Agenda item

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

 

a)    Report of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision by Council (Yellow pages) (To follow); and

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

 

All Councillors have access to the full Budget and Council Tax report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 8 February 2018.  Additional hard copies are in the Group rooms and Members' lounge or available on request.

The Council had before it a detailed report on the Budget for 2018-19, which the Cabinet had considered on 8 February 2018 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 8 February 2018.

 

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 budget papers were the culmination of nearly a year's work in consultation with partner organisations. He thanked all those who contributed including the detailed work of the OSPB and scrutiny panels and views made through extensive consultation exercise. The plans sought to address the budget gap by growing income, increasing Council Tax and business rates, better utilising assets and using capital rather than revenue funds where possible, and reforming the way the Council worked whilst delivering vital services and the investments that the public wished to see.

 

The Council's net budget was growing rather than shrinking. The Council faced challenges as a result of demands and costs growing faster than income. The Council remained a significant employer in the county and the Council should pride itself on the work undertaken by staff to deliver services. The budget provided the resources to continue to deliver the Council's ambitious Corporate Plan "Shaping Worcestershire's Future" and addressed issues highlighted by the public namely protecting vulnerable adults; improving roads and pavements; and cutting congestion.  

 

Demand-led services accounted for two thirds of the Council's spend and the proposals ensured that these services were adequately resourced with an extra £10.5m ongoing revenue funding allocated to Children's Social Care and £7.8m for Adult Social Care to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society were supported.

 

The budget included highways infrastructure capital investment of £37.5m. This committed an extra £3m pa for the next 3 years to ensure the county's roads and pavements were amongst the best in the country. The budget included investment in infrastructure to cut congestion and continue economic growth for example, the Pershore Northern Link Road, flood mitigation schemes, capital programme projects totalling £95m for 2018/19, and Government funded schemes such as, the Southern Link Road, walking/cycling routes in Bromsgrove, cutting congestion in Worcester City Centre, the Churchfields development in Kidderminster and Worcestershire Parkway. This programme would support the local economy which was one of the fastest growing in the country.

 

To fund this programme, it was necessary to increase Council Tax by approximately an extra £1 per week for an average Band D property. 3% of the rise in Council Tax would directly fund Adult Social Care. 1.94% would fund other highlighted proposals. He appreciated the difficulties this rise would cause for local taxpayers but emphasised that this Council remained one of the lowest Council Taxes in the country. He thanked all those who had lobbied the Government and noted the additional £1.5m received from the Government for Adult Social Care as a result.    

 

The seconder stated that this was a well-crafted and balanced budget delivering an extra £18.3m for Adult and Children's Social Care. The Government had listened to the Council's concerns about delivering a balanced budget without the need for additional transitional funding and recognised the Council's aim to eventually become self-sufficient. He welcomed the fairer funding review launched as part of the Local Government settlement, focusing on demand in the system. Key to that was the emerging Green Paper on Adult Social Care to address the need to balance demand for services against income. The budget included an ambitious reform programme which would be difficult to deliver but he emphasised the Council's need to operate efficiently to balance its budget.    

 

An amendment was moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Prof J W Raine proposing:

 

Council recognises that the funding of Adult Social Care is in national crisis and this is reflected within our county of Worcestershire. The failure of central government to respond to the rising demographic pressures is a disgrace.  It is left to us councillors to act to protect the more vulnerable members of our community.  Accordingly we propose that the (unfair) mechanism of council tax be used this year to raise an additional £2.3m - to be dedicated entirely to the base budget of Adult Social Care with the exception of £200k to be shared between the six districts local council tax support schemes.  This would be an increase of 1% on Council Tax (equivalent to an additional £11.55 pa at band D) over the Cabinet’s recommended budget.

The 2017 Group are proposing the following amendments that will not affect the

Revenue Budget as set out in the February 2018 Cabinet Report.

1)    An increase in the Base Budget for the Adult Social Care Directorate  of £2.1 million and

2)    An increase in the base budget of Commercial and Change/Finance of £200k to be distributed between the local council tax support schemes of Worcestershire’s six district councils which help households experiencing difficulty in paying their council tax.

3)    To be met by an increase in the proposed non-Adult Social Care Precept from 1.94% to 2.94%. 

Summary of Changes in the Net Revenue Budget £000	2018/19
An increase to the Adult Social Care Base Budget   An allocation of £200k for district council tax support schemes	2,100     200
To be met by
An increase to the proposed non-Adult Social Care Precept	(2,300)
Total	-

 

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

·         This amendment was aimed at addressing the huge underfunding in Adult Social Care which had received £32m less funds since 2010/11. Demand for Adult Social Care as a result of an aging population was reaching a tipping point and although the additional Government funding was welcomed, it did not solve the problem

·         The current Council Tax arrangements were unfair and disproportionately high for people on the lower taxation bands

·         The Government had permitted councils to increase their precept by a further 1% for Adult Social Care but this administration had chosen not to take advantage of this offer on the basis that it could claim to be a lower quartile Council Tax authority. It was recognised that an increase in Council Tax would be difficult for some taxpayers which was why it was proposed to provide extra support through the district council hardship funds

·         Many children received support from the Council through Children's Services up to the age 18. However, thereafter they were no longer eligible for support from adult services despite their needs remaining the same

·         The aging population had led to the added pressure of parents who had previously acted as carers now in need of care themselves. It was therefore important for the Council to act now and build its base budget in advance of further proposed budget reductions in the future

·         The Council had achieved a balanced budget this year by taking the full 3% precept from the Government. However next year the precept would be half that amount which immediately created a shortfall. The only way to address this shortfall was to take the extra 1% available this year as well as next year for Adult Social Care. 

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care indicated that the proposed amendment was premature given that the Council was rolling out an exciting reform programme in Adult Social Care which would change the way in which services were delivered to people whose need was acute. The Council was introducing the Three Conversations Model in response to the Care Act to provide more help for adults to maintain their independence. The Council was funding Adult Social Care through a number of channels including raising the Council Tax Precept by 3%, the Better Care Fund and the transitional grant

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the Council had to balance service user needs against the interests of Council Taxpayers. The Council was already increasing Council Tax by just under 5%. It should also be borne in mind that district councils, the Police and parish councils were proposing Council Tax increases. The key focus for the Council was to lobby the Government in relation to the Fairer Funding Formulae and the Green Paper on Adult Social Care.

 

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

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr T A L Wells (6)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mrs A T Hingley, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, 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 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. (38)

 

Those abstaining were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, 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 (9)

 

An amendment was then moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mr M E Jenkins proposing:

 

This amendment does not change the allocation for Adult Social Care or the Administration’s proposed Revenue Budget.  It proposes to raise Council Tax by an extra 1% while reducing the Adult Social Care precept by the same amount.  The advantage of this change is that it increases the potential for flexibility in the Adult Social Care precept from 1% to 2% of Council Tax in its third and final year.

 

We propose that Recommendation 1(d) be amended to reflect:

1)    An increase in the proposed non-Adult Social Care Council Tax Precept from 1.94% to 2.94%. 

2)    A decrease in the Adult Social Care Council Tax Precept from 3% to 2%

 

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

·         The proposed amendment would make no difference to the proposed budget or increased the financial burden on the taxpayer. The only difference was that the Council would be charging an extra 1% in Council Tax whilst only taking 2% of the 3% funding available as part of the Adult Social Care precept. The reason for this amendment was to allow the Council flexibility next year to consider whether or not to increase the precept by an extra 1% or 2%

·         It was difficult to reconcile the constitutional requirement to submit budget amendments a week in advance of the Council meeting with the muted response to them from the administration.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The problem with the proposed amendment was it committed the Council in next year's budget to a further increase in Council Tax of 5%.  The Council should not be regularly increasing Council Tax to the maximum possible amount

·         The Leader of the Council commented that this amendment would give Council Taxpayers the wrong message that it would continue to agree large Council Tax rises year on year. It would mean an increase of £115 on an average Band D property over the two year period.

