effectively no opposition. Why are we surprised? Local Govwatcher1
  • Score: 2

11:56pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Joeblogg85 says...

Iv been involved in lots of procurement processes and to only get 2 completed apps after 65 registered an interest tells new something is not right.

Something must have put the other potential suppliers off. Maybe the funding on offer just wasn't realistic.

Does seem odd tho!
Iv been involved in lots of procurement processes and to only get 2 completed apps after 65 registered an interest tells new something is not right. Something must have put the other potential suppliers off. Maybe the funding on offer just wasn't realistic. Does seem odd tho! Joeblogg85
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree