Agenda item

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; and

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken.

 

The Council had before it a detailed report on the 2021/22 Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan Update 2022-24, which Cabinet had considered on 30 January 2020 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 4 February 2020.

 

The Leader of the Council 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 thanked all those involved in producing the budget over a short period of time. This budget built on the sound financial base maintained throughout the last financial year whereby even in the face of a serious and sustained health emergency and despite the issues associated with the pandemic, a small underspend at the end of year outturn had been predicted. The Council had also set aside additional expenditure of £80m which had been matched by Government Grant to do whatever was needed to proactively respond to issues associated with the Covid pandemic. The net budget of £350.2m had been set against the back-drop of rising income, albeit not as fast as expected due to the impact of the pandemic on the Council Tax base, and continued adult and social care pressures.

 

The Leader added that the budget sought to do three key things. Firstly, it aimed to protect the most vulnerable members of society providing further resources for demand-led Adult Social Care (a rise of £11m) and Children’s Social Care (a rise of £7.7m). This was on top of previous budget increases and now accounted for 70% of the overall budget.

 

Secondly, investment in facilities that the public had identified as of most need including tacking congestion, roads and pavement improvements and public transport. This year’s Viewpoint Survey had also identified flood defence and access to the countryside as key issues for the Council to address. It was therefore proposed to continue with the £10m cutting congestion programme to benefit Kidderminster, Bromsgrove, Evesham and the A38 junction at Upton, continue the £200k investment in bus services and invest a further £6m to improve roads and £4m on pavements which would provide a high quality road network for all users. A further £2.5m would be provided for flood mitigation and highways drainage and £500k for the Bewdley flood defence scheme. £2.5m would be invested in LED street lighting. 150k trees would be planted over the next five years. The capital budget for public rights of way and access to the countryside would be more than doubled with £100k set aside for maintenance and revenue.

 

Thirdly, the budget sought to support recovery, working with the LEP, Midlands Connect and district councils. It sought to replenish the Open for Business reserves, support the roll out of Superfast Broadband, build on the success of Malvern Hills Science Park and Worcester Six development as part of the next generation economic game-changer programme and with a £20m investment in train stations and the regeneration of land around them. It provided £300k for the most vulnerable members of society so that hardship funds would be available through district councils for those struggling to pay their Council Tax. It also supported partner organisations working on the high street and town projects. There were also a number of road infrastructure projects supported.

 

He added that the budget balanced the need for additional resources against the public’s ability to pay therefore only a 2.5% increase in Council Tax was proposed. The proposed increase was one of the lowest of upper tier authorities in the region and amongst the lowest 25% of all county councils in the country. It was important to provide value for money for Council Taxpayers at a time when local residents most needed the Council’s support. The Government had allowed the Council to balance its collection fund over three years and provided support to cover 75% of irrecoverable losses as well as another £11.4m of Covid support and extra adult support grant.

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care commented that despite various levels of support received from the Government, the Council remained in emergency mode. It was therefore not appropriate to take all the Adult Social Care precept at this stage because the precept existed to address issues associated with demographic change rather than for emergency provision. In addition, the Council should press ahead with its Adult Social Care reform plans. The Council planned an ambitious efficiency drive of £7m, together with an increased business rate take and a judicious use of reserves which meant that the Council had set one of the lower Council Tax rates in the midlands. As a result an extra £11.5m had been made available for Adult Social Care for independent living as well as a £2m transformation fund programme for working with the community and voluntary sector

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways highlighted this Council’s commitment to improving the road network with increased expenditure on footways and highways, highways infrastructure including street lighting, gulleys and highways drainage for this and the following year. Resident’s surveys had highlighted congestion as the main issue of concern and this Council was on the way to being in the top quartile for the condition of its roads and pavements by next year. In recognition of the importance of walking, the public rights of way budget had been doubled to £1m. The number of inspectors had been increased from eight to ten to deal with issues associated with the work undertaken by utility companies

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Environment commented that improving the environment was a universal thread running through the budget. In particular, he highlighted the extra investment in LED street lighting, the purchase of green electricity, the flood mitigation funding, particularly the schemes in Bewdley and Tenbury, the natural networks and tree planting creating biodiversity corridors throughout Worcestershire, and changes to high streets and congestion reduction. All these factors would have an impact on reducing the county’s carbon footprint

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families indicated that the Children Social Care budget would increase by £7.7m with a further £1.1 in reserve to guard against the rising cost of children coming into care. Worcestershire Children’s Services was an improved and improving service and there had been a massive transformation away from bringing children into care towards a strengthening families approach. This approach represented a long-term investment and the budget supported that. The Council was well-prepared to keep children safe

·         The increase in expenditure on public rights of way would be of great benefit to all residents in the county and the LED lighting programme would improve the county’s carbon footprint

·         Officers should be congratulated for the work undertaken to produce this budget despite operating in a remote environment. The investment in technology to support remote working and associated environmental benefits was welcomed. The Council should review its current working arrangements to use this blueprint as a way for the Council to operate going forward

·         The Council had heeded the advice of the overview and scrutiny panels and increased the level of investment in highways, footways, streetlighting and flood mitigation. In particular, investment in the public rights of way network structures was welcomed. Communities were urged to use available funding to establish Countryside Access Volunteer Groups

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities welcomed the support for the “Here to Help” initiative and thanked the volunteers who had come forward to support the most vulnerable in society. She also welcomed additional funding for pavements, smaller highways projects and the Malvern Science Park

·         The Chairman of the Adult Care and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Panel welcomed the extra £11.5m funding available for Adult Services to meet demand-led pressures, helping people to live in their own homes with the help of assisted technology. The Council continued to lobby Government for a long-term solution to the Adult Social Care funding shortfall

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills commented that over the course of the implementation of the National Funding Formula parameters by the Government, the Council had received an extra £54m for children in Worcestershire. In total, when the increases by district councils, the Fire Authority and parish councils were factored in, the Council Tax for a Band D property would increase by £65 per annum

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning commented that the budget supported Worcestershire residents, businesses and communities. The investment in Superfast Broadband was particularly welcomed to further improve connectivity in local communities

·         The CIPFA report in 2017 had predicted a deficit for this Council of £60.1m by 2021 and yet the Council would break even by the end of the financial year which undermined the report’s credibility.

 

Comments made against the proposed budget included:

 

·         It was important to differentiate between capital and revenue expenditure. Although the additional funding for capital projects was welcomed, this expenditure came out of the revenue budget which was in difficulty. There was a £74m deficit in the budget with no plans to recover the funds. Despite this, there were no plans to increase Council Tax to the governmental recommended level. The Council had not taken into account the concerns about the funding gap associated with Council Tax, Adult Social Care and medium to long term planning set out in the findings of the CIPFA report in 2017

·         There had been massive budgetary reductions to the council’s domiciliary care services over the last decade. The Chief Officer of Crossroads Worcestershire had stated that the true cost of providing the domiciliary care service outweighed the amount the Council was paying and decisions on the service had been based on finance rather than quality of service. There were huge financial pressures and financial deficits were forecast. Service providers had stated that the Council was not funding them sufficiently to provide a decent level of service provision. Despite this, the Council was not proposing to take the full amount of the available precept

·         It was unclear how the proposed reduced spending on mental health service provision was meant to address the findings of the Health and Well-being Board’s needs assessment report produced in November 2020 concerning the impact of the pandemic, particularly on suicide rates, boredom, anxiety, stress, low mood and social isolation.

 

An amendment was moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski proposing:

 

