Agenda item

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

The Constitution Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.  Members are asked to note that these procedure rules are subject to amendment, following review by Members & Democratic Services Group with the changes to be submitted for approval under Agenda Item 8.

Councillor Lavender introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

1.         Concerns were identified in relation to the following aspects of the Council’s 2014/15 budget consultation process:

a.         The lack of forward financial planning and focus beyond 2014/15, given the announcement in the Chancellors Autumn Statement relating to local government spending and the provision of longer term indicative statements.  It was felt these provided a greater level of financial certainty than reflected in the budget consultation documents.

b.         The failure to outline, in detail, clear plans to deliver a balanced budget and need to include within the budget setting report and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) sufficient details in relation to 2015/16 and beyond on:

·                the level of income, expenditure and future risks;

·                the necessary reserves and provisions to enable the Council to be satisfied that the 2014/15 budget established a sustainable platform for the provision of services in future years.

c.         The need to ensure that sufficient provision was identified to fund all schemes within the Capital Programme, in order to:

·                eliminate any double counting or funding gap in the programme;

·                avoid schemes being added (such as Palmers Green Library) towards the end of the current Administrations term of office without the necessary funding source having been confirmed, planned for and included within the MTFP; and

·                ensure delivery of the programme in a planned way without schemes being delayed or not progressed.

2.         Whilst the negative impact of the Government’s damping mechanism was recognised, it was felt that the increased level of Government funding being provided through specific funding streams and grants in relation, for example, to education and the New Homes Bonus also needed to be acknowledged.

3.         The need to acknowledge and outline detailed plans to address the £66m gap identified as a result of the longer term indicative financial statements in relation to the planning and delivery of Enfield’s MTFP over the next 4 years.  A quick review of the consultation being undertaken in other boroughs had identified how this was being undertaken with proposals linked to a focus on service delivery and priorities.

As a result the Opposition Group were looking for more detail and transparency within the Council’s budget consultation process and MTFP in relation to the plans for addressing the budget gap identified and prudent delivery of a balanced budget.

Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

1.         The need to recognise the unprecedented level of cuts in local government funding implemented by the coalition Government, which the current Administration had been required to manage.

2.         The view expressed within the Opposition Business paper that there was now more financial certainty within local government was challenged, with specific uncertainties highlighted in relation to:

·                the ongoing impact of the current economic downturn, particularly on the more vulnerable members of the local community and in the removal of significant spending power within the local economy as well as on business rate yield and interest rate movements;

·                the impact of changes in relation to delivery of Health Services and introduction of the Government’s welfare reform programme;

·                the more limited flexibility created locally by the increased provision of ring fenced grants by the coalition Government as funding mechanisms;

·                the demographic changes in population.

3.         The plans, taking account of the uncertainties identified, for the current Administration to take a robust, sensible and decisive approach towards the planning and delivery of its MTFP.  At the same time the approach adopted would be sensitive to the needs of local residents and more vulnerable members of society.

4.         The limited long term proposals provided within the final MTFP produced by the last Conservative led Administration in 2010.

5.         The need to recognise the achievement of the current Administration in delivering its efficiency saving targets (totalling £96m) and maintaining a freeze in the level of Council Tax whilst also recording record levels of customer satisfaction, despite:

a.         the impact of the damping mechanism on the funding formula grant allocation; and

b.         the ideological views of the coalition Government in relation to local government and the magnitude of financial pressures and impact of funding reductions imposed.

As a result the Leader advised that the current Administration intended to set out in as much detail as possible, given the level of uncertainty identified, a robust and sensible approach towards delivery of its MTFP.

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

(a)       concerns were expressed by members of the Opposition Group in relation to:

·                the limited detail and options provided within the budget consultation document relating to plans within the MTFP to address the budget gap identified from 2015/16 onwards;

·                the need to ensure that clear and transparent plans were developed to address the budget gap identified and sufficient detail was provided on the available options and impact in terms of service delivery, as part of the final budget setting and MTFP report, in order to ensure that the public were suitably informed;

·                the blame being focussed on the current Government, given the financial legacy inherited from the previous Labour Government, current levels of funding being provided and what was felt to be the increased level of financial certainty as a result of the Chancellor’s Autumn statement;

(b)       the need identified by the Opposition Group to recognise the healthy financial position which the Council’s current Labour Administration had inherited as a result of the strong financial management of the previous Conservative Administration.

(c)       The need identified by members of the Majority Group:

·                for the debate to focus on the issues identified within the Opposition Business Paper;

·                to recognise, in terms of the previous Administration’s financial planning, that not all projects inherited within the MTFP had been funded e.g. Meridian Water Development and other Regeneration schemes which were now being followed through and delivered;

·                to develop and target delivery of the MTFP around a clear set of priorities and projections, which the consultation process had been designed to assist with, and avoid the approach of imposing blanket budget reductions across all services.  This approach would need to take account of emerging issues such as the new growth deal and increasing level of financial devolution in relation to Government funding streams;

·                to recognise the real impact of the current level of budget reductions by Central Government and plan for the delivery of services on a sensible and responsible long term basis as demonstrated through the Council’s approach towards its strategic economic planning involving – improvements to rail transport infrastructure; development of a decentralised energy network, delivery of improvements in business IT infrastructure and supply chain networks etc.  It was felt this had demonstrated a real and long term commitment to local industries with the level of unemployment in Enfield falling more quickly than that nationally.

Councillor Lavender summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group by highlighting what he felt was a need to focus on the financial position faced by the Council and development of clear plans to address the budget gap identified within the MTFP.  He felt there was a lack of clarity within the current budget consultation proposals with more detail needed in terms of the plans being developed and their impact on service delivery moving forward.  In addition it was felt more recognition was needed about the level of funding and support already being provided by central Government, particularly in relation to the economic development activities highlighted during the debate.

The Opposition Group were therefore requesting that clear details were provided within the budget setting report and MTFP on plans to deliver a balanced budget and ensure that the 2014/15 budget established a sustainable platform for the provision of services in future years.

In response Councillor Taylor highlighted what he felt were a number of inconsistencies within comments made by members of the Opposition Group during the debate, with specific reference to the level of Government funding and budget reductions faced by the Council.  He confirmed that the final budget and MTFP would be forward looking and would provide a clear indication of the risks and pressures faced by the Council as a basis for ensuring that a balanced budget was delivered over the next four years which, whilst robust was also sensitive to the need of local residents.

The recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper were not, therefore, approved.  No vote was requested by the Leader of the Opposition on the outcome of the debate.