Still time to respond to Brent Council's proposed service cuts and fees increases

 Brent Council is running a consultation on its Draft Budget that includes some increases in charges as well as service cutbacks. Council Tax is to be increased by 4.99% and Council Tax Support for the vulnerable reduced.

The Council's website explains:

Councils across London are facing a series of unprecedented financial challenges, caused by a perfect storm of continued high inflation, rapidly increasing demand for services and reduced government funding since 2010. 

Across all budgets and service areas, London Councils estimates that boroughs will overspend on their original budget plans by over £600m in 2024/25. 

Brent is not immune to these pressures, with an expensive adult social care bill getting more so every year because of an ageing population as well as soaring levels of homelessness, with around 150 new families presenting as homeless most weeks. 

On top of £222m of cuts made since 2010, a further £16 million must be saved in 2025-26 to balance the books.  

The council has pulled together budget proposals which aim to protect the services residents rely on most as far as possible and protect the organisation’s longstanding healthy financial position. It is now asking for local people’s views on these proposals. 

Proposals in the draft budget include: 

• Increase charge for bulky waste collection from £40 to £55 
• Increase garden waste annual subscription from £65 to £69 
• A 4.99% increase in council tax, with 2% ring-fenced for adult social care 
• Changes to our Council Tax Support Scheme: https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/october/council-tax-support-scheme-consultation-gets-the-green-light

View draft budget proposals: Issue - items at meetings - Draft Budget 2025/26

 

BUDGET CONSULTATION ONLINE SESSIONS
THE WEBSITE SAYS CONSULTATION WILL RUN UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE WILLESDEN EVENT IS IN JANUARY!

Harlesden Connects Online November 26^th 6pm to 7pm

Kingsbury and Kenton Connects Online December 2^nd 6pm-7pm

Kilburn Connects Online December 12^th 6pm-7pm

Willesden Connects Online January 9^th 6pm-7pm

The Wembley Connects took place last week attended by 5 people.

Apart from the charges above there are other charges in the proposal including charging the elderly monthly  for Telecare services (they vary widely across councils) and increases for mortuary and bereavement services.  A £1m cut is based on wider use of reablement services to keep people from reliance on long-term care services and additional respite capacity for individuals with learning disabilities and reduce reliance on residential respite placements.

Care leavers aso suffer  with proposals to halve the number of weekends offered at Gordon Brown Centre for courses to support their independence and a reduction in spend on the SafeBase that supports the health and wellbeing of care leavers in higher education. Given the concerns about the vulnerability of care leavers this seems short-sighted.

 Apart from the Environment Services fee rise above there is a proposal for a £5 delivery charge for new or replacement binsand a proposal to cease the subscription to the online Recylopedia  resource which recieves 12,000 clicks a month.

A staffing and structural review of Public Realm posts results in the deletion of 3-4 posts which apparently will lead to 'local solutions for local problems.'  I hope Scrutiny Committee will explore what that means.

It is proposed to use an agency for occupational health service:

It is anticipated that a saving £100,000 could be delivered through the outsourcing of the OH contract.  By switching to an external provider, we would only pay the costs for our actual usage. We also pay high agency rates as OH specialists are hard to recruit and there is a national skills shortag. There is a downside in the Risk Assessment:Reduced service and longer waiting times to be seen by an OH professional as the service won’t be inhouse and bespoke. This will be mitigated as far as possible through close monitoring of performance. 

The deletion of 5 posts in Finance and Resorces is mitigated by 'automation'.

Check the list in Appendix below for the proposals  and if you want more details note the reference number and go to Appendix B. Click bottom right corner for full page.

 

 Appendix B - detailed proposals with risk assessments.

 

 

 

Do your bit to save London's public transport

 The current TfL funding settlement from Government expires in 6 days’ time on 11 December 2021.

 

To help to decarbonise the transport network, TfL would need an investment of £70m for the first three years, to support zero emission buses and £125m per year for healthy streets and active travel.

 

The London Assembly on December 2nd  called on the Government to provide a new long-term sustainable funding model and to include the £1-1.5bn of additional investment funding each year that TfL requires, as part of the next funding settlement.

 

Elly Baker AM, who proposed the motion, said:

 

London was largely glossed over in the Chancellor’s recent Budget. Transport for London was left out in the cold, despite the fact that it is hanging over a financial cliff-edge due to the pandemic.

 

Our transport system urgently needs proper investment from the Government to drive forward the whole country’s economic recovery and boost our efforts to meet legally binding commitments to reach net zero and clean up our air.

 

Cities should be empowered by Governments so they can be at the forefront of tackling the climate emergency.

 

The full text of the motion is:

 

This Assembly notes that the Government’s October 2021 Budget and Comprehensive Spending Review confirmed £7bn to level-up urban transport in cities around England, but there was no new funding announced for Transport for London (TfL). Furthermore, the current TfL funding settlement from Government expires in 11 days’ time on
11 December 2021.

 

The Assembly notes that the TfL submission to the Government’s spending review outlined plans to invest £2.5 - £3bn per year over the long term, to meet the Government’s climate change, levelling up and economic recovery ambitions. To help to decarbonise the transport network, this investment would include £70m for the first three years to support zero emission buses and £125m per year for healthy streets and active travel.

 

The Assembly believes that if the Government is serious about the UK’s legally binding decarbonisation and air quality commitments then funding must be provided to TfL.

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Government to provide a new long-term sustainable funding model and to include the £1-1.5bn of additional investment funding each year that TfL requires, as part of the next funding settlement.

 The TfL Finance Committee listed these impacts if emergency funding was not forthcoming from the Government:

• 18 percent reduction in London bus services, with 100 routes to be axed (a seventh of the network) and reduced frequency across 200 more (about one third of all additional routes).
• 9 percent service reduction across the London Underground with possible scenarios including permanent closure of the 115-year-old Bakerloo line or the Jubilee, Metropolitan or Hammersmith & City lines.
• Non-replacement of ageing train fleet (for example 50-year-old Bakerloo trains) with rolling stock renewal contracts cancelled.
• Scrapping of bus electrification with existing bus vehicles to be kept in service longer to reduce costs.
• No progress towards Vision Zero (safety), decarbonisation, improving air quality or active travel to support a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport.
• End of capital expenditure on disability access for transport passengers, with non-renewal of “step free” assets resulting in “more frequent failures of lifts and escalators”.
• London’s road assets to “remain in current degraded condition” with a “high risk of unplanned bridge and tunnel closures”.
• ·Cancellation of TfL supply chain contracts impacting on 43,000 jobs in Derby, Falkirk, Bolton, Liverpool, Yorkshire, and Ballymena, Northern Ireland.
• The cuts are so deep that by TfL’s own admission they will push London’s transport system into a state of “Managed Decline”.

KEEP LONDON MOVING CAMPAIGN

 

London Travel Watch in a campaign called Keep London Moving to fight the the budget cut and is urging people to write to their MP, London Assembly members and councillors as part of the campaign. On their website you just have to fill in your postcode to automatically send a letter to all of them. LINK

 

London faces a transport funding crisis. 

Transport for London have been getting financial support from the Government because of the pandemic, but this funding deal is due to expire on the 11th of December. If London's transport doesn't get the money it needs after that date, we could see an 18% reduction in bus services and a 9% cut to Tube services as well as a complete end to all active travel funding. This could result in a million fewer public transport journeys a day and drive a significant number of Londoners back into their cars. 

Public transport and active travel enables the poorest and most excluded individuals to get to work and access education and services. Affordable, reliable and frequent public transport services are also essential if London is to reduce its carbon emissions and clean up the toxic air which shortens the lives of thousands. 

Time is running out but you can still make your voice heard. 

If we act now, we can remind politicians that public transport and active travel is vital to all Londoners and people travelling in to the city. Let your MP, London Assembly member and councillor know why we need to #keeplondonmoving.

Action on school funding and staffing crisis needs your support

Slide from presentation at Brent governors' meeting with Brent senior officers

 Brent schools, which out-perform other schools nationally, are going to have to fight to maintain their position in the future as a result of cuts to their budgets and a crisis in the recruitment and retention of teachers and senior staff including headteachers.

Although changes to the national funding formula have been delayed, the eventual changes will be to the detriment of urban areas, unless the whole national education budget is increased. This seems unlikely as there is zero growth at the moment which means a cut in real terms as funding does not make up for rises in national insurance payments, pension contributions, price inflation and an increase in pupil numbers.  Increasingly schools have to 'buy in' services that were previously supplied by the council.

The crisis in recruitment and retention is due to  number of factors of which the main ones are the constant changes in curriculum and assessment introduced by the government and the high cost of housing in London LINK. The latter means that when young teachers start a family they have to move out of London to find an affordable place to live.

One way Brent Council could tackle this is by planning more affordable social housing for key workers such as teachers and national health workers.

School governing bodies are finding it very difficult to recruit headteachers in the present climate as the job becomes harder as a result of high stakes expectations from Ofsted and the government. Primary schools have expanded in size as a result of the government not allowing local authorities to build new schools where they are needed.  Managing a large school is more akin to being a chief executive of a large organisation and many prospective heads see this as moving away from the 'leading educator' role that was their impetus to join the profession.

Most Brent primary schools have remained with the local authority rather than be tempted by the false delights of academisation but that means Brent Council has a job to do in championing its own schools as well as trying to positively change the context in which they work.  This was the subject of a recent motion at Brent Central Labour Party.

On Tuesday the London NUT will be holding a march and lobby on these issues and more and would welcome parents, carers and others concerned to join them.Assemble for March: 17:00, Whitehall, (Opposite Downing Street) Rally: 18:30, Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, SW1P 3DW

If you are interested in how your school will be impacted by cuts, which usually hit teaching assistants first, type the name of the school into the map below. Teacher assistants play a vital part in the progress of London primary school children and these days are often trained to teach small groups of children in intervention projects, enabling them to catch up with their peers. They are under-paid and sometimes under-valued. Nevertheless, they are a vital ingredient of Brent's success story.

How much will your school's budget be cut by 2020 - figures here

At yesterday's meeting for governors Gail Tolley, Brent Strategic Director for Children and Families, said the most pressing issue for Brent schools in the future would not be multi-academy trusts or grammar schools but budget cuts and the new funding formula.

Below I publish a spreadsheet from School Cuts with projected budgets for 2020 showing the extent of the expected cuts. Coupled with current problems in recruiting and retaining both class teachers and senior staff this represents a major challenge to maintain current educational standards.

The basis of the calculations can be found HERE

Click on bottom right for full size workbook. Search facility is top right in full size workbook: (...)

Brent Council tonight debates Oladapo Report, Davani pay-off, Chancellor's local government cuts and (of course) parking

As well as an expected  Mayoral statement on Hate Crime, Brent Council will tonight (7pm Civic Centre) be considering the Independent Investigator's report on the Tayo Oladapo case.

Cllr John Duffy is due to ask a question about removal of tree stumps LINK and there are three group motions down for debate.

What a waste  of money.

This Council regrets  making the exit payment of £157,610 to the former director of human resources,Cara Davani.We agree that this payment is  a reward for failure.

We also agree that Cllr.Butt should apologise to the residents of Brent ,and explain  to them why the Council has spent in excess of £1m. in connection with the entire " Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case."

We further agree that Cllr.Butt should explain to residents how he reconciles the payment of these monies to M/ s Davani with his persistent claim that Brent has no money.

Councillors Warren, Shaw and Davidson

Parking charges

That the Cabinet reconsiders and revokes the change to the parking permit charges agreed in which, in 2018, owners of diesel vehicles will have to pay more for their permits.

Councillors Colwill, Kansagra and Maurice

Government budget

Brent Council welcomes the decision by the Chancellor to abandon his budget surplus target for 2020.

However, Brent Council regrets the suffering that has had to be endured by citizens of this country for six wasted years, including the residents of Brent, in pursuit of this goal by the inappropriate means of squeezing some of the most vulnerable, and passing responsibility for cuts onto local government.

Brent council regrets all those who cannot access affordable accommodation because the government refuses to let councils invest in housing, for the sake of this abandoned goal. Brent Council regrets the extra strain out on the NHS, due to the squeeze on adult social care budgets that was caused for the sake of this abandoned goal. Brent Council regrets the stress pushed onto some of the most vulnerable residents as the social security budget was cut for the sake of this abandoned goal.

Brent Council hopes that the government now realises that you cannot cut your way to growth, and will invest in services, infrastructure and people properly through local councils such as Brent, who understand what the real needs are and how to respond to them.

Councillor Miller

Brent Cabinet to discuss 'transforming' adult social care and budget cuts

The Brent Library 'Transformation' project, which really meant closures, has given the word a bad name but it is back again at Cabinet on Monday July 27th with a report 'Adult Social Care Transforming Day Care - Direct Services'. LINK

Given the history it is worth careful perusal.

KINGSBURY RESOURCES CENTRE

The Kingsbury Resources Centre provides day care services to older people aged 65+ at its premises in Stag Lane. The reports says that it currently supports about 60 people with average daily attendance 25 including 4 wheelchair uses. Eight users have a learning disability. It operates between 9am and 4pm and users attend for an average of 6 hours 3 days a week. There are 8 staff.

The consultation about its future found that 'users do not want to lose the day centre as a meeting place and they value and do not want to lose the friendship groups they have formed at the centre'.

One worrying aspect is the comment that 'Some people expressed that the repeated focus on day centres made them feel like a burden to the council and did (sic) that they did not feel valued.'

The reports says that the concerns raised were 'not unexpected' and officers were 'able to reassure both users and carers by clarifying that the consultation was about providing services in different ways, not reducing or removing services.'

Various options are discussed and rejected in the report including asking 'the voluntary and community centr'( MF that may mean 'sector') to take over the  the Centre's running, a Council partnership with another organisation to share risk and jointly manage the Centre, the council continuing to own and run the Centre but to develop it into a specialist dementia care service.

The reasons for rejection of the options include under-utilisation, spare capacity in existing dementia day opportunities and the lack of any appetite for risk share or joint management.

The report therefore opts to close down the Kingsbury Resource Centre and either sell it off or transfer it as part of a community assets transfer project.  'Spot purchase placements within the voluntary sector' would be made:

Closing Kingsbury Resource Centre would generate a potential saving of £150k on the current budget and a potential capital receipt if the buildings is sold.

NEW MILLENNIUM DAY CENTRE

This is a purpose built Centre close to Willesden Centre for Health and Care and the Council has a 90 year lease. It provides day care to 87 people who have a physical disability, 28 people who have a learning disability 'of which 8 are between the ages of 55 and 77 and could be considered eligible for older people and dementia services'. An average of 35 people use the day centre on any given day and some have been attending for up to 30 years 'and have become very attached top the Centre.'

It operates Monday to Friday 9am to 4pm and has 14 full time staff.

The report states:

'The focus at this centre was to explore the opportunity to support users to access alternative existing provision and to involve them in a co-production process to develop new services which will not only meet existing needs but also support greater independence.'

All laudable but likely to raise suspicion when the Council is also anxious to save money. Rather than consultation the process here was 'co-production' and consisted of 13 users and carer meetings, followed by further meetinsg with carers, visits to Thurrock council to review their service model, further meetings to share a potential model with users and carers and meetings to get feedback on the models.

The report states:

Users were worried about the centre closing and felt that the changes to their services seem to be a continuous process and have been ongoing for at least the last 6 years. They felt the change needed to stop. 

Then comes the reassurance:

However, through discussion users were confident that a co-produced solution would be the best way to ensure that they had more control over changes to that service, and they were clear that the aim of co-production was to develop a more sustainable service which would hopefully mean that there would be less need for a change to the services in the future.

Referring to lack of trust in the Council the report states:

Discussions showed  that this was primarily as a result of the many users having been through changes to in house day services in 2012 and some issues with the process.  Through the co-production process people were able to separate their feelings about previous experiences and the need to bring a positive attitude and open mind into the discussions about the future of the service.

The centre itself was strongly supported:

All users and carers spoke in strong terms about how much they valued their day centre. Users were clear that the centre is special and that they feel like one big happy family....Many users raised concerns that they do not want to lose the relationship they have with staff.

The report says that the co-production process established that  it order to maintain quality sustainable services and end uncertainty an enhanced 'social enterprise model' would be most suitable to include:

• Using the centre as a hub but supporting users to access the community more
• Make better use of the buildings through extended hours, potentially including evenings and weekends
• Offering 'different and more personalised respite support for carers as well as users - including the  possibility of pooling budgets so groups could make  'holiday arrangements at Centre Parks or ehsewhere'.

There are many more claimed advantages listed in the report. Officers recommend that they bring a full business case to Cabinet in the Autumn to include details on structure, governance, finance, risk, timescales and other potential implications. The financial implications would recognise 'the long term challenge for the council so any community enterprise would be seeking to reduce operating costs.'

That is is perhaps the sting in the tail when  the wider 'transformation of direct services initiative has a full saving requirement of  £755,000 over 2015-16 and 2016-17  (£432,000 and £323,00).'

TUDOR GARDENS RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME

Tudor Gardens is a relatively new residential care home. Most of the staff and residents moved from Melrose House 4 years ago.  It is the only in-house, directly provided residential care home left ion Brent.  It currently provides support for 14 people who have a learning disability and has capacity for 15. 24 staff provide support.

The proposal LINK is to de-register the home which the report argues will give tenants greater security and enables them to claim a wider range of benefits, including housing benefit. Housing benefit would reduce the council's Adult Care costs with an expected income stream from rents of £100k annually.

The Tudor Gardens budget for 2015-16 is £872,000  and conversion to a 'Supported Living facility' is expected to save £300,000.

This would include savings through out-sourcing care and support and would affect the current care workers.

Residents wanted to keep the existing staff, specifically individual key workers.  Officers told them that this may be possible through TUPE but could not be guaranteed.

Since the Cabinet agenda was published  an addendum has been added which I think speaks for itself:

Subsequent to publishing the Tudor Gardens report, one of the consultees, requested that two changes be made to the report. The changes requested related to the specific reporting of the consultation and what was said at the consultation meetings.

The first change is in the main report Section 3.6 to provide further clarification.
From:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change but supported the supported living model.

To:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change. They would prefer Tudor Gardens remain as a residential care home. However, they also said that they would work with Brent officers if the decision was made to move to Supported Living, especially if this meant no-one moving out."

The second change is a point of accuracy in the consultation report. The change is required on the last but one page of the consultation report, page 13.
From:
"Most of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

To:
"None of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

Clearly the last change is hugely significant.

Inserting a personal note a similar process took place in my mothers' care home in Bedfordshire and I well remember the confusion, anxiety and depression of residents when they realised that they might lose the care staff with whom they were familiar and often saw a friends.

In turn the care staff knew the individual histories, character and idiosyncrasies of the elderly people which resulted in especially sympathetic and supportive care.

The value of those relationships and that background knowledge must not be under estimated.

As with all out-sourcing the eventual reduction in the pay and conditions of workers is a major concern and particulalrly when care workers are already underpaid.

Work less, consume less, LIVE more

This morning's Start the Week on Radio 4 had an interesting discussion on austerity and future economic models with an airing of New Economics Foundation ideas on a sustainable economy as well as reflections on the situation in Ireland. Well worth listening toAnthony Gormley, David Kynaston, Anna Coote and Fintan O'Toole get down to basics. Listen here:  LINK

Have your say on Brent Council's budget 2012/13

Having called for the Council to have a public debate about its budget I thought it only right to reproduce the following item from the Council website.  Rather than tell them where to make cuts and the divide and rule this entails, I think we should call on them them to work with residents to devise a 'needs led budget' which would set out what services local residents need to maintain their quality of life. They can then use this budget as a campaigning tool to call on the government to reverse their cuts to local authority funding and work with other councils on directly challenging the Coalition's approach.


Have your say on the proposed budget for the 2012/13 financial year by joining the discussions at our Area Consultative Forums.

Residents and businesses are invited to take part in the Area Consultative Forums that are being held early 2012 as we want to hear all the views about our budget priorities.

Each of the five area forums will be discussing the budget proposals and will include a presentation by either Brent Council Leader Councillor Ann John OBE or Deputy Council Leader Councillor Muhammed Butt. There will also be a question and answer session to share views and to get answers first hand.

As well as setting the council's expenditure priorities, the budget process also sets the council tax rate which households must pay and the local authority's spending and provision of services.

The proposals for the 2012/13 budget recognise the difficult financial position faced by Brent Council because of the loss of central government grants and other funding, which will be equivalent to a 26 per cent loss in funding between April 2011 and March 2015 and which will continue through to 2017.

The Executive's proposals for the 2012/13 budget will be scrutinised by the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee before going to the Executive on 13 February 2012. The final decision about the budget and council tax for 2012/13 will be made at the Full Council meeting on 27 February next year.

The dates for the next Area Consultative Forums are:

• Harlesden Area Consultative Forum, 7pm, on 10 January 2012 at All Souls Church, Station Road, Harlesden
• Kilburn and Kensal Area Consultative Forum, 7pm on 11 January 2012 at Granville Plus Community Centre, Granville Road, Kilburn
• Wembley Area Consultative Forum, 7pm on 17 January 2012 at Patidar House, 22 London Road, Wembley
• Willesden Area Consultative Forum, 7pm on 18 January 2012 at College of North West London Denzil Road NW10
• Kingsbury and Kenton Area Consultative Forum, 7pm on 8 February 2012 at Kingsbury High School, Princes Avenue, NW9.

Brent's 'Bad News' Budget Report

The first report outlining the pressures on the Council budget for 2012-13 and beyond makes for sober reading. There is a projected over-spend for this year of £1.8m which the Council  will try and eliminate without resorting to using its reserves.If it used reserves they would reduce to £8.3m which would be below the Council's target.

In her preamble to the report Labour Council Ann John notes:

The Council has over the last year been forced to take a number of difficult decisions as to which services to support and improve and which to discontinue or limit. There have been some predictable high profile instances where citizens have objected to the curtailment of a service they particularly value. This is understandable; this Administration did not seek election on a platform of massive cuts. However the front-loaded 26% target set by Government over the life of the Spending Review means that major cuts in services are inevitable and as the size of the Council organisation will shrink, the content of what it does will also inevitably be curtailed.

Based on savings being achieved mainly through the 'One Council programme, the containment of 'inescapable growth' through a £5m annual contingency, savings already in the pipeline from previous decisions, and no rise in council tax this would leave a budget gap of:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £6.4m
2014-15 £22.5m
1015-16 £16.1m

A rise in Council Tax of 2.5% would reduce the gap in subsequent years:

2012-14 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

The Council receives an annual grant of £2.6m if they do not increase Council Tax and this year only will receive an additional one-off grant of another £2.6m. Given the figures for 2012-13 this raises the possibility of raising Council Tax, even with the loss of £2.6m to protect services. The report warns that a failure to raise Council Tax over a number of years will erode the Council's underlying revenue position i the long term.

The Council expects a reduction in the formula grant received from central government of £13.1m in 2012-13 and a further £13,4m by 2014-15.

The report outlines the pressures on Council finances for 2012-13 these include:

• Grant reductions for housing benefit administration, social care training and unaccompanied asylum seekers
• The number of young people transitioning into Adult Social Care
• Contract prices rises in Environment and Neighbourhood Services
• Increase in cost of providing temporary accommodation when the housing benefit cap is implemented.

The report notes a further pressure arising from the increased cost of borrowing for capital projects when revenue funding sources are reducing. This means that interest costs are taking up an increasing share of total revenue resources. If the Council decides to reduce borrowing to close the budget gap there would have to be a reduction in the capital programme or the Council would need to find alternative sources of funding, presumably a difficult job in the current economic situation.

There are two further ring-fenced budgets. The report notes that there is potential for the ring-fenced Central Education Budget to lose significant amounts of money as a result of schools converting to academy status. They estimate this as up to £900,000 per secondary school.

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) grant which provides government subsidy for rents will be phased out in 2012-13 and the HRA will be expected to be self-funding henceforth. There will be a one-off settlement in lieu of an ongoing subsidy of around £185m (to be confirmed) against an annual subsidy of £8.5m. Implementing government policy of convergence of council rents and those of social landlords 'implies a 7% rise' in council rents for 2012-13.

With room for manoeuvre  tight if the Council decides to implement Coalition cuts there is likely to be a rise in the costs of  Council services as well as further cuts in provision.

Cllr John sets out these proposals in her preamble to the report:

• That by the time of budget in February we bring forward a package of measures, with other public, private and voluntary sector partners to address the acute issues of employment and employability which face so many of our fellow citizens;
• That we take another look at the services and quality of life that people can expect in their neighbourhoods. It was our 2002-6 Administration that brought in the successful and popular policy of Ward Working; and it is now time to look again at neighbourhoods in a practical and meaningful way and to set out a coherent set of actions which is a Brent rather than Central Government approach to localism;
• That we concentrate on producing proposals that offers a comprehensive and targeted approach to working with young people and youth;
• That we pursue vigorously the integration of social care and NHS health services to provide a better, seamless and more focused set of services provided to local people and use the transfer of Public Health to Local Government control to make a reality of a concentration on prevention;
• That we work even harder to bring forward the regeneration of our Borough and adopt a strategy for our property which makes it integral to the economic renewal of Brent.

There is little space for this on the budget timetable set by the Council but it does include for late December: 'Consultation with residents, businesses, voluntary sector, partner agencies and trade unions on budget proposals'. This could be widened to include the whole community.  In January 2012 members are due to agree the proposals to go to the February Executive so timing is very tight.