Agenda item

To receive the report of the Executive Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services presenting for approval the Budget for 2018/19 and Medium Term Financial Plan (General Fund).                     (Report No: 145A)

(Key Decision – Reference No: 4597)

 

Members are asked to note that:

 

·            Recommendations 2.1 – 2.13 are due to be endorsed and recommended onto Council for formal approval, by Cabinet on 14 February 2018.

 

·            The report will need to be considered in conjunction with Report No: 152A on the Part Two Council agenda.

Councillor Taylor moved and Councillor Lemonides seconded the report of the Executive Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (145A) presenting for approval the Budget for 2018/19 and the Medium Term Financial Plan. 

 

NOTED

 

1.          Recommendations 2.1 – 2.11 had been endorsed and recommended onto Council for formal approval by Cabinet on 14 February 2017.

 

2.          The report would need to be considered in conjunction with Report No:  152A on the Part 2 Council agenda (Min 17 refers).

 

3.          The addendum to the report provided to members of the Council as the report as originally published inadvertently included two recommendations (recommendations 2.12 and 2.13), that were decisions taken by Cabinet when it last met (14 February 2018) and are not decisions to be taken by Council.

 

4.          The tabled note setting out how the discussion of the item would be considered at the meeting

 

5.     The following comments highlighted by the Leader of the Council:

 

a.          The Leader thanked officers for all their hard work in putting together the balanced budget proposed. 

 

b.          He welcomed the Government’s fair funding review and the pilot business rate retention pool, as steps to providing possible solutions to the large funding gap which the Council was facing from 2020 onwards, but he was concerned that the Government, when allocating funding was prioritising Conservative areas, rather than focussing on the needs of the poor, vulnerable and those at risk. 

 

c.           He felt that it was an extraordinary budget as the Labour administration had managed to navigate austerity and massive funding cuts, whilst preserving services and imposing minimal Council tax rises.  He would have liked to do more, but the Tory Government wanted to shrink public provision. 

 

d.          The Council had been very efficient and had managed to do more with less, but this had been at a price of reducing salaries, less cover for checking work, removal of the best of the last Labour Government initiatives supporting vulnerable residents, cutting their life chances.  He felt that the Government were to blame if this led to dirtier streets, lack of road repairs, closure of libraries and greater risk to children. 

 

e.          To recognise that many councils were struggling, Conservative Northamptonshire had been tipped over the edge, local government finances were close to unsustainable.  Fifty percent cuts to Children’s Services’s funding had become the norm.  Councils were having difficulty carrying out their statutory duties. All public services were in trouble - 2010-2018 would be known as the dark ages of social regression:

 

f.            In his view the only way to address this crisis would be to elect a Labour Government.

 

g.          The proposed budget showed efficiency in its allocation of resources, clear priorities in children’s services, adult social care, the public realm and customer services, and a back office fit for purpose.  It also showed innovation and would be a good foundation for the coming financial year.  However he feared that there would be even greater challenges for the two years ahead. 

 

h.          This year the administration had been able to provide additional resources for children’s services (including setting up a new Special Educational Needs school on the old Michenden site), adult social services, roads and pavements, to further develop regeneration, estate renewal and infrastructure projects.  He was proud of their track record. 

 

i.             His colleagues would further make the case for Labour values of diversity, fairness, equality, opportunity and community.

 

j.            He was not ashamed of increasing the Council Tax and of using the social care precept whilst keeping the Council tax as low as possible to pay for these services. He would not neglect the poor and vulnerable or put citizens at risk.  

 

5.          Councillor Taylor moved and Councillor Lemonides seconded an amendment to add an additional recommendation to the report, recommendation 12, which set out how any additional income received as part of the London Pilot Business Rates Pool would be allocated.  Areas to benefit would include children’s services, council tax benefit welfare reserve, the Town Centre Fund, investment in broadband for business, crime reduction, environmental and street scene improvements.  More detail was set out in the table attached to the recommendation at the end of this item.  The amounts in column B would be spent early in the 2018/19 financial year and those in column A later in the year, following confirmation of the funding.  The details of the expenditure would be subject to later Cabinet reports. 

 

6.          Councillor Laban moved and Councillor Smith seconded an amendment to divide recommendation 2.1 (ii) in two so that setting the 2% Adult Social Care Precept was a separate recommendation. 

 

7.          Councillor Laban moved and Councillor Smith seconded an amendment proposing an alternative budget for 2018/19 with additional savings. 

 

8.          A debate took place on the substantive report and all three amendments. 

 

9.          The comments of the Majority Group: 

 

a.          The budget papers set out how the Labour administration had invested for the future and created a Council that was lean and fit for purpose, ready for the challenges ahead. 

 

b.          Any increase in the Council tax was not welcome, but there was no choice.  Additional money raised would be spent wisely and carefully and universal services would continue to be provided.  It would be hard work and tough decisions would be needed. Although, the Council’s balances were not as healthy as they once were, finances were sound and financial management was strong. 

 

c.           To acknowledge that there were inaccuracies in the Opposition’s proposed budget and a lack of detail on how they would manage, for example, the £13.5m cuts for next year.

