Agendas, Meetings and Minutes - Agenda item

Agenda item

Reports of Cabinet - Matters which require a decision by Council - 2019/20 Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan Update 2019-22 (Agenda item 5)

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows:

 

a)    Reports of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision (Yellow pages); and

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken (White pages).

 

Minutes:

The Council had before it a detailed report on the 2019/20 Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan Update 2019-22, which the Cabinet had considered on 31 January 2019 and which the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet were recommending for adoption by the Council.

 

All Councillors had received or had access to the full report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 31 January 2019.

 

The Leader introduced the report and moved the recommendation as set out in paragraph 1 of the report; this was seconded by Mr A I Hardman. The Leader explained that the key themes of the budget included: protection of the most vulnerable children and adults in society; maintaining a highways network; supporting economic growth through projects that improved infrastructure, tackled congestion and enhanced connectivity; and creating the Council for the future through re-examining contracts and reforming the way the Council worked to ensure that it was fit and effective for the future. All these themes underpinned the Council’s Corporate Plan “Shaping Worcestershire for the Future” and reflected the priorities of the public.

 

The backdrop to the budget was a county that continued to thrive with a strong economy, high levels of employment and a great environment that provided a good quality of life and a high satisfaction rating for Worcestershire as a place to live. This helped the Council’s budget as income continued to grow with the net budget growing from £324m to £330m in the next financial year as a result of increased Council Tax and business rates from new homes and businesses. The new 75% business rates pilot would mean that a further £4.8m of resources would remain in the county.

 

However income was not keeping pace with demand-led services as a result of the cost of Adult Social Care increasing as more adults and children needed support and an aging population living longer.

 

The budget delivered a £14.1m increase for Adult Social Care for existing pressures and future demand. It continued to develop the Three Conversations Model. Children’s Services would receive £7.8m which was on top of the £5m received last year for safeguarding placements for the most vulnerable in society. 70% of the total budget would be spent on the most vulnerable members of society.

 

To reflect the views of the public, the planned reduction to the highways budget had been removed from the budget. £3m had been set aside for open for business initiatives, £2.8 to deliver the next set of transport schemes, £2.8m for the evolving infrastructure fund, £23m for capital investment/regional infrastructure across the county. These schemes supported housing developments and economic growth that increased prosperity and income for residents in the county. Schemes included: £5m towards talking congestion; £5m towards rail station upgrades/parking; £4m towards the next range of economic game changer sites: £4m towards walking/cycling; £2.5 towards the next phase of town centre improvements; and £2.5 towards highways capital issues.

 

The key element of the budget was the redesign of the Council, including an examination of the £200m contract spend to ensure better value for money. The redesign would involve rethinking and reforming the organisation and the Council’s services to ensure that the Council was working in the most productive way possible, embracing new technology, ensuring the Council’s buildings were fit-for-purpose and that the Council was ready for future challenges. £24m of capital resources together with revenue resources had been allocated to support this programme including a Communities Solutions Fund of £145k (dropping to £45k in future years) to enable communities to do more to meet the challenge. It was vital that that these reforms took place to protect front-llne services

 

He thanked everyone who had contributed to the formulation of the budget and the Medium Term Financial Plan. The budget would secure a prosperous future for the county whilst delivering much needed resources for vital public services and he commended it to Council.    

 

The seconder stated that the Council would be raising Council Tax to the maximum permitted to enable the Council to operate within its own budget i.e. that local taxpayers should fund local public services. Spend on Adult Social Care would increase by £14.1 which would correct the overspend from the previous year and put the service on a sound footing. The Council had entered into a unique and innovative business rates project with district councils which would enable the Council to retain an extra 25% of business rates which allowed the Council to spend an extra £4.9m on reducing future demand for social care by working collaboratively with district councils.

 

The Government had responded to the Council’s vigorous lobbying by providing a £6.2m grant for Adult Social Care and £6m for road funding. The new Government formula was expected to be announced next year which should lead to a fairer system of funding based on demand. He urged all members to lobby local MPs over the issue of fairer funding because the urban metropolitan boroughs were likely to lobby against the proposed changes to the formula.  The key aspect for the future of the Council was not to continue relying on Government funding. 

 

An amendment was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr L C R Mallett proposing:

 

 

 

Amendment 1

Labour Group Budget Amendment Proposals 2019/20

£

£

Remove monies from the following areas:

Reduce investment to Property Services.           

150,000

Savings from IT Service Transformation.

29,500

Reduce Cabinet budget to the equivalent of 9 members

18,000

Reintroduce part of Highways saving originally proposed by the Administration to enable a risk based approach to be taken to services such as white lining and replacing iron and metal work on streets.

275,000

Non acceptance of part of the Community Solutions Fund,

2,500

Total

475,000

Redirect monies to the following areas:

Increase the Library Service budget to replace current savings to be made and recruit to some of the frozen posts

325,000

Increase spending on Homelessness Service

100,000

Reduce the Administration's savings to be found target for the Archives by a further £50k

50,000

                             Total

475,000

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; the key points being:

·         The Government’s austerity measures had reduced the Council’s funding year-on-year despite ever increasing pressures on the budgets for Adult Social Care and Looked After Children services.  Spending on these two vital services had increased from 50% to 70% of the total budget over 10 years which had detrimentally impacted on other services. The Green Paper on Adult Social Care was still awaited. The Council was left in a position where it had to increase Council Tax. The Council could do things differently without impacting on other services by protecting key service areas such as the library service. The amendment would remove the proposed cut of £145k to the library service and provide additional funding of £180k to make the service more viable, provide more books and allow the review of the service to take place uninhibited

·         The problem of homelessness was far greater than ten years ago and therefore £100k was proposed to be added to the budget to tackle this issue in liaison with district councils

·         These amendments would be funded by a reduction in the increase in the property services budget and £275m from the highways budget for lining work and the replacement of iron and metal works. No reductions were proposed for Adult Social Care, Looked After Children or front-line highway services. A further saving was proposed from a reduction in the number of a Cabinet Member posts. The amendment was realistic, sensible and protected key services

·         The Archives service had a track record of attracting funding to the county, most notably approximately £360k to commemorate WW1. The amendment would ensure that the service was still viable and able to attract funding

·         The extra commitment of £100k to homelessness in the amendment was welcomed. The public were worried and horrified at the increase in rough sleepers across the county. Homeless people needed a tremendous amount of support and a joined-up approach with district councils was vital

·         No library was safe from the proposed budget reductions. Staff numbers were being reduced as they were replaced by volunteers. Volunteers had a role but were no substitute for trained professional library staff

·         It was not necessary maintain the maximum number of Cabinet member posts. The reduction of a single post would allow money to be spent on front-line services

·         Protection of library services and tackling homelessness were higher priorities than property maintenance

·         In 2009/10, the Audit Commission had expressed concern about the impact of the Conservative administration’s proposed reductions to the highways budget

·         The budget reductions to the library service had a disproportionate impact on poorer families and reduced social mobility.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways commented that highways maintenance was highlighted as a top concern by the public. To reduce this budget was dangerous in the short term and costly in the long term. To reduce the lining and iron work budget would create delays, increase beaurocracy and result in less lining being renewed. Not only was there a risk of legal challenge when accidents occurred but there would be a greater cost in subsequent years 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning commented that, in relation to the proposed £150k reduction to the property budget, there remained uncertainty about who would replace HMRC as tenants at County Hall. The proposed reduction represented 20% of the reactive property maintenance budget and impacted on a valuable asset for the Council. The reduction to IT would adversely impact on the Council’s vital customer service delivery

·         There was no indication as to how the additional funds for homelessness would be spent and this issue was best left with district councils to resolve

·         Reductions to the transformation budget would take away the ability of the Council to improve the efficiency of service delivery

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health commented that the Government had announced new funding to enable this Council to address homelessness although the details were unknown at this stage. The Council was working with district councils using the existing funding available through the public health ring-fenced grant to address this issue

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that libraries were not being closed. Investment was being made in IT, particularly the way IT was used in libraries. The book fund was not being reduced. The Council was reforming the library service and talking to partners about its future

·         The Leader commented that the amendment proposed a cut to front-line highways work which was a top priority identified by the public. The proposed cuts to ICT/property investment were a false economy and would make the Council less efficient. In relation to libraries and the archive service, the Council had listened to the concerns of the public and modified its budget proposals accordingly.

 

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (17)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (39)

 

An amendment was then moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr L C R Mallett proposing:

 

 

Amendment 2

Labour Group Budget Amendment Proposals 2019/20

£

£

Remove monies from following areas.

Non acceptance of part of the Community Solutions Fund, having assumed £2,500 in Amendment 1, and replacement with alternative proposal below.

142,500

Total

142,500

Redirect monies to following areas.

Increase Councillors Divisional discretionary monies by £2,500 each to £12,500 per annum

142,500

Total

142,500

 

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; the key points being:

·         The Community Solutions Fund created an unnecessary additional beaurocratic process which established a separate pot of money for community services. Adding these funds to the Divisional Fund would create a fairer, more effective and efficient mechanism for distributing these funds to the community and provide greater accountability to the public.

·         The proposed amendment provided an efficient and cost-effective way of responding to the needs of the local community in an equitable way across the county through the Divisional Fund, using existing resources and the knowledge-base of local councillors

·         Not all councillor divisions had parish councils within them to help develop community-based schemes

·         Councillors were in the best position to make a small amount of money go a long way.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         This amendment would deny community groups the opportunity to develop community projects for themselves. In addition, this community funding would allow bigger projects to be developed than would be possible under the Divisional Fund. It should also be noted that as part of the budget proposals, members would also be able to distribute a further £2.5m through the Member Highways Fund

·         The proposal to increase the Divisional Fund contradicted the Labour Party’s opposition to the establishment of such funds in some district councils

·         Parish councils were more than capable of developing projects suitable for community funding

·         The Community Solutions Fund would provide the capacity to pump-prime capital projects that were outside the financial scope of the Divisional Fund albeit in consultation with local councillors

·         The Leader commented that the Community Solutions Fund was concerned with working alongside community groups, partners and shareholders to deliver the reform programme hence more funds being available next year. The Fund did not necessarily align with divisional boundaries. Individual members would receive a further boost to their divisional funding through the highways fund. The amendment sent the wrong message that the views of councillors were more important than those of local communities.

 

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Ms C M Stalker, Mr R M Udall. (10)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Mrs F M Oborski, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Prof J W Raine, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb, Mr T A L Wells. (44)

 

Those abstaining were Dr C Hotham, Mrs M A Rayner (2)

 

The following three amendments were then moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Prof J W Raine proposing:

 

Amendment 1

2017 Group Budget Amendment Proposals 2019/20    -    Revenue

19/20

Full Year Impact

£

£

Remove monies from the following areas:

Remove the allowance for one cabinet post with effect from October 2019 (note £18,000 Full Year Effect)          

9,000

18,000

Total

9,000

18,000

Redirect monies to the following areas:

To strengthen in-depth Scrutiny Task Groups, enabling members to visit examples and best practice elsewhere, to bring in expert advisors or to commission small pieces of research

9,000

9,000

To strengthen internal and external training opportunities as identified by members

9,000

Total

9,000

             18,000


 

 

Amendment 2

2017 Group Budget Amendment Proposals 2019/20   -   Capital

19/20

£

£

Remove monies from the following areas:

To reduce from £5 million to £4 million the new proposed capital investment included in the Medium Term Financial Plan (January 2019 - 2019/20 BUDGET AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2019-22 Report - paragraph 9.4) for future Railway station upgrades and extra parking facilities

1,000,000

Total

 

1,000,000

Redirect monies to the following areas:

Create a capital fund of £300k available for local community transport groups to bid into for the purchase of vehicles to increase their capacity to transport residents who are unable to access public or private transport to get to work, college, medical appointments or shopping and social interaction

300,000

Allocate an additional £350k of capital spend on improving the standard of footways for pedestrians, focusing on areas with a significant backlog and/or elderly population

350,000

Allocate an additional £350k of capital spend on improving infrastructure for safer everyday cycling

350,000

Total

0

1,000,000

 

 

Amendment 3

2017 Group Budget Amendment Proposals 2019/20   -   Capital

19/20

£

£

Remove monies from the following areas:

To reduce from £998k to £948k the Investment Initiatives to Support Business and/or Green Technology capital budget

50,000

Total

50,000

Redirect monies to the following areas:

Create a small capital fund of £50k to help speed up the change-over of steel post street lamps to LED.  It will be available for local members who chose to match fund from their individual highways capital allocations

50,000

Total

50,000

 

 

[The 3 amendments were debated together but voted upon separately].  The mover and seconder of the amendments then spoke in favour of their adoption; the key points being:

·         It was proposed to use the £1m capital investment from the MTP Future railway stations upgrade and extra car park facilities to fund £300k for community transport, an additional £350k for footway maintenance and £350k for safer everyday cycling. £50k would be taken from an investment initiative to speed up the change-over of steel post street lamps to LED. It was proposed to remove one Cabinet post from October 2019 to provide funding to support scrutiny which did not have a budget at present, and in the second year to put more money into member development. This Council had deliberately kept Council Tax lower than the possible available spending power and consequently the Council had missed out on large amounts of funding. The Council needed to change to meet the needs of the community and establish a better informed and respected scrutiny function

·         The Council needed a better balance between investment in highways and public transport including the better provision of alternative modes of transport. The Council needed to increase investment in footways, safer cycleways and community transport (to provide community buses and adaptations to vehicles) The upgrade of LED lighting produced savings so why delay the programme. Overview and Scrutiny was a great way of developing policy ideas but did not receive enough resources at present

·         Amendment 2 – There was a lack of infrastructure to support a cycle network in Worcester

·         Amendment 1 – The decision to move education into the ADM meant that there was no longer a need for two Cabinet Members to cover education and safeguarding

·         Amendment 2 - The reduction to the budget for railway investment was for one year only and reflected the fact that the additional parking for Kidderminster and Blakedown Railway Stations would not be made implemented until 2022. This funding could instead be used to establish community transport projects

·         Amendment 2 was an attempt to shift the focus of the Council’s transport strategy away from cars to buses, cycling and walking to tackle pollution, congestion, climate change and social injustice

·         The guidelines for the use of the budget for scrutiny and member development had not been made clear. It was not essential to have the legal maximum of number of Cabinet Members and other councils coped with less. The LED lamp replacement proposal would speed up the process for achieving savings.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         Amendment 1 – The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning commented that whilst there was no specific budget head for member development and scrutiny, there was a miscellaneous budget of £28k available to cover external support for overview and scrutiny and member development as required. This budget was not under strain as to date only £844 had been spent

·         Amendment 2 – The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure commented that the amendment would take funding away from greatly needed improvements to the rail network. There were other ways of providing funding for the proposals in this amendment

·         In response to a point of order that the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure had exceeded the permitted length of time for speaking on the amendments, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the Cabinet Member was the nominated spokesperson for the Group on this amendment and was therefore permitted to speak for 5 minutes. The Leader undertook to make it clear to Council who would be the nominated speaker on behalf of the Group in the future

·         A greater impact on footway improvements could be achieved by working closely with developers

·         Given the outcome of the external auditor’s review of the Council’s commissioning arrangements and the important role of commissioning in the future of the Council, it would be inappropriate at this stage to reduce the level of accountability by the removal of a Cabinet Member post

·         Amendment 3 – The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Environment indicated that £4m was being invested in LED lighting and it was important that the structured programme to introduce LED lights was not impeded. Although LED lights would reduce CO2 emissions and save electricity, there was a negative CO2 impact of replacing the old concrete columns

·         The Leader of the Council stated that it was clear that the 2017 Group were committed to continued increases in Council Tax. Members had not taken up the opportunity to use the available training budget. The existing number of Cabinet member posts allowed the Council to benefit from the maximum possible level of skills and experience across the Council at a time of massive change especially in Education and Skills. The reduction of the £5m investment in rail services would impact on the ability to draw down DfT and LEP investment and negatively impact on plans to discourage travel by car. The proposed funding for LED lighting would have a very minimal impact and members could better use the members highway or Divisional Fund for any priority issues.

 

2017 Group Amendment 1

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote the 2017 Group amendment 1 was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (17)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (39)

 

2017 Group Amendment 2

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote the 2017 Group amendment 2 was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr T A L Wells (5)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Dr C Hotham, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (40)

 

Those abstaining were Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mr R M Udall. (10)

 

2017 Group Amendment 3

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote the 2017 Group amendment 3 was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (17)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (39)

 

A further amendment was then moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mr R C Lunn proposing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amendment 1

Proposals 2019/20

Revenue - One Year Only

 

                  19/20

£

£

Remove monies from the following areas:

 

To reduce £50k from the Transformation/Change Reserve

 

50,000

Total

 

50,000

Redirect monies to the following areas:

 

To defer for one year £50k of Archive service's 2019/20 savings target in order to provide the service with more time to reshape and develop its future viability.

 

This would reduce the target from £250k to £200k in 2019/20.

50,000

Total

50,000

 

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; the key points being:

·         The amendment proposed to take £50k from the transformation/change reserve for one year only to reduce the cuts to the archive service and to provide more time to work through the proposed changes to see if they were feasible or not and keep the service running effectively in the meantime

·         It was right to examine other sources of income for the Archives Service and to consider inviting outside agencies to be involved in the Member Advisory Group as suggested by the public participant. £50k was a small amount but would make a big difference to smooth the transition arrangements of this award-winning service.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that the administration had responded to the consultation responses and amended the budget to lessen the amount of savings being proposed for the Archives and Archaeology Service. The savings would be made through a reduction in staff costs and an increase in income generation to ensure value for money. Going forward the Archive service would remain largely the same as present and the service would not be closing, records would not be transferred elsewhere and opening hours would not be reduced. New archives would be accepted but there might be a charge

·         The Leader of the Council emphasised that the proposals for the Archives service represented a net subsidy reduction and the subsidy could be reduced by income growth. It was not possible to moderate the budget to facilitate this proposed amendment as the Council needed to deliver these changes within the allocated timescale, given the budget pressures facing the Council

 

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (17)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (39)

 

In debating the budget as originally moved and seconded the following main points were made:

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

·         This budget provided vital funds for highways infrastructure, congestion, railway stations, the public realm and SEND and benefited all residents in the county

·         The budget not only balanced the books but was compassionate, strategic, principled, and delivered the wishes of the public. The congestion fund would have a particularly positive impact to the welfare of local residents

·         The investment in capital, growth and income creation was particularly important for the future prosperity of the county

·         The inclusion of the A38/A104 junction in the capital programme was welcomed to ease congestion and benefit the local economy

·         The capital investments at Malvern Science Park particularly in relation to the 5G initiative, the Worcester 6 project and walking/cycling bridges including the proposed Kepax bridge and refurbishment of the Sabrina Bridge, Worcester were welcomed

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the future aim of the Council was to become self-sufficient and grow the economy. This was particularly important with the forthcoming 75% business rates retention project.  The Council should lobby the Government to ensure that budget pressures in the NHS were linked to Adult Social Care and adequately funded by the Government. The two-tier system worked well for the county. There was a risk that creating a unitary authority would diminish the provision of discretionary services at a local level as well as the cost of change. The Council had the balance right in terms of the level of Council Tax as one of the lowest in the country and the increases suggested by opposition groups would impact greatly on local residents. The budget was concerned with investment for the future, reforming services and making best use of technologies to ensure that the Council was fit for the future.

 

Comments made against the proposal included:

 

·         The strain on the Adult Social Care budget and the fact that the Government had failed to provide a national long-term solution had led to the budgetary problems facing the Council. This would continue to be an issue until the Government recognised the cost to the Council of people living longer and needing more help,

·         The administration had chosen to be a Council Tax champion rather than take advantage of the available funding necessary for service provision

·         The potential for savings from the creation of a unitary authority was being ignored

·         There was little point in the Government putting extra funding into the NHS without providing appropriate support for Adult Social Care. The Government should be lobbied to introduce the Adult Social Care Green Paper at the earliest opportunity.

 

On a named vote RESOLVED that:

 

a)   the budget requirement for 2019/20 be approved at £330.390 million as set out at Appendix 1b having regard to the proposed Transformation and Reforms programme set out in Appendix 1c;

 

b)   the Council Tax Band D equivalent for 2019/20 be set at £1,260.75 which includes £90.83 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £264.428 million, which will increase the Council Tax Precept by 3.99% in relation to two parts:

 

o   2.99% to provide financial support for the delivery of outcomes in line with the Corporate Plan 'Shaping Worcestershire's Future' and the priorities identified by the public and business community

o   1% Adult Social Care Precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care services in order to contribute to existing cost pressures due to increases in demand-led Social Care;

 

c)    the Capital Strategy 2019-22 and Capital Programme of £397.510 million be approved as set out at Appendix 1D and 1E respectively;

d)   the earmarked reserves schedule as set out at Appendix 2 be approved;

e)    the Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators set out at Appendix 5 be approved; and

f)     the Council’s Pay Policy Statement set out in Appendix 6 be approved.

 

[NB Appendices referred to are those presented to 31 January 2019 Cabinet]

 

Those voting in favour were Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Dr C Hotham, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (40)

 

Those voting against were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall. (15)

 

Supporting documents: