Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Council Tax and Budget

(a)       Questions to the Leader

To last for a total of 15 minutes, the first 3 minutes available for announcements from the Leader.

 

(b)       Questions to the Cabinet Member for Finance

To last for a total of 15 minutes, the first 3 minutes available for announcements from the Cabinet Member.

 

(c)        Scrutiny Business Report

To last for a total of 10 minutes, the first 2 minutes available for announcements from the Chair of Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

 

(d)       Council Tax Debate

The mover of the budget recommendations shall have 10 minutes to speak, followed by the Leader of the Opposition who shall also have 10 minutes to speak. There shall then be five further Members from each group called to speak for no more than 3 minutes each. The debate shall conclude with a right of reply from the Leader of the Council or other Cabinet Member for not more than 5 minutes.

At the conclusion of the debate the following recommendations will be taken through a recorded vote:

I.          A 2.99% increase in the Council Tax for Croydon Services (a level of increase Central Government has assumed in all Councils’ spending power calculation).

 

II.         A 2.0% increase in the Adult Social Care precept (a charge Central Government has assumed all councils’ will levy in its spending power calculations).

 

III.        Welcomes the GLA increase of 5.07%, where over 81% of which is being used for the Police and 16% being used for the Fire service.

 

With reference to the principles for 2018/19 determined by the Secretary of State under Section52ZC (1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) confirm that in accordance with s.52ZB (1) the Council Tax and GLA precept referred to above are not excessive in terms of the most recently issued principles and as such to note that no referendum is required.  This is detailed further in the report.

 

Minutes:

At the start of the item Councillor Newman proposed, and Councillor Tim Pollard seconded, a motion that the consideration of the item move straight to the debate at section (d) of item six on the agenda.

 

The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

 

The Mayor therefore moved to the debate under section (d) of item six.

 

The Leader, moving the recommendations, thanked officers for working on a strong budget for Croydon. It included the most significant investment in young people in the borough for a decade, such as the announcement at Cabinet of the Youth Zone. The budget included campaigns for fairness and fighting injustice such as the London Living Wage, the white ribbon campaign against domestic violence, the landlord licensing scheme, and the commitment to fit sprinklers into the Council’s tower blocks. The administration had intervened to help residents affected by the universal credit reforms and had brought the borough’s libraries back into community control.

 

It was stated that these achievements were made despite the previous administration leaving Croydon with a £100million black hole in the Council’s finances, filthy streets and the borough’s Riesco collection sold off. It was stated that the new administration had turned this situation around and Croydon should never return to it.

 

It was further stated that the current administration had taken their share of responsibility for the Ofsted report’s findings of children’s services in Croydon, and the Leader claimed that the opposition had failed to take their share – such as cutting funding for youth services when they were in power, and abstaining to vote for more funding for vulnerable adults when in opposition.

 

The Leader stated that Croydon was now London’s growth borough which included successes such as large companies moving to Croydon, Crystal Palace Football Club committing to stay in Croydon for the long-term, the Westfield-Hammerson development becoming a reality, and hundreds of new affordable homes being built.

 

The Leader stated that culture in the borough had grown significantly under the current administration, with the redevelopment of Fairfield Halls being a significant example. The Leader stated he was confident that the proposed budget would maintain Croydon as London’s growth borough, whilst ensuring that all residents in Croydon would have the opportunity to benefit from the growth and securing the long term future of Croydon with stable finances.

 

Councillor Hall seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

 

Councillor Tim Pollard stated that the budget was a testimony to the failure of the administration. It was stated that the Leader attempted to blame the government cuts for everything whilst failing to mention government measures introduced to allow local authorities to source additional income streams. The reason for the government cuts, it was stated, was due to the Labour government’s spending and mismanagement of the economy.

 

Councillor Pollard stated that whilst the administration was calling for more funding it was not demonstrating a commitment to keep debt under control; the finances were out of control, with the Council failing to stick to its budgets such as in the People department. Key projects in the borough had been delayed and thus Council Tax was being raised to cover the missed revenue. It was announced that due to these errors by the administration, the opposition had no choice but to support the proposed rise in Council Tax so as to deal with the mess made of the finances by the administration.

 

Councillor Tim Pollard stated that the opposition, if elected, would re-introduce a free bulky waste collection. It would deliver on key issues such as affordable housing and bin collections. It was also stated that the opposition would make serious capital investments in the borough’s parks, including creating a super-park.  It was stated that the administration had failed Croydon.

 

 

Councillor Butler stated that the proposed budget would support homelessness prevention as well as delivering on much needed homes through Brick by Brick. This would be coupled with the landlord licensing scheme that was driving up standards in the private sector. The Council would continue to invest in improvements and repairs to its housing stock, including fitting sprinklers in the taller tower blocks. The administration would continue to lobby government on matters such as matched funding, the enforced rent reduction and to lift the cap on borrowing against the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). It was also stated that the Council should be allowed to choose how to spend its right to buy receipts.

 

Councillor Butler welcomed the investment earmarked for regeneration in the borough’s district centres and thanked the officers in the housing and gateway departments for the huge difference they had made for the residents of Croydon.

 

Councillor Hale stated that despite a housing crisis, the administration had not built one council house. It was claimed that Brick by Brick lacked transparency and had taken large sums of Council money and yet had not completed construction of one property as yet. It was further claimed that despite huge sums of money gained through the landlord licensing scheme, only two licences had actually been revoked and that there continued to be appalling conditions in the private sector. It was stated that despite the administration’s pledge on arts and culture, the Fairfield Halls opening had been delayed, the parks department had been severely cut, and Croydon had lost the Mayor of London’s borough of culture bid.

 

Councillor Ali stated that it was scandalous that government had failed to provide adequate funding for children’s services, and instead had placed the burden on residents through Council Tax. It was stated that the Mayor of London was doing everything he could to protect the Metropolitan Police from government austerity measures, using the precept and business rates to plug the huge funding gap left by government cuts. In addition the administration had taken steps to boost safety and enforcement in Croydon such as a 50% increase in enforcement officers. A new community fund had been announced, providing £250,000 to work with residents on schemes to support young people in the borough. It was stated that the choices made in the budget were made on the side of residents.

 

Councillor Mohan stated that the Take Pride in Croydon campaign had failed to deliver. Recycling rates had dropped and it was claimed Croydon had gone from being the best performing borough in this area to one of the worst. It was further claimed that fly tipping had sky-rocketed, and the £5million savings in the new waste contract were, it was claimed, nothing but an accounting trick. It was stated that the additional £1million in landfill charges showed a failure of the Council’s recycling policy and yet the budget included the closing down of neighbourhood recycling centres. It was stated that the money spent on 20mph road signage would have been better spent on targeted work in accident hotspots. Finally, it was claimed that the planned closure of Council car parks would result in over half a million pounds a year of lost revenue.

 

Councillor Lewis stated that the proposed budget was ambitious but responsible. A lot of investment had been targeted at New Addington, a ward that had been overlooked by the previous administration, it was claimed. This investment had included a new leisure centre, a health living hub, and a new Special Educational Needs (SEN) school. There had also been improvements to the central parade, commitment to installing sprinklers in the ward’s tower blocks, additional police officers, a community food stop and an outdoor gym. It was claimed that this was the choice residents face: investment in services for young people, vulnerable adults and working in partnerships to support the health and safety of residents, or underinvestment and cuts to services.

 

Councillor O’Connell stated that the Greater London Authority (GLA) had voted against the Mayor of London’s budget however the Mayor had been provided opportunities to increase funding via devolved powers given by government. It was stated that Croydon’s budget failed to allocate significant investment in dealing with serious youth violence such as knife crime, and support for young people more generally.

 

 

Councillor Flemming stated that Croydon had the largest youth population in London and the largest number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs). The administration would continue to lobby for a fair funding level from government to meet these unique challenges, and the provision for young people contained in the proposed budget was welcomed. Councillor Flemming stated her pride in the investment in world class facilities for young people in the borough such as the Youth Zone as well as other initiatives such as the redevelopment of Fairfield Halls and the Krept and Konan Foundation supporting young people in the borough. It was stated that the number of schools rated good or outstanding had risen considerably under the current administration and the community fund of £250,000 was welcomed as a key initiative to support local groups in preventing youth gang and knife crime.

 

 

Councillor Gatland stated that the culture of blame from the administration had been corrosive within the Council and the opposition would be more open and collaborative in their approach if elected. It was stated that the Ofsted report highlighted the administration’s failure to prioritise the protection of young and vulnerable people. Whilst the additional funding to children’s services was welcomed, more needed to be done such as a mentoring campaign which some opposition Councillors had already begun work on. The investment in services for children with disabilities was welcomed however it was important that parents led the design of the services provided.

 

 

Councillor Collins stated that the history of Croydon illustrated that Conservatives cut services whereas Labour invested. Examples were provided such as afternoon street bin collections and weekly residential bin collections. It was further stated that there had been a significance increase in the rate of fly tip clearances within 48 hours of reporting. There had been increased enforcement measures as well as high numbers of prosecutions and a campaign to motivate residents. It was claimed the current administration had monitored the contractor properly and a better value contract had been negotiated for the near future. Local residents had been mobilised through recruiting street champions and a number of community clean ups. Questions were also raised regarding the costings to the opposition’s proposals for a 24 hour monitoring system, which it was claimed would cost nearly £12million.

 

 

Councillor Jason Cummings stated that the administration had a very poor record of meeting budgets and was abdicating its responsibility for this by blaming central government. It was stated that there were local solutions available but by blaming government, the administration was not looking for solutions. The administration, it was claimed, had allowed an overspend in the People department for four years, and this was a reason why the opposition had reluctantly agreed to support the proposed Council tax increase. It was stated that the previous Conservative Mayor had kept taxes low, whilst the new Labour Mayor had increased taxation on residents. Councillor Cummings questioned if the increased precept was going to the Police when the budget had been cut yet there was growth in other areas of the GLA. It was stated that where Labour were in power there were tax increases, and where Conservatives were in power there were tax cuts.

 

 

Councillor Hall stated that in 2014 the administration had inherited a £100million financial black hole from the previous administration. In addition, since that time there had been huge cuts to local authority funding. It was further stated that Croydon had suffered from historic underfunding when accounting for issues such as being a universal credit pilot authority, and the disproportionately high number of UASCs in the borough. It was stated that in this context Croydon could have ended up in the situation that Northamptonshire Council had found itself in, with government intervention to control its dire financial situation. It was claimed that the work of the administration had ensured that Croydon had emerged in a much stronger financial situation with measures such as the Gateway service and bringing more services back in-house. It was stated that the administration had got the Council’s finances under control and this had allowed it to react to events such as providing additional money to children’s services after the Ofsted inspection. There had been a number of other investments such as increased street cleaning and more funding for young people through the community fund and the Youth Zone. New Addington had also seen significant investment with new community facilities. It was claimed that government had made it very difficult for local authorities to deliver on new homes. It was further stated that the government was operating on the basis that local councils would increase council tax and the precept to the maximum allowed.

 

The Mayor then moved the item to section (c) and invited the Chair of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee to present the scrutiny business report.

 

Councillor Fitzsimons stated that the Committee had looked at the proposed budget in December and the education budget had been considered at a separate meeting at the Children and Young People Sub-Committee. The scrutiny committees had also undertaken a number of question and answer sessions with Cabinet Members throughout the year. The key issue identified was an increased in demand for Council services with a lack of funding from government. Particularly acute pressure was identified in services for young people and over 80s.

 

The Mayor then moved to the vote on the recommendations.

 

The first vote was for recommendation 1.1: A 2.99% increase in the Council Tax for Croydon Services (a level of increase Central Government has assumed in all Councils’ spending power calculation).

