Rugby base was a factor in controversial plans to axe funding for Warwickshire-wide equalities service, says Reform

That rationale was offered by Warwickshire County Council’s portfolio holder for resources and internal affairs Councillor Mike Bannister (Reform UK, Nuneaton Abbey) when pressed on why other voluntary-sector organisations with the contract-end dates for funding are not being considered for the chop.

Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green Party councillors called in Cllr Bannister’s decision to consult the public on pulling the £135,000 per year that the council grants to Warwickshire’s Equality & Inclusion Partnership (EQuIP).

EQuIP is a charity that provides discrimination and hate crime support, equalities training and guidance through community and faith groups, businesses, schools and the public sector. Its work extends into helping to settle neighbour disputes and aiding disabled people to resolve various accessibility issues as well as supporting work to combat social issues such as racism and homophobia.

The arguments against

The call-in, which triggered a two-hour scrutiny debate, including half an hour behind the scenes to grapple with potential recommendations, questioned why the smallest and cheapest of three voluntary sector funding packages, all up for renewal in March 2027, was being singled out.

It was also asked why no value for money assessment had been included with the plans and why alternative options, such as reduced funding, had already been dismissed.

That combination of factors led councillors to argue that the Reform UK administration had already made up its mind, rendering the consultation meaningless.

Councillor Jennifer McAllister (Lib Dem, Leamington Milverton) said: “We all know engagement with consultation is low but that is not because people don’t care, it is because people don’t think taking part will make a difference.

“Are the outcomes genuinely still open to change? If they aren’t, the administration should be honest with residents about that.

“If this goes ahead as it stands we are not really consulting, we are explaining a decision after the fact.”

Bannister 'pushed' into answers

When invited to respond to all reasons for the call-in, Cllr Bannister insisted he “would love to” but initially declined, arguing anything he said risked giving a perception that proper consideration of the consultation responses was tainted.

Liberal Democrat group leader Councillor Sarah Boad (Leamington North) replied: “How can that be right?

“What we are asking is why you took the decision you did. We are not asking you to say why you think the service should stop, we are asking why were three (alternative options) considered (and dismissed), why did you not (consult on) CAB and CAVA (Citizens’ Advice and Warwickshire & Solihull Community & Voluntary Action) at the same time?

“All the things we raise are legitimate causes for concern.”

Cllr Bannister admitted: “I didn’t want to stray into all those details but you have pushed me so I will.”

He cited the need for his portfolio, and others, to save money. “Value for money, what we need, what works, what can be done better, they are all issues that any reasonable portfolio holder would consider,” he said.

He then offered a “straightforward answer” on why the other voluntary groups were not on the hitlist.

Cllr Bannister said: “The answer is they are in every single town, they work throughout the whole of Warwickshire, they are providing vital services backed up by the number of people using them across a range of issues.

“I had to make a decision, what was practically possible in that scenario of local government reform, contracts coming to an end in 2027.

“Looking at those organisations that will remain whatever, because they are vital to their communities, I am left with an organisation standing out on the side in Rugby, £135,000 per year.

“As (with) any public official, I am entitled to check whether that is something we want to do, whether it is something that is good for the community. That is the purpose of the consultation, to inform us as to the service, the people who support it and the arguments you are bringing forward today as to how vital that service is.”

He dismissed attempts to halt the consultation as a “political stunt” and promised that the Reform UK administration would “ensure that our equalities duties are maintained”.

The outcome

Calls to cancel the consultation, conduct a value for money exercise and review each of the funded voluntary groups equally were voted down by the resources, fire & rescue overview and scrutiny committee by six votes to four – three Reform UK, a Reform-supporting independent and the Restore Britain and Conservative members of the panel said no while the two Lib Dems, one Green and one Labour councillor backed the plans.

Chair Councillor Andy Crump (Con, Southam, Stockton & Napton) did weave in a surprise at the end, though, backing a call for the consultation document to be viewed and commented on privately by the committee before it goes live.

That prompted puzzled expressions from Reform and Reform-supporting councillors on the panel with Councillor John Waine (Bulkington & Whitestone) asking whether that would prompt another meeting. Cllr Crump confirmed it would not, with Cllr Waine responding: “Thank goodness for that.”

Support from Restore Britain’s Councillor Scott Cameron (Coleshill South & Arley) was enough for that to go through despite Cllr Waine and Councillor Dan Glover (Reform UK, New Bilton & Overslade) voting against. Councillor Ed Harris (Ind, Baddesley & Dordon) and Councillor Neil Garland (Reform UK, Bedworth North) abstained – declined to vote either way.

The eight-week consultation was set up to begin in June with a further eight weeks set aside for assessment before informing a cabinet decision on the future of the service by the end of 2026.