Forum Topic

H&F Council’s Budget Sham

It is astonishing that local Tories claim to have delivered their reduction in council tax off the back of efficiency savings. They have, in fact, introduced £multi-million cuts in services, taken over £1 million out of the Council’s savings and failed to invest in Labour’s plan to give the five wards with the highest crime 24/7 police squads. If you consider that £600k equals 1% off Council tax in H&F, then it is easy to work out how the Tories have made the cut – equivalent to £27 off a Band D bill.Since the May elections, the Tories have announced the closure of Hurlingham and Chelsea secondary school, have slashed the home help and meals-on wheels services, cut street cleaning to the tune of £500k and introduced a range of new charges, such as increasing burial cost for local people by almost 50%. The Tory Council has cancelled 500 affordable homes, virtually closed down the low-cost house-building programme and is cutting funding to the voluntary sector and the arts. We know that the Tory Administration are considering closing up to two more primary schools and are looking at selling off Council housing on the open market.Just before Christmas, the Government generously awarded £3.6 million more to Hammersmith & Fulham than anyone expected in its financial settlement. That is enough for a 6% cut to local council tax. Labour wants to know why the Tory council has not made this cut and why it has failed to make the investment in fighting crime. Indeed, their priorities seem very odd with the Council spending £1 million to introduce blue signs, blue carpets, blue paint, new propaganda and a new blue council logo.Following the Council elections last May, the Labour Opposition made a public promise to the new Tory Administration. We told them that we understood that the next Council elections will not be until 2010 and if in the meantime they could deliver better services and lower Council tax then we would vote with them. Despite our commitment to work with them, this Tory Administration has unleashed one of the most hard-nosed cuts programmes in the UK.Labour believes that there is room for reductions in Council tax but that this should come from making the Council more effective. The Council should cut waste and not take the bureaucrats' easy option of cutting services.These are proving dark days for many people in our borough with children, the elderly, the low waged, the homeless and the vulnerable all targeted for cuts - people least likely to kick up a fuss. To be fair to the Administration; they are Tories and that is what they do. So why try to make out that they are not cutting services when it is plain for all to see they are?  Maybe, after so many years in the political wilderness they are still too nervous to admit that Hammersmith & Fulham Tories are a group of very old-fashioned Thatcherite Conservatives.Cllr. Stephen CowanLeader of the Labour Group

Stephen Cowan ● 6736d17 Comments

This is very informative.  I didn't realise Mr Bethell was was a councillor.  I think he should have said so.Dropping the meals-on-wheels charges sounds sounds like a decent thing to do.  As I keep (!) saying, it just seems wrong that the poorest local people should have to pay through the nose for a few pounds in Council tax reductions for everyone.

Ben Coleman ● 6717d

Hello Cllr. BethellI’m sorry this is such a detailed posting but you raise some controversial points. I’m also not sure if you’re setting out to deliberately mislead people or whether you’re still to grasp a full understanding of the situation.The fact is that your Administration inherited a Council from Labour which the Audit Commission graded as excellent – classing it as one of the best authorities in the Country. This grading could not have been given if the finances were anything but strong. The Council tax was in the bottom third of all 32 London boroughs and falling. The new Administration was left £12 million in balances (savings) which the Conservatives have already raided to pay for almost two thirds of your council tax reduction.The pension scheme was administered by a cross-party panel of councillors made up of Conservatives and Labour. The market fell around three years ago, both parties agreed to change the investment bank and the market is now rising again. As a consequence the pension fund is improving. Trying to make out this is anything to do with the new Administration is propaganda taken to the extreme.As for the debt; nearly two- hundred million pounds of it will be paid for by central government as it is part of the Decent Homes scheme lobbied for by Labour and opposed by the Conservatives to provide refurbishment to council homes for the first time in 40 years. It shows as a debt on the Council’s books for technical reasons but it is paid for by central government, it doesn’t affect the council tax and it will in fact help save significant amounts of money from the housing budget. The rest of the debt is an inheritance built up over many decades from a time when previous Tory and Labour administrations would undertake municipal works such a building new swimming pools, libraries, council homes, etc. The previous Labour Administration was taking actions to repay this mortgage/debt and we support moves for your administration to do likewise.Budgets are emotive things as although some of our priorities are the same, the budget also demonstrates where they are also radically different. Let’s take one of the items in your budget and see if we can build a consensus. Labour thinks putting up charges to the elderly by £200.75 for their meals-on-wheels is mean-hearted and unnecessary. Will you support us and ask your Administration to drop it from your budget?

