Agenda item
First reading debate on the 2015/16 - 2018/19 budget
This report meets the requirement in Standing Order 24(b) as set out in Part 3 of the Constitution.
Final decisions on the budget and the level of Council tax for 2015/16 will be made at Full Council on 2 March 2015.
Minutes:
Councillor Butt referred to the outcome of the local elections returning a Labour Administration and the actions of the present Government in requiring the Council to cut £54M from its budget in addition to the £80M already cut. He put forward a two year budget which he stated would be influenced by the outcome of the largest consultation carried out by the Council on a borough plan which would reflect local priorities. Work was being undertaken to engage with the Council’s partners and the capital programme would focus on the provision of school places and the supply of housing. In the circumstances he stated that local organisations would have to learn to be self sufficient but that the Council would support them the best it could. The Council would need to be ever more innovative and examine carefully the potential for charging. Councillor Butt acknowledged that it would be difficult for residents and staff and stated that the cuts threatened the most vulnerable. The budget would present challenges for all both within the Council and outside.
Councillor Kansagra sought to remind councillors that the country’s present economic position was due to the previous Labour government. He stated that the present government had invested more in the NHS, schools and housing. He acknowledged that the cuts were hitting local government the hardest but submitted that it had only gone to show how much wastage there had previously been. He commented that there was no indication of where the Administration was minded to make the cuts. Councillor Kansagra felt that it was a priority to assist small businesses in the borough by introducing free parking for the first half hour. Shopkeepers around Wembley Stadium complained that traffic diversions on event days meant they were not getting the custom and this needed to be looked into. The pavements and roads in the borough were in a poor condition and there needed to be greater effort made to pursue developers and the utility companies that damaged them. Councillor Kansagra submitted that the savings the Council had so far made were largely due to the One Council programme which the previous Lib Dem/Conservative Administration had introduced. Finally he felt that the changes to top management had led to the Council paying out too much money on departure costs.
Councillor Pavey stated that the Government had had the choice between promoting growth or making cuts and made the wrong choice. It had promised to eliminate the deficit within a single Parliament but the Council was being made to make cuts for two years beyond. If the Government economic strategy had worked there would not be a need for such cuts. There were now record levels of youth unemployment and reductions in real wage levels. He referred to Councillor Kansagra’s contribution and stated that the Council needed to save £54M not spend more. He presumed that he was happy with cuts to all the other services not mentioned. Councillor Pavey stated that a budget could have simply been presented and agreed but the Council wanted to hear what the community thought which would then help shape the final budget. He concluded that the Council would seek to protect the services it provided that helped the most vulnerable and built a strong local economy.
Councillor Warren, representing the Brondesbury Park Conservatives, felt there was a lack of balance in the debate. Whilst he recognised that local government was taking a hit, he could not accept that the legacy of the previous Labour government had not affected the position. He felt that the way some money was spent by the Council did not reflect the sentiments expressed and submitted that the Council’s staff would be concerned by the actions of HR.
Upon debating the matter, a view was expressed that the Government was pursuing a political agenda in reducing the size of local government and the public sector generally. The cuts were far more than had first been stated. Whilst it was agreed that government debt had to be reduced it was submitted that to do this needed a thriving economy and yet business rate rises had hit small businesses and local traders were facing eviction from their premises because of high rent rises. It was said that local councillors had not been elected onto the Council in order to make £54M cuts but this was being forced upon them. Reference was made to meetings of the Brent Connects forums at which local people had been informed of the challenges facing the Council and that new ways of working would need to be found. However it was not possible for the people to comprehend the scale of the cuts especially when the revenue the Council had available to spend was being reduced by half. It was stated that local people were suffering financially with 44,000 residents in the borough qualifying for Universal Credit. Delays in making payments meant they were attracted to loan sharks and then got into more debt. There was no confidence in the Universal Credit programme being rolled out competently or for the Council being compensated for the work it was having to do to support the programme. A special plea was made to protect support for health and social care and thereby pursue improvements in quality and productivity within the NHS in ordered to protect local people. The view was expressed that the lack of adequate housing was the main problem facing the local population. Those that could not afford high rents were being evicted and forced out of the borough. Others were forced to live in sub-standard housing. Representations had been made to lift the benefits cap and allow Councils to borrow in order to build more housing of a quality suitable for the present day. The Government’s economic policy was questioned by asserting that only a few could see the benefits from any growth and the majority were worse off, with a further squeeze to come on benefits meaning the most vulnerable would further suffer. Further reference was made to the legacy of the previous Labour government but it was pointed out that the present government had failed to meet its targets in cutting expenditure. It was submitted that the no-one had put forward savings proposals as a result of the consultation on the Borough Plan and it was the Council’s responsibility to take decisions on this. It was questioned whether it was time to increase the level of Council Tax. It was stated that some Council services needed improving to meet the challenges faced and there were some aspects of expenditure that affected members that could be reduced. Reference was made to the recently published National Audit Office report which concluded that the Department for Communities and Local Government had little understanding of the affects the cuts were having on local government. It was also pointed out that those authorities with the highest levels of deprivation were subject to larger cuts with an average level of cuts of 37% but Brent facing 50% cuts.
Councillor Butt thanked his colleagues for their contributions and echoed their concerns. He stated he wanted to make Brent a fairer place to live in, create jobs and prosperity and strengthen resilience. The Council was working with local employers and businesses, tackling rogue landlords and ensuring effective arrangements with partner agencies to provide effective local services and look after the health of local residents. He stated that communication with local people would continue.
Supporting documents: