Ealing Lib Dem Budget Speech 2007

Speech by Cllr Jon Ball on Tue 6th Mar 2007

Lib Dem views on how our money could be spent better

Madam Mayor,

This is not the budget of a new administration keen to transform the Council's finances to deliver a fresh agenda. It is a 'steady as she goes' continuation of the stability that has been brought to the Borough's finances by the current crop of high calibre officers led by Darra Singh and Richard Ennis. Anyone looking at the situation objectively would have to admit that whichever party had been in power, the budget would not have differed vastly - although I will outline some significant areas where we are critical of some of the decisions taken.

So does the credit for this relative stability go to the Conservatives? No. The star chamber process that delivered the savings across the board that made it possible for a modest council tax increase this time had been set up already and is driven by the officers. The Conservatives much vaunted cancellation of Response had effectively already been done by the outgoing administration. Finally, unlike the old administration, the Tories are not wasting money on support for the Tram scheme - but the opposition to the Tram which the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives expressed going into last May's elections and Labour belatedly embraced after their defeat will actually cost more, so this does not represent a saving.

So should Labour get the credit? The problem there is that Labour appointed these high calibre officers - but they also appointed the previous tranche of officers who ran the Council's finances into the ground. Rectifying problems of their own making is not a cause for praise. Labour should have taken decisive action much earlier.

I will turn to some problems in the budget.

Firstly, there was the fiasco of the social services commissioning process, in which a range of organisations that were delivering culturally-appropriate services to their communities were refused funding in favour of a "one size fits all" approach. The administration attempted to repair the damage by awarding some of these groups grant funding, but this was out of a budget that had barely grown - so was not the new money to resolve the problem that they should have provided. Many valuable organisations still not receive significant funds.

Most of the items that have been used to balance the budget have been in the form of so-called efficiency savings. Often these have hidden risks. For instance, deleting vacant points in Social Services, has reduced slack in the service - but this means that the capacity of Social Services to cope with a period of high demand - due to the effects on our elderly residents of a cold winter for instance - has been diminished. The service is perhaps more efficient, but at the same time less resilient.

The botched recycling consultation has produced unclear results and the need to waste money reconsulting. If the consultation options had been clearer to begin with, that would not have been necessary. The one thing that there was clear support for from residents even before the consultation was plastics recycling and the administration should have gone ahead and introduced that at the same time as cardboard recycling, making savings on the introduction and publicity costs.

The new administration has inherited problems relating to the Street Lighting PFI. Unsuitable lighting is being installed in Conservation Areas and in areas with antique lampposts, based on inadequate consultation carried out years before the PFI started - and in some cases before the Conservation Areas even existed!

So the Leader has indicated to concerned residents that something will be done about this. But no increase in the Street Lighting PFI is before us in the budget. Rumours are circulating that the Leader has earmarked funds from Dickens Yard capital receipts for these extra costs. If this is the case, why is this not stated in the budget before us?

The Council continues the previous administration's drip of assets being sold off to gain capital receipts. The Conservatives were critical of selling off the family silver while in opposition, but now that they are in power they find it convenient to do the same thing. This is a one-way process. Every community centre that is sold off is a resource for the people of the Borough that will never again be in public hands.

The Council has repeated Labour's short-sightedness in freezing Area Committee budgets again - and so letting them fall in real terms. A more imaginative administration would be transferring significant spending from corporate budgets into area budgets, where it is spent more transparently and more carefully due to the community involvement. This devolution of funding would be cost neutral and would lead to greater efficiency.

Insufficient emphasis is given to ensuring that TfL funding for road schemes is spent on worthwhile, well planned and well monitored schemes, not merely rushing into schemes - wasting officer time and public money.

Ealing continues to have a poor record compared to other Boroughs in obtaining funding from developers via section 106 agreements to spend on improving our environment. The administration is failing to be robust enough in requiring S106, and is therefore spending Council Tax payer's money to fund schemes that developers could be required to pay.

The administration has missed the opportunity to encourage green choices by residents by introducing variable rates for Controlled Parking Zone permits as pioneered by Lib Dem Richmond and rejected by the Tories here when we suggested it.

Despite what the administration might like to present, all is not sweetness and light in our Borough. As all members here will be only to too aware from our casework, the Council has a series of structural problems which cause major problems for many of the Borough's residents.

To give three examples, overcrowding remains endemic in the Council's housing stock, with only a tiny fraction of residents requesting a transfer ever getting one. This budget does nothing to address that.

The Borough's planning service continues to be in crisis, with applications not being dealt with by the government deadlines, huge staff turnover and huge backlogs of enforcement cases. This budget does nothing to address this.

Thirdly, there remain waiting lists of at least two years for disabled residents requiring adaptions so that they can continue to live normally in their homes. This budget has done a little to address this, but not nearly enough!

Finally, there is very little vision or imagination in this budget. Where are the prestige projects that will inspire the people of the Borough? Is there anything in this budget that will be memorable in 10 years time?

In summary, Madam Mayor, this is an unimaginative budget; a budget of hidden risks and wasted opportunities.