Amendment: Investing in social care rehabilitation and our social care workers

	Amendment 1
Liberal Democrat Group Revenue Budget Amendment Proposals 2021/22	£ million	£  million
Income – additional 0.5% ASC Precept:
·         The Group proposes that it will raise additional income by further increasing the Adult Social Care Precept to 1.5%, instead of the 1% proposed by Cabinet. The additional income will increase the base budget of Adult Services budget and this will be used in part (£0.250 million) to allow a redistribution of Cabinet’s proposed split of the Social Care Grant between Adults and Childrens (see Appendix 1) to spending across Adults and Children’s services as set out below.		-1.4
Expenditure - investment in the following areas:
·         Community Reablement provision – whilst the Group understands provision has been made available for continued reablement, we are concerned that more could be needed as the full impact of COVID is realised and instead of the potential need to draw from reserves the Group want to put a recurring increase for this base budget. We also are of the view this will reduce further demand and cost in future years.   ·         Support for Social Workers – our Group recognises the amazing work undertaken by our Adults and Children’s Social Workers over the last year in response to the pandemic. We are aware that they have not always been able to get the break they deserve. As such we want to be able to increase the funding for support and ancillary workers to enable those social workers to re-energise and take time out and also if funding allows further develop opportunities in order that they can continue their fantastic work well into the future. We propose an initial split of 50:50 of the allocation between Adults and Childrens for setting the budget, but delegate to the Director of People and the Chief Executive WCF & Director of Childrens Services (Interim) the final allocation based on their assessment of need.	0.9             0.5
Net Total Impact 2021/22	1.4	-1.4
Balance / gap		0

 

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; Comments made in support of the amendment included:

 

·         This proposed amendment would save more money that it would cost to implement. An extra Adult Social Care levy of £0.5m was proposed which would add £6.55 per annum to a Band D property Council Tax bill. It would hugely improve the quality of life of covid victims and would recognise the work undertaken by social workers, both in Children’s and Adult Social Care. Social workers had given up their leave commitment to dedicate their time to their clients and this funding would enable the provision of support staff to enable them to take their breaks and re-energise, enhance professional development and look after their health and well-being. A further £900k was proposed for the Adult Reablement service providing an extra 330 support packages per annum to enhance covid victims’ quality of life and thereby saving the Council money by reducing the cost of their future care packages

·         If half of residents who could be supported by this proposed additional funding for the Adult Reablement service remained in their homes then based on an average weekly cost of £650, it would save the Council £5.5m per annum

·         The number of Adult and Children’s Social Care staff carrying forward over 10 days of annual leave into the next financial year was considerable. In addition, 25% of Adult Social Care staff and 20% of Children’s Social Care staff had taken sick leave during the year

·         The number of people awaiting operations was predicted to rise to 10m as a result of the impact of covid which would put further pressure on the Adult Social Care service

·         This additional funding could be used to employ full-time social workers rather than agency staff so the team was big enough to allow staff to take their full leave entitlement

·         The amendment should be supported although a direct increase in Council Tax rather than to the precept would have allowed the Council more flexibility in terms of the use of these funds.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care commented that it was proposed to use the Adult Social Care precept in the next financial year. The treatment of Covid was a matter for the CCGs and the NHS to deal with. The precept was not being taken this year because it was intended to target funding in the most efficient way to benefit service users to address demographic change rather than emergency issues. The amendment anticipated a back-filling of work by agency staff but there was no knowledge of the availability or quality of such staff. In addition, there would be concerns about a lack of continuity in staffing

·         The Leader of the Council indicated that this amendment would reduce the flexibility of the Council to use its precept in future years, particularly given the level of uncertainty about funding at present. He acknowledged the work of all staff during the pandemic and the point made about the ability for staff to meet service demands but also taking their leave entitlement in such an exceptional year but that was not a matter for this budget debate. There was a balance to be struck between the financial pressures on the Council and the cost to Council Taxpayers and their ability to pay in very difficult financial circumstances. There were other means to address one-off resource pressures as a result of the pandemic.

 

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

 

Those in favour of the motion were: Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr T A L Wells. (7)

 

Those against the motion were: Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, Mr K Daisley, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, 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 C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (36)

 

Those abstaining were: Ms P Agar, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Ms C M Stalker, Mr R M Udall (8)

 

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

 

“This Council calls on the government to fund the equivalent of a 1.5% increase in Council Tax and a 2% increase in Adult Social Care costs for Worcestershire from central funds.”

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; Comments made in support of the amendment included:

 

·         In these exceptional circumstances, it was not right that local Council Taxpayers should be asked to pay more. The costs of the pandemic should be met from central taxation which more fairly reflected an individual’s ability to pay. Any increase in the rate of Council Tax was in effect a covid tax. The growing burden of Adult Social Care was a national issue and the cost was being placed on local Council Taxpayers as a result of the Government’s failure to resolve it

·         The Government had removed subsidies to local councils and considering the amount of money wasted by the Government during the pandemic, it could afford to provide additional local funding for services impacted by the pandemic

·         The Council was proposing to increase Council Tax at a time that many of the most vulnerable people in the country were struggling financially as a result of the pandemic

·         A national solution to fairer funding was even more urgent in the current circumstances. It was clear that the Administration’s attempts to lobby the Government for fairer funding had failed. If every local council sought this additional funding, it might bring about a national solution to the funding crisis.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The amendment was unnecessary as the Council had and would continue to lobby the Government for fairer funding. To ask the Government to fund this Council’s Council Tax increase was fanciful and if all councils took the same approach, the total governmental spend would be immense

·         It was difficult to justify to local residents that there was a difference between local and national taxation as both took money from their pockets. Local taxation determined by locally elected councillors was preferable to national taxation

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the Council had received the final financial settlement from the Government and there was no further opportunity to change it so the Council’s base budget was now set. This amendment would not freeze Council Tax for this financial year. This amendment was about lobbying the Government and it that respect it was unambitious in its demands. This amendment did not allow for any additional funding within the budget. It failed to recognise the additional funding that the Council had received from the Government. There was a danger in the future that the role of local government would become an agent of central government. This amendment was not about Adult Social Care funding or the pandemic but about local taxation versus national taxation.

 

The Chairman advised that as the amendment was not an amendment to the budget, it did not require a named vote. However, he had received the requisite number of requests for a named vote to be held on this amendment in advance of the meeting.

 

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

 

Those in favour of the motion were: Ms P Agar, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall (10)

 

Those against the motion were: 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, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, Mr K Daisley, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, 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 A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (36)

 

Those abstaining were: Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr T A L Wells (5)

 

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

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

·         The Leader of the Council commented that this was a balanced and sustainable budget which met the Council’s priority aims with one of the lowest Council Tax increases in the region. He acknowledged that there were gaps in future funding but pointed at the controlling group’s record at resolving these issues whilst improving services. It was important for this Council to lobby Government not only in respect of fairer funding but also for demand-led services such as Adult Social Care. That was a debate for the future, not this year’s budget. Despite this being one of the toughest years for the Council, an underspend was proposed in the budget.

 

Comments made against the proposed budget included:

 

·         There was a £75m funding gap (£32m in 2022/23 and £43m in 2023/24) in the budget from 2022-24 and it was queried how the deficit would be covered, what services would be cut, the size of the Council Tax increase next year and the year after. There was a lack of investment in school buildings, youth service, and the promotion of cycling. It was queried why an increase in the Adult Social Care Precept of 2% was not proposed given the confidence expressed in the Government finding a solution to the funding crisis. The proposed 1% increase was not sufficient. The budget did nothing to tackle climate change or narrow the pay gap with neighbouring councils

·         There needed to be more regard to green and climate change issues such as Active Travel in the budget

·         The controlling group had placed a lower priority on the lives of vulnerable people whilst boasting about a low Council Tax rise. It should be noted that a large amount of the savings made had been achieved through technical changes to accounting practices.

 

On a named voteRESOLVEDthat:

 

(a)   the budget requirement for 2021/22 be approved at £355.531 million as set out at Appendix 1B, having regard to the proposed Transformation and Reforms programme set out in section 9 of the report;

 

(b)   the Council Tax Band D equivalent for 2021/22 be set at £1,343.83 which includes £129.15 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £285.219 million, which will increase the Council Tax Precept by 2.50% in relation to two parts:

o   1.50% 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   1.00% Adult Social Care Precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care services in order to contribute to existing cost pressures due to Worcestershire's ageing population;

(c)  the Capital Strategy 2021-24 and Capital Programme of £391.645 million be approved as set out at Appendix 1C and 1D and section 8 of the report;

(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 4 be approved; and

(f)     the Council’s Pay Policy Statement set out at Appendix 5 be approved.

 

Those in favour of the motion were: 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, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, Mr K Daisley, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, 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 A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (36)

 

Those against the motion were: Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs E B Tucker (3)

 

Those abstaining were: Ms P Agar, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Dr C Hotham, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (11)