 

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

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr T A L Wells (6)

 

Those voting against the amendment were Mrs A T Hingley, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, 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 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. (38)

 

Those abstaining were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, 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 (9)

 

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

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

·         The Council had a good long term financial strategy and the budget demonstrated the Council's commitment to address its financial position without being distracted by initiatives that did not provide sufficient reward for the effort. The budget focussed all available resources on making savings on returns and investments

·         It was hoped that the junction of the A38 with the A4104 would be included in the capital programme next year

·         The Cabinet Member for Highways indicated that the total spend for highways had increased from £33m last year to £51m this year. Highways and traffic congestion were key issues identified by the public therefore they had been treated as a top priority. The £31m investment in highways had been protected from budget reductions. The budget recognised that all forms of transport had a vital role in keeping the county moving

·         It was important to provide a balanced budget that demonstrated that the Council could provide services and protect the needs of the most vulnerable in society

·         The cost of providing a western bypass for Bromsgrove would be considerably more than the proposed improvements to the A38

·         The additional funds for Children's Services in the budget would be spent on improving services. The Government would be lobbied to seek additional funding to support the ADM

·         The exemption for care leavers from paying Council Tax was particularly welcomed

·         The investment in roads and pavements and Malvern Science Park was welcomed

·         The Leader of the Council concluded that the Council had a clear and robust plan for the future, using a mixed economy model based on outcomes to deliver value for money and efficiencies for the public. The economy was growing in the county and it was important to have the appropriate infrastructure to support that growth.

 

Comments made against the proposal included:

 

·         Council Tax had increased each year whilst service provision continued to be reduced

·         It was inappropriate that the needs of service users in Adult Social Care were being assessed over the telephone rather through home visits

·         The Council was obsessed with the outsourcing of services. On the occasions that this approach had failed, the Council had had to take provision back in-house. As a result, £6.1m of savings had not materialised from the outsourcing arrangements

·         The Council's budget had been reduced by £300m over an 8 year period. 1,500 members of staff had been lost over the last 5 years. These factors had had a consequential impact on the level of service provision. Despite this, the Council employed more officers earning over £100k pa than 4 years ago and continued to use its reserve to fund services

·         The Council did not have enough funds to safely provide services in future. Additional funding was being promised for adult and children's services, whilst other services were experiencing budget reductions

·         In the last year, the Council had failed to submit its accounts on time and driven a number of contracts into crisis

·         The Council should be looking to invest in a western bypass for Bromsgrove rather than invest further in the A38

·         Although the additional funding for Children's Services was welcomed in that it recognised the need to include the cost of placements in the base budget, the cost of the ADM was unknown at this stage and therefore the level of funding set aside in the budget would seem inadequate

·         The difficulties experienced by Northamptonshire County Council showed the unsustainability of expecting councils to meet demand without central government funding. The funding of Adult Social Care was a national issue and required Government rather than local funding

·         The concept of self-sufficiency did not recognise the fact that local taxpayers paid other taxes as well as Council Tax and would not be receiving their fair share of national funds from the Government.

 

On a named vote RESOLVED that:

 

a)    the conclusions set out in the report concerning revenue budget monitoring up to 30 November 2017 be endorsed;

b)    the virement and transfers to Earmarked Reserves in paragraph 28 to 30 be endorsed;

c)    the budget requirement for 2018/19 be approved at £324.192 million;

d)    the Council Tax band D equivalent for 2018/19 be set at £1,212.38 which includes £78.71 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £251.537 million;

e)    consistent with the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement that revenue cash limits be set for each Directorate:

£m Adult Services                                125.396 Public Health* -0.831 Children, Families and Communities 96.361 Economy and Infrastructure 63.544 Commercial and Change / Finance 39.722   324.192

* Public Health services budget £0.100 million less £0.931 specific grant income which supports qualifying expenditure across the County Council. The total Public Health ring fenced grant is £29.1 million.

f)     the Council's Pay Policy Statement is recommended for approval as set out in Appendix 6;

g)    the conclusions set out in the report concerning capital budget monitoring up to 30 November 2017 be endorsed;

h)    the capital programme as set out in Appendix 7 be approved;

i)     the Medium Term Financial Plan as set out in Appendix 8 be approved;

j)     the Treasury Management Strategy set out in Appendix 9 be approved;

k)    the Statement of Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Statement as set out in Appendix 10 be approved; and

l)     the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy revision be approved.

 

[NB Appendices referred to are those presented to 8 February 2018 Cabinet]

 

Those voting in favour were Mrs A T Hingley, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, 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 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. (39)

 

Those voting against were Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, 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, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (14)