Stephen Cowan ● 6718d

Are you saying that the cuts the new Council is making are to fill a black hole left by the last lot?  If so, why do they tell us it is so they can reduce the Council tax?  Either way, I still think it's wrong to make pensioners and home helps pay.  No-one seems to argue with that.

Ben Coleman ● 6719d

The Leader of the Opposition uses emotive language to disguise the fact that when the Conservatives took over the Council in May 2006 they found that the finances were in a mess.  There is long term debt of £350 million and a pension fund deficit over £150 million.  The Conservatives have committed to tackling these financial problems.  The Labour group should hang their heads in shame for allowing the public finances to deteriorate so far.

Will Bethell ● 6719d

My impression is that both sides are quite "efficient" but have different priorities.  From what I have read on this site, the new Council seems determined to cut a tiny bit off the council tax, which will make no actual difference to the vast majority of residents, by cheeseparing services and privatising/cutting the wages of people who are already on low incomes.  It just doesn't seem right that the neediest and poorest people in the borough should have to pay so we can afford a few more cinema tickets a year.

Ben Coleman ● 6726d

"I think this forum is providing a great opportunity to debate the budget and the consequences it will have for people in our community."I would heartily agree with this statement at least. I have found the discussion informative and educational and feel I have a much better understanding of what is happening in local government. That said I am much more confused about which side is right.

Paul Corcoran ● 6726d

I think this forum is providing a great opportunity to debate the budget and the consequences it will have for people in our community.The Conservative Administration has indeed cut Council Tax – equivalent to a £27 annual reduction for someone living in a Band D property. Last year Labour published plans for a 1.5% increase for each year for the next three years. With inflation at 3%, this is actually a real terms cut in tax. Labour would have cut tax even more if and only if the Council hit its efficiency targets.It’s clear that that the Conservative Administration is slashing services and this is not something we would have done. Anyone wanting to look at the budget to see for themselves should follow this link. http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/CGSCAgenda20071501_tcm21-74290.pdf  It will take you to the Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Committee papers. The budget papers for all aspects of the Council's services are at the back of the document but you will find the Conservative Administration's explanations for the "cleaner, greener" aspect of the budget beginning on page 39. For example their explanation for cutting the street cleaning budget by £900k (equivalent to 1.6% off council tax) this year is on page 51, items 10.10 and 10.11. Full copies of the budget are not usually sent out with the Council tax. If anyone would like to see what the explanations are for the other areas of the Council’s services, this link will take you to the scrutiny committee’s web page, containing PDF budget papers for all other areas. http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Decisions_meetings_and_agendas/Scrutiny/39022_Scrutiny_and_Research.aspRather alarmingly, the Conservatives are introducing cuts that especially target the most vulnerable people in our community. For example, as well as privatising the home help service, the budget papers for the Adult Social Services Scrutiny Committee show the Conservatives will tighten the eligibility criteria and are cutting back the service as well. This cannot be good news for the hundreds of elderly and disabled people needing this service in our borough.It is possible to make large organisations like Councils continually strive for greater efficiency, particularly through the use of emerging technologies and new working practices. It happened under Labour and I’d expect it to continue under the new regime. I don’t believe that efficiency is a party political issue. The previous Labour Administration introduced a large range of new practices that saved millions. One example is last year, due to an innovative new computerised bidding system, pioneered in H&F, the Council saved over £1 million off its stationery budget. I understand the new system is now bringing in significant savings across a wider range of Council services.So why didn’t the Tories cut tax more this year when they were given the budget to be able to do so? That’s up to them to explain. However, they have failed to put the investment into fighting crime and they are cutting services. That will make life harder for many people.

Stephen Cowan ● 6732d

"Yes, but everyone else is doing it and so did the other lot" may be a practical position but it isn't a moral one.  I'm not at all against private provision but don't think any council, whether Conservative, Labour, LibDem or whatever, should engage contractors that pay people crap wages.  You set the contract conditions, after all.  You can set these so that anyone can tender but they can't pay their staff less than a certain amount or offer them terms below a certain level.  You'd still get competition and best value without causing suffering.You are going to cut council tax by, what, £10-£50 a year for most people?  That's too little to make any real difference to their lives.  But the fact you're going to do it by slashing wages will really hurt people.  50p less an hour means £1,000 less a year to a full-time worker.I assume that H&F services account for the wages of a huge number of people directly and indirectly (through private contractors).  Have you done an analysis of how many of these will win as a result of what you're doing and how many will suffer?

Ben Coleman ● 6732d

Ben. I could equally say I take it your answer means yes, you are against any form of private provision of public services, whatever the cost.H&F has always used agency home carers as well as staff ones. Almost every other Council in the country uses agencies. This really isn't anything new.Plainly you are happy for H&F taxpayers to pay more in taxes for services which cost more than the going rate. I am not.

Mark Loveday ● 6733d

I think this answer means that yes, you are content to let home helps get poverty pay if it means you can cut council tax bills.Why is it always the worst off who have to suffer when politicians "get real"?  Or do you actually think that the small cut in their council tax will replace the wages that some of the lowest paid H&F residents will lose through privatisation?By the way, I didn't think I was suggesting a return to anything.  Except paying people decently, perhaps.

Ben Coleman ● 6733d

Ben,Of course no-one agrees with paying anyone "poverty pay". However, that is not a reason why tax payers should pay more for their public services than they would pay for exactly the same services to be provided privately.Get real. Every single local authority and government department in this country uses the private sector to provide services. Even H&F Council under Labour spent millions and millions on private sector contractors and consultants. We are just saying that if the private sector can provide similar or better services in other areas, we will let them bid for this work. In many areas we think the in-house staff provide a fantastic service and will win contracts against outsiders.  Do you want to go back to the days when the state paid the wages of everyone from your telephone engineer to your air stewardess regardless of cost? I hope not. We certainly had high unemployment, high inflation and high taxes then - and ultimately everyone was poorer.

Mark Loveday ● 6733d

What about the people who deliver local services, who are often paid very little?  Isn't at least some of the money for council tax cuts simply coming from cutting their wages?  I presume this is what is happening with home helps and it may be happening in other areas.  The Council has privatised the home help service and, while the private providers have to keep existing home helps on the same pay and terms, won't they pay new staff less?  How else could they offer the service more cheaply than now?  This has happened in Westminster and my mother's home help is paid barely the minimum wage.  So are we going to see council tax cuts on the back of poverty pay for home helps?  (I asked this question on another part of the forum but it hasn't had a reply there yet.)

Ben Coleman ● 6733d

Welcome to this board Stephen.I'm afraid that you and I know what a lot of tosh you are talking. You are, on the one hand, saying there is further room for tax cuts (contrary to your key election manifesto and election literature which was proud to say you would raise tax substantially every year for the next 3 years). On the other it's the same old "cuts, cuts, cuts" message. You can't have it both ways. We have manged to cut Council Tax with only an average grant settlement from government - less than many other boroughs - and the same level you predicted last year.Let's just take one of your made up statistics - your claim we have wasted £1 million on changing the tired old Council logo. This equates to about 1.3% off Council Tax. You have access to the budget accounts. Where is this cost? It simply isn't there. Do you honestly think we would not have cut Council Tax by another 1.3% if we could have instead of changing the logo?We are fiercely proud to deliver the biggest Council Tax cut in the country and better services (for example an extra £1.5 on crime fighting with 2 pioneering 24/7 policing initiatives).You had well over 20 years to do something similar. You didn't. End of story really.

Mark Loveday ● 6734d

Presumably we will get the details with our Council Tax statement in March. If the information is presented in a coherent manner then we should be able to compare with the previous regime.I have to say that I have seen a significant increase in street cleaning - long may it continue.

David Millar ● 6734d

This is the most salient (and obvious) point.

Colin Murphy ● 6734d

I can't agree with that last comment - I work for a publishing company and we're always making improvents and efficiencies but that doesn't mean that there was anything wrong before.  So it's not fair to twist people's words like that - I thought that the old council had brought about some really good improvements over the past few years - things like the extra police, free home helps (and free swimming for kids?)showed they really cared about the wider community. I've posed up before about my worries about the cuts to my aunty's home help service, but I didn't realise that these cuts were coming despite an extra £3 million of government funding (ie our income tax bills).  There's a serious issue here - spending more and doing less isn't improving efficiency, so where's the money going? It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Katherine Marsh ● 6735d

"Labour believes that there is room for reductions in Council tax but that this should come from making the Council more effective"So you're saying the council under Labour wasn't effective?? Labour had 20 years to do the job, so don't start moaning now.

Neill Young ● 6736d