Skelmersdale and Ormskirk swimming pools saved after council vote
Two publicly owned swimming pools earmarked for closure next month have been reprieved after opposition councillors won a crucial vote to block the move.They also pressed for repairs needed to keep Park Pool in Ormskirk and Skelmersdale's Nye Bevan Pool open for the next five years.The vote at Wednesday's full meeting of West Lancashire Council in Ormskirk was a defeat for the ruling Labour group, which had insisted it had no other option but to reluctantly shut the pools.The outcome of the vote means the local authority will now have to hold a special budget meeting to amend its spending plans.
'Ensure continued operation'
The Local Democracy Reporting Service said opposition to the pool closure plans came from the Conservatives, the local Our West Lancashire party, and former Labour councillors who now sit as Independents.They said strong public opposition to closing the leisure facilities, expressed in a winter consultation exercise, should be respected.Opposition councillors have asked a senior director to report to their next full meeting with proposals for repairs to the two pools "to ensure continued operation for the coming five years".They also called for a cross-party working group to:Closely examine the income and expenditure of the leisure centresInvestigate investments to reduce operating costsMake recommendations to reduce the subsidy currently needed to run the pools
Bankruptcy warning
Earlier, Labour councillors Carl Coughlan, who has a leisure services remit, and Mark Anderson, responsible for finances, acknowledged the depth of public feeling over the issue.But they insisted, reluctantly, that the council had no other choice. They warned the local authority would risk having a Section 114 notice - effectively declaring itself bankrupt.This, they said, would see leisure services and other non-essential spending threatened, frozen or ended. Opposition councillors said this potential risk was being exaggerated.Their victory was applauded by members of the public who had gathered inside the council chamber.Earlier, many protested outside, chanting "save our pools" and carrying placards.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Yvette Cooper ‘on resignation watch' after spending row with Reeves
Yvette Cooper's rows with the Treasury over spending have been so heated that officials fear she will resign. The Home Secretary is understood to have warned Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, that Labour election promises were at risk from a lack of investment in policing. In one meeting last week, Ms Reeves is said to have abruptly brought talks with Ms Cooper to a close. There are also claims a senior Home Office official stopped taking calls from the Treasury. Sir Keir Starmer has had to directly intervene to end the stand-off over the spending review. Downing Street on Monday said Ms Cooper had agreed to accept the Treasury offer, which includes a real-terms increase in policing budgets. Multiple well-placed government insiders told The Telegraph that the negotiations between Ms Cooper and the Treasury became so fraught that there was discussion about whether she would quit. An ally of Ms Cooper on Monday evening denied that she might resign, noting she had been talking to aides about her diary engagements for the rest of the month earlier in the day. But the fact that some figures in Downing Street and the Treasury have considered her departure a distinct possibility underscores how tense the talks became. Labour promised in its 2024 general election manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, reduce knife crime and establish 13,000 more community police officers. As Home Secretary, Ms Cooper is responsible for delivering those promises but it is the Treasury that decides how much money can go into policing. Treasury insiders are framing the police as a winner in Wednesday's spending review, which sets departmental spending for the next three years, as the policing budget will rise in real terms. But the degree to which police chiefs have launched into a public lobbying campaign against the Treasury – one still running over the weekend – suggests they fear it will not be enough. The Tories believe that, even with real-term police spending rises, it is likely that total officer headcount in England and Wales will fall from its peak of 149,000 in 2024 in the years ahead. Ms Cooper was the last cabinet minister left standing when Angela Rayner, the Communities Secretary, who has also battled with the Treasury, settled her budget on Sunday evening. The Home Secretary finally agreed a deal with less than 48 hours to go until Ms Reeves announces her spending plans. One ally of Ms Cooper said of her tough negotiating approach: 'Yvette's been chief secretary of the Treasury. She knows all the best ideas in the book.' A senior Whitehall figure acknowledged that the talks between Ms Cooper and No 11 had been fraught and prompted discussion among aides and officials that she could resign. However any decision to go would likely mean the end of Ms Cooper's front-line political career, since she would not be expected to be welcomed back into the cabinet under Sir Keir. The details of the policing budget, when they are published on Wednesday, will be closely scrutinised for their impact on officer numbers and the delivery of flagship pledges. In a series of interventions in the last few weeks, police chiefs and associations representing officers have been publicly challenging Ms Reeves to go further on police pay. In an article for The Telegraph on Monday, the heads of the Police Superintendents' Association and Police Federation of England and Wales warned that police forces were 'broken' and had been forced to shed officers because of cuts. As an unprotected department, the Home Office has been in Treasury cross-hairs as spending is squeezed from an annual real-term increase of 2.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent. Above-inflation rises for the NHS, extra money for schools and a marked increase in defence spending means other Whitehall budgets have been facing real-term cuts. On Monday, Ms Reeves announced that nine million pensioners will now get the winter fuel payments – a major reversal in policy after all but the poorest lost them last summer. Now pensioners in England and Wales with an income of £35,000 or less will get the annual payment of between £200 and £300 per household. Around two million pensioners whose incomes are above that threshold will get the money but then have it clawed back through the tax system, meaning they will lose out.
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' Nadia Whittome (James Manning/PA) The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
