Agenda item
First reading debate on the budget
This report meets the requirement in Standing Order 24(b) as set out in Part 3 of the Constitution to hold a debate on the issues raised in the report.
Final decisions on the budget and the level of Council tax for 2016/17 will be made at Full Council on 22 February 2016.
Minutes:
Councillor Butt opened the debate by referring to the 36% cut in the Council’s budget and the further 30% cut required over the next 4 years. He attacked the Government’s management of the economy and stated that the Council needed to plan for the worst case scenario given the Government’s track record. The message from the Council was that it would continue to protect those services most needed by local residents and he referred to a number of areas where the Council was working with local communities and partner agencies to maintain the delivery of services. Nevertheless he accepted that deep cuts would have to be made which would affect some services. Many areas so far protected would have to be looked at again in view of the savings that needed to be made in 2017/18. Councillor Butt stated that the possibility of increasing Council Tax would be considered.
Councillor Maurice stated that the level of cuts still only formed a small proportion of the Council’s expenditure and that other Councils were able to achieve these savings. He referred to the London Borough of Wandsworth which had the lowest Council Tax in the country. Councillor Maurice felt that lessons could be learned from a borough such as this.
Councillor Warren referred to the previous Labour Government and suggested it was the cause of the financial situation now faced by the country. He expressed his hope that future Council spending plans would not be subject to long consultation exercises. He felt the Council should know what services residents wanted and suggested they wanted more spent on street paving, security through the provision of more CCTV and neighbourhood watch schemes, rubbish clearance and community libraries. Councillor Warren wanted to see savings made by removing the various consultation forums and deleting the press and communications function. He wanted to see the green bin tax abolished and withdrawal of the changes to parking permit charges. Councillor Warren stated that he would present in February a legal and fair alternative budget including a 2½% reduction in Council Tax.
Councillor Pavey referred to the unusual level of uncertainty in planning for a budget with new schemes being announced by the Government but with no details accompanying them. This had the potential for local councils being left to pick up the pieces. He felt that Government was trying to micro manage local councils and criticised the adverse affect this had on local residents. Councillor Pavey submitted that the budget submitted in February would be based on civic enterprise. It would be a creative, dynamic forward looking budget.
During the debate there was criticism of the Chancellor’s ambition to try to cut the deficit in one go. The view was expressed that Labour Councils were innovative and well managed, working with their staff and trade unions in order to keep services running. Reference was made to social care needs across London and the work being undertaken to meet demand. The impact on the NHS of cuts in social care was highlighted and the need to spend on prevention in health not just treatment. It was disputed that only 2-3% of the Council’s budget was being cut when it was felt to be clear that the Council would lose 50% of its budget. The reduction in funding was seen as an attack on local government. Concern was expressed for maintaining the provision of services for women, which it was felt were vulnerable to being impacted disproportionately. Reference was made to Conservative Council Leaders expressing concern over the level of cuts being imposed. The view was expressed that Council Tax needed to be increased by the permitted 2% to help fund social care. A specific request was made for provision to be made for improving air quality and increasing cycling facilities.
An alternative point of view was submitted that comments made on the budget represented a negative attitude. It was submitted that it was clear that residents wanted their rubbish collected, the streets kept clean and pavements maintained. Instead there were record levels of fly tipping and criticism was levelled at the green bin charges. Additionally it was put forward that only a negative response was forthcoming from the Council on the Chancellor’s announcement regarding business rates.
Additional suggestions put forward to improve the budget situation were to charge councillors for use of the Civic Centre car park, delete the provision of refreshments at Council meetings and reduce the use of paper by restricting the circulation of paper copy agendas. A request was made to explore the establishment of a mutual co-operative for the New Millennium day centre and progress the Church Road redevelopment. The view was expressed that the arrangements for the provision of green bins were an improvement. However criticism was voiced over past officer restructures carried out at a cost to the Council. It was submitted that all governments had a duty of care towards local people and that local councillors were elected to improve the lives of people not see cuts implemented which affected the lives of young people, especially the poorest.
Councillor Butt thanked those who had made a contribution to the debate. He criticised those members who spoke in opposition to the budget proposals but did not mention the pressures facing adult social care, housing and the provision of school places. He stated that the Council was working with businesses, looking at flexible models of provision, ensuring key contracts were delivering value for money and at the same time providing the first house building programme for many years. However, he reiterated that the Council was losing £50M and this would affect the poorest most vulnerable people.
RESOLVED:
that the contents of the report from the Chief Finance Officer be noted and Scrutiny Committee be informed of the outcome of the first reading debate.
Supporting documents: