North Somerset Lib Dem News

Lib Dems say Tory Amendments are Smoke, Mirrors & Cuts to Affordable Housing

posted Tuesday 26th June 2007
category: General

Points made by Deborah Yamanaka, Lib Dem Group Leader at the Council meeting 25/06/07

I rise to oppose the recommendations, some of which are smoke & mirrors & window dressing, & some of which, in the cuts to affordable housing, will cause considerable hardship to our more vulnerable residents.

Looking at each part in turn:
a) budget amendments – the first thing I noticed was that these are not the same as the budget amendments put forward by the Conservatives during the budget process in the Spring. I see that the earlier proposal to take £500,000 out of Adult Social Care has been dropped, and I am pleased that this is so.

Two further things on the supposed £1.1 million full-year saving quoted here – this is £400,000 LESS than the £1.5 million quoted in the press, and the measures listed on P10 of this report are not included in the savings in Appendix 1.

I assume this is because the savings on P10 are so speculative that they do not bear close examination. In fact it appears that the savings in Appx 1 cannot be relied upon either, as they are being put in a contingency fund and NOT used for improving services to residents.

Turning to Appx 1, the Green Travel Plan and the Car Users Allowance.
As a planning authority we require new businesses needing planning permission to demonstrate that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of vehicular traffic or on-street parking. In effect, they must have travel plans in place. It just increases cynicism among the public if the Council repeatedly says “do as I say, don’t do as I do”.

The Replacement Local Plan including this requirement was passed by the whole Council, including the Conservative Group. Indeed the Scrutiny panel chaired by Cllr Ap Rees played an important part in this.

This Council’s Travel Plan was.also intended to tie in with the reduction in Car User Allowances, and make it easier for staff to use their cars less for work.

I very much doubt whether this Car User Allowance saving is realistic without the travel plan, as it involves changing staff contracts unilaterally, without staff agreement.

Have the Tories factored in the costs of strike action and legal challenges to these contract changes? I doubt it.

Tree Management – this also is highly risky. If damage or injury is caused as a result of falling trees on the highway then the cost to the Council could outweigh these savings, and that is only looking at the finances, not taking into account this Council’s attitude to residents’ safety.

In fact the Tories’ savings seem calculated to make the situation worse, by identifying dangerous trees but not felling them. If we KNOW that a tree is dangerous and an accident occurs, surely the Council is more at fault than if it did not know of the danger in the first place?

The Older People’s Strategy – the lack of this was highlighted by the recent Corporate Performance Assessment. So presumably removing funding for this strategy indicates that this administration is not attempting to raise the Council’s CPA rating. We are told that well-performing Councils receive more grants, so we can just wave goodbye to these under this administration.

Child Protection – will Assistant Social Workers be up to the jobs previously intended for higher grades? If not, then vulnerable children will suffer. Will these assistants be doing the same jobs as their more senior colleagues, with all the possible personnel issues here?

Land Charges Income Reduction – the saving quoted here of £300,000 is far greater than the £80,000 in the Tories’ spring budget amendment, and is even less likely to be achievable. We are expecting national land charge rates to be brought in, and since NSC’s rate is much higher than the national average, the national rate will almost certainly be below our current rate.

The Children’s Act Information sharing index - let us hope that we have no information-sharing failures leading to a Victoria Climbie tragedy, as a result of this cut.

HR Merger of Education & Corporate staff – this again is very risky financially. HR for schools is a traded service which schools can choose to buy from NSC or buy elsewhere. We know that schools are not happy with the idea of buying into corporate HR and some will probably choose to buy HR and other services elsewhere, thus losing this Council valuable income.

And finally in Appx 1, it is interesting that the ONLY increase in spending resulting from these dubious savings is to keep 7 scrutiny panels. This is an interesting priority – not one penny on service improvements to our residents.

Turning to recommendation b), this is an absolute disgrace. This Council promised our former Council tenants when the houses were transferred to the North Somerset Housing association, that the capital receipt would be used for affordable housing and its infrastructure. The tenants wanted this, for their children and others on the housing waiting list. We all know that there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing here in North Somerset, both to rent and buy. Conservatives nationally and Weston’s MP John Penrose pay lip service to the need for affordable housing, but we can see what happens in practice.

All spin and no action just about sums it up.

I will not be voting for these budget changes.