 

d.          To acknowledge that most of the borrowing was capitalised and could not be spent on revenue, that the administration could not set their own borrowing targets and the Council was working on new structures to decrease the use of consultants:  it took time for new initiatives to take effect. 

 

e.          To recognise that experts had said that there would be a £2 billion shortfall in Children’s Services by 2020.  This was as well as rising numbers of vulnerable residents (including asylum seekers) and an increasing number of new duties being imposed by Government, without extra funding. The Council would continue to focus on its statutory duties, was proud of its achievements in Children’s Services: maintaining the highest standards in youth provision, improving the Children’s Centres’ offer whilst making savings, receiving good Ofsted judgements, building a new Special Educational Needs School, receiving a quality mark for the Youth Offending Service and continuing to work with the voluntary sector.  

 

f.            The administration valued the joint working it had with the voluntary sector and had worked hard to protect it by securing joint funding from external agencies and encouraging the building of strong communities. 

 

g.          To recognise that the previous Conservative Administration had, when in power, increased the Council Tax by 26%, the highest in London.  The view that a Conservative administration would not protect the working classes, the poor, the homeless or the unemployed. 

 

h.          To understand that Enfield had endured £161m worth of cuts since 2010 with a further £35m proposed by 2020. 

 

i.             Disbelief that a Conservative administration would remove the cycle lanes as suggested by Councillor Smith in the Enfield Independent as this would be very expensive and could result in the Council having to repay Transport for London. 

 

j.            To recognise that the cuts caused by Tory austerity had had a terrible impact and that it was untrue that the country could not afford to fund public services.  A £2.5 billion funding gap in adult social care was a record to be ashamed of.  In contrast the Labour administration had much to be proud of including the introduction of independent living allowances, direct payments, reduction in delayed discharges from hospital, support for learning disabilities, to the voluntary sector, introduction of a new commissioning process, a clear focus on evidence based outcomes and improvements in safeguarding. 

 

k.           To acknowledge the improvements in public health, encouraging residents to move more, increasing attendances at leisure centres, support for those suffering from drug and alcohol addiction, provision of world class facilities including the new Silverpoint sexual health clinic, £12m to support victims of domestic violence and 16 extra community police officers. 

 

l.             To regret the decimation of local authorities by Government cuts and reflect on the numbers of excellent officers who have left the authority and including at agencies such as Jobsnet. 

 

m.        To recognise the work that had been done over the last 8 years of the Labour administration.  There are now no vacant industrial estates in the borough, many new jobs had been created, redevelopment of the Montague Estate begun, Energetik created, 380 independent artisans given space at Building Bloqs.  The borough was in a much improved economic state.  This was thanks to the work of officers under Ian Davis and James Rolfe. 

 

10.       The following issues highlighted by the Opposition Group:

 

a.          The alternative budget set out in amendment 3, devised by the opposition, prepared with the help of finance officers.  (The officers were thanked for their work).  The extra funding released from the additional savings proposed would be prioritised for roads maintenance, introducing a weekly food waste collection which the Council will have a statutory duty to provide, abolishing the charge for large recycling bins, reversing the voluntary sector savings agreed by the administration and providing Christmas cheer with a proper budget for Christmas lights. 

 

b.          To recognise that the overall cuts in public spending were due to the failing Labour administration which had been in charge since 2010 and the economic failures of the previous Labour Government.  In the Opposition’s view failings included the £29m spent on outside consultants including £9m on legal fees, the artificial intelligence which had not yet been implemented, the IT which was not comprehensive enough, the money wasted on the failed Meridian Water deal.  This could all have been spent on improving services for Enfield residents.

 

c.           The view that the administration should have made more savings earlier as they knew that Government funding was being withdrawn and that more should have been done to make better use of the money that was available.  They had spent too much on, what the Opposition considered vanity projects, such as cycle lanes. 

 

d.          To acknowledge concern about the huge increase in borrowing and debt and the practice of setting their own boundaries to borrowing allowances.  As at 31 December 2017, the Council had a borrowing total of £597m: debt had increased by £51m a year, equivalent to £1,820 a person; and the reserves had decreased. 

 

e.          To acknowledge that it was mostly a myth that the Council’s income had decreased. Overall, since 2014/15, the Council’s controllable expenditure had increased.  Although the revenue support grant had been removed, this was being replaced by allowing Council’s to retain more of their business rates.

 

f.            To recognise that the Opposition was providing cross party support for fairer funding and would support the Adult Social Care precept, but could not support overspends or increased borrowing. 

 

g.          The view that the more should be spent on road maintenance, street lighting, gully cleansing and pot holes, repairs to pavements, improving the street scene. 

 

h.          Concern about the increasing social care costs arising from the aging population.

 

i.             To acknowledge concern about the failure to take up the increased capital expenditure available to build new schools, the cuts to SEN transport, and concern that the Housing Gateway and Energetik companies would not meet projections. 

 

j.            To acknowledge that all money spent came from the taxpayer and had to be spent wisely, that it was good to force councils to become more efficient, to get rid of bloated bureaucracies and to achieve more with less. 

 

k.           Concern about the cuts to the Local Implementation Plan funding which could affect projects such as Cycle Enfield, the money would have to be found from somewhere else. 

 

11.       During the debate Councillor Stewart proposed and Councillor Taylor seconded a proposal to extend the time available for the budget debate by 15 minutes.  This was agreed without a vote. 

 

12.       Councillor Taylor’s right to reply on the first amendment creating an additional recommendation on the allocation of 40% of the additional funding from the London Business Rates Pilot pool. He dismissed the Opposition’s budget which he said showed no indication of where the additional funding would come from. 

 

13.       Councillor Laban’s right to reply on the opposition amendments, expressing the hope that the administration would support the proposal to divide recommendation 2.1 (ii) into two parts and that the administration would accept the alternative budget, including the provision for a weekly food waste collection. 

 

14.       Councillor Taylor’s summing up that it had been a Shakespearean night involving history, comedy and tragedy – mostly tragedy.  The Council’s core funding had declined, the population and social care demands had increased, but the Labour administration had produced a balanced budget and managed to improve services.  In 9 years they had only increased the Council tax by 5%. 

 

Following the debate, the recommendations in the report were put to the vote and approved with the following results.

 

AGREED

 

1.       With regard to the revenue budget for 2018/19:

 

(i) To set the Council Tax Requirement for Enfield at £121.079m   in 2018/19;

(ii) To set the Council Tax at Band D for Enfield’s services for 2018/19 at £1,261.17 (paragraph 8.1), being a 2.99% general Council Tax increase and a 2.00% Adult Social Care Precept.

(iii) To approve the statutory calculations and resolutions set out in Appendix 10 of the report.

 

2.       With regard to the Prudential Code and the Capital Programme:

 

(i)   To note the information regarding the requirements of the Prudential Code (section 9);

(ii) To agree the Approved Capital Programme for 2018/19 to 2021/22 as set out in section 9 (and Appendix 9). Also to note the Indicative Capital Programme and agree that these indicative programmes be reviewed in the light of circumstances at the time;

(iii) To agree the Prudential Indicators, the Treasury Management Strategy, the Minimum Revenue Provision policy and the criteria for investments set out in section 9 and Appendices 4 & 5 of the report.

 

3.       To approve the Medium Term Financial Plan, including the savings proposals set out in Appendix 2, and to adopt the key principles set out in paragraph 10.8 of the report.

 

4.       With regard to the robustness of the 2018/19 budget and the adequacy of the Council’s earmarked reserves and balances:

 

(i)   To note the risks and uncertainties inherent in the 2018/19 budget and the Medium Term Financial Plan (sections 10 & 11) and agrees the actions in hand to mitigate them;

(ii) To note the advice of the Executive Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services regarding the recommended levels of contingencies, balances and earmarked reserves (section 12) and have regard to the comments of the Executive Director (section 13) when making final decisions on the 2018/19 budget;

(iii) To agree the recommended levels of central contingency and general balances (section 12).

 

5.       To agree the Schools Budget for 2018/19 (Section 5.10 and Appendix 14).

 

6.       86m is applied as a one-off contribution to the General Fund in 2018/19.

 

10.     To agree the planned flexible use of capital receipts in 2017/18 of £6.7m and approve the planned flexible use of capital receipts in 2018/19 being £1.7m.

 

11.     To note the feedback and minutes from the Budget Consultation and Overview and Scrutiny Committee Budget Meeting on 18th              January 2018 as set out in Appendices 1a and 1b.

 

12.     In respect of the London Pilot Business Rates Pool the Council resolved as follows: -

 

a. To note that there may be additional business rates income in 2018/19 due to the operation of the London Pilot Business Rates Pool totalling an estimated £4.2m.

b. That £1.8m of the estimated £4.2m anticipated funding allocation be allocated in accordance with Column B of Table 1 (below) for use from early in the financial year 2018/19;

c.  That subject to the confirmation of the additional business rates funding and a further detailed report to Cabinet, the balance of £2.4m is allocated to the initiatives detailed in Column A of Table 1 (below).

 

BUSINESS RATE ADDITIONAL INCOME

 

In accordance with standing order regulations 2014 the vote was recorded in relation to the decisions in 1 (ii) & (iii), 2 (i), 4 (i) & (ii), 5, 9,10,11 & 12. 

 

For: 48

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Nesil Caliskan

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Pat Ekechi

Councillor Elif Erbil

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Ahmet Hasan

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against: 0

Abstentions:  0

 

The vote recorded in regard to recommendations: 2 (ii) & (iii), 3, 4 (iii), 6, and 8 was as follows: 

 

For:  29

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Nesil Caliskan

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Pat Ekechi

Councillor Elif Erbil

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Ahmet Hasan

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

 

Against:  0

 

Abstentions:  19

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

The vote recorded in regard to recommendations: 1 (i) & 2.7 was as follows: 

 

For:  29

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Nesil Caliskan

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Pat Ekechi

Councillor Elif Erbil

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Ahmet Hasan

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

 

Against:  19

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Abstentions:  0