 

The recommendation was put to a poll vote:

 

Members who voted in favour: Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Jane Avis, Jeet Bains, Margaret Bird, Carole Bonner, Simon Brew, Alison Butler, Jan Buttinger, Robert Canning, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Luke Clancy, Pat Clouder, Stuart Collins, Mario Creatura, Jason Cummings, Patsy Cummings, Sean Fitzsimons, Alisa Flemming, Maria Gatland, Timothy Godfrey, Lynne Hale, Simon Hall, Maddie Henson, Steve Hollands, Yvette Hopley, Karen Jewitt, Humayun Kabir, Bernadette Khan, Shafi Khan, Stuart King, Toni Letts, Oliver Lewis, Stephen Mann, Maggie Mansell, Dudley Mead, Margaret Mead, Vidhi Mohan, Michael Neal, Tony Newman, Steve O’Connell, Andrew Pelling, Jason Perry, Helen Pollard, Tim Pollard, Joy Prince, Badsha Quadir, Andrew Rendle, Pat Ryan, Paul Scott, Mike Selva, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Donald Speakman, Andy Stranack, Mark Watson, John Wentworth, Susan Winborn, David Wood, Louisa Woodley, Callton Young.

 

The recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

The second vote was for recommendation 1.2: A 2.0% increase in the Adult Social Care precept (a charge Central Government has assumed all councils’ will levy in its spending power calculations).

 

The recommendation was put to a poll vote:

 

Members who voted in favour: Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Jane Avis, Jeet Bains, Margaret Bird, Carole Bonner, Simon Brew, Alison Butler, Jan Buttinger, Robert Canning, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Luke Clancy, Pat Clouder, Stuart Collins, Mario Creatura, Jason Cummings, Patsy Cummings, Sean Fitzsimons, Alisa Flemming, Maria Gatland, Timothy Godfrey, Lynne Hale, Simon Hall, Patricia Hay-Justice, Maddie Henson, Steve Hollands, Yvette Hopley, Karen Jewitt, Humayun Kabir, Bernadette Khan, Shafi Khan, Stuart King, Toni Letts, Oliver Lewis, Stephen Mann, Maggie Mansell, Dudley Mead, Margaret Mead, Vidhi Mohan, Michael Neal, Tony Newman, Steve O’Connell, Andrew Pelling, Jason Perry, Helen Pollard, Tim Pollard, Joy Prince, Badsha            Quadir, Andrew Rendle, Pat Ryan, Paul Scott, Mike Selva, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Donald Speakman, Andy Stranack, Mark Watson, John Wentworth, Susan Winborn, David Wood, Louisa Woodley, Callton Young.

 

The recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

The third vote was for recommendation 1.3: This Council welcomes the GLA increase of 5.07%, where over 81% of which is being used for the Police and 16% being used for the Fire service. With reference to the principles for 2018/19 determined by the Secretary of State under Section 52 ZC sub-section 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) confirm that in accordance with section 52 ZB sub-section 1 the Council Tax and GLA precept referred to above are not excessive in terms of the most recently issued principles and as such to note that no referendum is required.

 

The recommendation was put to a poll vote:

 

Members who voted in favour: Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Jane Avis, Jeet Bains, Margaret Bird, Carole Bonner, Simon Brew, Alison Butler, Jan Buttinger, Robert Canning, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Luke Clancy, Pat Clouder, Stuart Collins, Mario Creatura, Jason Cummings, Patsy Cummings, Sean Fitzsimons, Alisa Flemming, Maria Gatland, Timothy Godfrey, Lynne Hale, Simon Hall, Patricia Hay-Justice, Maddie Henson, Steve Hollands, Yvette Hopley, Karen Jewitt, Humayun Kabir, Bernadette Khan, Shafi Khan, Stuart King, Toni Letts, Oliver Lewis, Stephen Mann, Maggie Mansell, Dudley Mead, Margaret Mead, Vidhi Mohan, Michael Neal, Tony Newman, Steve O’Connell, Andrew Pelling, Jason Perry, Helen Pollard, Tim Pollard, Joy Prince, Badsha            Quadir, Andrew Rendle, Pat Ryan, Paul Scott, Mike Selva, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Donald Speakman, Andy Stranack, Mark Watson, John Wentworth, Susan Winborn, David Wood, Louisa Woodley, Callton Young.

 

The recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

The remaining recommendations 1.4 to 1.8 were put to a normal vote en bloc, and were carried unanimously.

Supporting documents: