Agenda item
First Reading debate on the 2012/13 - 2015/16 budget
Reports from the Executive and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services attached.
Minutes:
Councillor John stated that the Council was at a bleak juncture in time and yet many people had not yet grasped the enormity of what local government was facing. It was not just dealing with budget reductions but having to change the way it did business. In future the Council would be a smaller organisation with less resources and delivering services in a different way. The Localism Act would make big changes and along with the local housing allowance and universal credit caps she felt this amounted to social engineering that would drive people out of central London. The universal credit cap would affect Brent the most of all London boroughs and amounted to an assault on poor Londoners. The combined effect of both caps would result in 130,000 households across London finding their rent unaffordable, of which 10,000 would be in Brent. Larger households would be more harshly affected. Councillor John also referred to the decision that benefit should be paid direct to the claimant rather than the landlord which would inevitably mean some people not paying their rent in such tough times and collection costs for the Council increasing. Councillor John stated that despite the dramatic effects of the Government's policies they were not working as could be seen by increasing youth unemployment and unemployment generally. She referred to the Labour Party's alternative plans to create jobs. In an effort to mitigate the harmful effects of government policy on local residents, Councillor John stated that the Council was adopting the following important priorities:
· employment
· neighbourhood services
· services for young people
· social care and health
· regeneration
· diversity and democracy
Councillor Lorber stated that the situation faced by the Council was a result of the past Labour government's legacy. He backed this up by stating that there was a two year time lag behind all policy decisions meaning the current situation was the result of decisions taken by the last government. He submitted that the Council was fortunate that the previous Council administration had introduced the One Council programme which now allowed the Council to deliver a balanced budget. However, one aspect of the programme had not been delivered and he challenged the administration to reach the stated target of one manager for every six workers and by this means achieve further savings. Councillor Lorber did not feel it was all bad news by referring to a three year Council Tax freeze being made possible, a £25M award from the Government to address the shortage in school places and low interest rates meaning the cost of the Council's borrowing was cheaper. He criticised the administration for believing it knew better and did not listen to the views of local people. He referred to the cuts to the library service and school crossing patrols which affected young people and the cuts in street cleansing which had resulted in overflowing litter bins. He suggested it was time to stop producing the Brent magazine and asked why festivals organised by local people had had funding cut but the Council retained a festivals team which was more expensive to maintain. Councillor Lorber also asked why buildings were being kept empty when voluntary sector partners were looking for premises. He referred to paragraph 5.3 of the Executive's report and asked how it could produce proposals that were at the same time both comprehensive and targeted. He ended by challenging the Council to deliver services that the people wanted.
Councillor HB Patel stated that the administration was saying that it was not elected on a programme of having to make massive cuts, however the choice was between dreaming of what was wanted or striving to achieve the dream. He said that everyone knew before the last elections that massive cuts in public expenditure were going to be needed because the previous government had overspent. What was needed was a coherent programme for how to achieve the cutbacks required. He felt it was not a coherent approach to shut libraries in the face of strong community opposition and asked that this be reconsidered. Councillor Patel referred to the government grant to support a freeze in Council Tax and how this had been used to increase reserves rather than support services and how the Council intended to do the same again for 2012/13. He felt that if the grant was accepted it and the existing reserves should be used to maintain services. Councillor Patel referred to the proposal for councils to collect and retain their business rates which would make it more important to support businesses to grow. He felt a simple solution would be to stop penalising people with parking charges. He ended by adding that more resources needed to be put into maintaining pavements and roads, street cleansing and providing hot meals for the elderly.
It was submitted that the budget plan would seek to deliver a fair, safe and secure future for residents. It was welcomed that the Council would look to address issues around employment and providing jobs. It provided financial prudence by ensuring adequate reserves but at the same time delivered savings through the One Council programme. The Government had decided to cut hard and fast and by doing so had targeted those that could least afford it. The clarity of the Executive's vision was welcomed. The importance of looking after those in care was stressed and it was felt to be important to take an active approach that would protect vulnerable people. It was stated that for the last two years the administration had been forced to make millions of pounds of cuts because of decisions taken by the Government. The damage this was inflicting was becoming increasingly unbearable. More young people were out of work than two years ago. In the circumstances, it was submitted that that it was essential for the Council to maintain services and that through the leadership provided by the Executive this was being done despite having to find further cuts. Concern was expressed over the current overspend and the projected budget gap shown in table 2 of the Director of Finance and Corporate Service's report and it was stated that this would be subject to scrutiny over the coming months. It was felt the priority needed to be to strengthen local communities.
Reference was made to the £2.6M provided by the Government to freeze the Council Tax and the view was supported that this should be used to protect front line services and not to increase the level of reserves. It was also suggested that the monies returned from the Icelandic banks was in effect a windfall and could be used in the best way possible to protect front line services, including libraries. Decisions made by the last government on caring for the ill and elderly were criticised and it was felt that assurance was needed that the social services were working efficiently. The budget was about making decisions on how resources were allocated and it was submitted that more resources were needed for street cleaning with the view that litter bins were overflowing being supported. It was also pointed out that certain areas with a heavy footfall such as around Dollis Hill station, needed more frequent targeted sweeping. The view that residents should be listened to more and consequently resources targeted more toward the services wanted by residents was supported.
A view was submitted that the real problem lay in the level of borrowing by the last government in order to save the banks. This had nothing to do with the current government and cuts had to be made to avoid the country being bankrupt. However, an alternative view put forward was that the downturn in the world economy had started on Wall Street through bad investment decisions and so it was spurious to blame the last government.
Criticism was levelled at the Government's funding to keep the Council Tax down which was seen as a means of eroding the underlying revenue position of the Council for future years. It was submitted that residents should expect to pay a fair rate for a fair level of service. The Council had significantly reduced its staff numbers and Appendix A of the report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Service's showed the level of premature retirement costs being met. The view that the present time was very worrying was echoed.
A plea was made for councillors to stand up for the interests of Brent which had seen its budget slashed by 28 % when other councils had only been required to save in four years what Brent had saved in one year.
RESOLVED:
that the broad budgetary priorities set out in the report from the Executive be noted and the issues raised in the First Reading debate be referred to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Supporting documents:
- First Reading Ldr rpt, item 8. PDF 60 KB
- First Reading report Nov 2011, item 8. PDF 130 KB
- First reading-01 INDEX OF APPENDICES, item 8. PDF 36 KB
- First reading-APPENDIX A 2011-12 COUNCIL BUDGET, item 8. PDF 35 KB
- First reading - 03 APPENDIX B Financial Forecast, item 8. PDF 88 KB
- first reading-04 APPENDIX C Central Items, item 8. PDF 64 KB
- first reading-05 APPENDIX D Service and Budget Planning Timetable, item 8. PDF 44 KB