S.O.S. goes out to Labour backbenchers as debate threatens to rock the sleepy Brent Cabinet

 Let's face it, we all know Brent Cabinet is a rubber-stamping body whose calm waters are seldom disturbed by so much as a ripple of discussion, or (Lord Preserve Us!), dissent.

All the decisions are  made at a private pre-meeting of officers and Cabinet members (See LINK) so the meeting, despite an often huge agenda, is over in half an hour or so.   The format after the preliminaries is the Lead Member, in an address often written by their officers, reads out a short introduction to an agenda item. Another Cabinet member then says a few words of praise for a great policy, hard work etc.  Cllr Butt as Chair then says what a wonderful job Labour ia doing for Brent and it is approved.

There is no debate.

The meetings are held at 10am on a Monday morning which prevents working local residents (and working backbenchers) from attending.   A move to have Cabinet meetings out in community centres to enable more public participation was quietly dropped long ago.

But word has gone out that some opposition members have dared to give notice that they are to enter the mutual grooming sanctuary and actually disagree.

Despite Labour's massive majority this has appeared to have freaked out the Labour leadership. 

I understand that  a message has gone out urgently to backbenchers from the Deputy Leader of the Council that some opposition members have requested to a speak on the Council's (fait accompli) Budget Proposal for 2023-24.  Labour Group members are asked to contact 'Mo' (Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council) if they would like to speak to 'balance the debate and 'particularly to highlight the impact of austerity started by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on council finances.'

Just to let you know what Mo knows!

Watch the Cabinet meeting HERE

Brent Council Tax to rise 6% to £1924.45 for Band D, council rents up by 7%, district network energy up by eye watering 196%

 Brent Cabinet will be putting forward a budget to Full Council which includes an overall Countil Tax increase of 6%, equating to £109.20 increase on a Band D property to £1924.45. The amounts for all the bands are shown below:

Recognising that the rise will hit residents the report to Cabinet outlines current support:

While it is acknowledged that increasing Council Tax will be difficult for some households, it should also be recognised that the Council continues to invest in the Council Tax Support scheme, which provides over £32m of support for around 28,000 households who are financially vulnerable. This support will be supplemented in 2023/24 from the Government’s £100m Council Tax Support Fund, which will enable Brent to reduce bills for Council Tax Support claimants by up to a further £25. In addition, the Council’s Resident Support Fund has made available additional funds for residents who are having difficulty due to unforeseen financial circumstances as a result of COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis.

The Council Tax increase includes an increase  of 4.99% (the government maximum) by Brent and 9.7% by the GLA.

 

Council Rents Rise by 7%

The Council will be raising council rents by 7% as set out below:

The rents for residents of the former Stonebridge HAT, now managed by the Hyde Group also rise:

 The gross rent for NAIL (New Accommodation for Independent Living) includes service charges and rises by 7%.

 

 

Service charges - some increase by up to 100%
 

 Rent of course is not the only charge to tenants. There are additional charges which vary according to the accommodation with, for example, some of the new properties having a concierge.

There is no increase for grounds maintenance, laundry and TV ariel but other charges rise, particulalrly those hit by the energy crisis. The heating and hot water rise is actually more but has been capped by the council at 100%.

 

 

District Heating Network in South Kilburn charges up by 196%

Wembley Matters has previously reported on concerns over District Heating Charges in the light of surging energy costs. The rise in tariffs justifies the concern.

 

 'Savings' NOT 'cuts'?

The Scrutiny Committee's Recommendations LINK  are included on the agenda but do not appear to have affected the report, which is not surprising given the time scale. Cuts by the Labour council are still referred to as 'savings' although the Tory Chancellor does make cuts:

The additional resources provided in the provisional local government finance settlement have resulted in a reduction in the savings requirement for 2023/24 and 2024/25 to £21.0m, profiled £13.5m in 2023/24 and £7.5m in 2024/25. This enables the deferral of £4.5m of the savings previously identified for 2023/24 to be deferred to 2024/25. Based on current estimates, this leaves a budget gap of £3m in 2024/25. However, this settlement also deferred many of the spending cuts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had set out as necessary in his Autumn Statement to return the nation’s finances to a sustainable position over the medium term. Therefore, it remains likely that further savings will be required from 2025/26 onwards and this will be kept under review and reported to Cabinet throughout 2023/24.

 

School budget deficits and potential staffing cuts

School budget funding comes directly from government according to a formula and for local authority schools is distributed via the local authority based on decisions by the Schools Forum. Academies and Free schools received funding directly from the government.The budget report notes the difficulties some schools are currently facing previously covered on Wembley Matters.  This will result in staff cuts and there is a possibility of school amalgamations or reductions in forms of entry:

The number of Brent schools experiencing difficulties in 2022/23 has increased with 67% projecting an in-year deficit. 23% of these schools’ plan to use over 50% of reserves to balance their budgets in 2022/23. Schools are feeling the impact of rising inflationary costs, including increases in energy prices alongside teachers’ pay increasing by 5% in 2022/23 and starting salaries rising by 8.9% to £30k. A number of Brent schools are also experiencing falling rolls and as a result have had significant reductions in funding. This is requiring schools to make strategic decisions to mitigate the impact of this, including the consideration of staffing restructures. Alongside measures to support schools, such as capping admission numbers, the Local Authority has established a School Place Planning Working Group to review the sustainability of provision in primary planning areas.

 

Use of Strategic Infrastructure Levy for major projects

The amounts allocated are not  listed here but I will endeavour to find more details. I am particularly interested in the allocation to the College of North West London for its new building in Wembley Park which followed a deal with the council.

S106/Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be utilised to undertake major infrastructure projects meeting the conditions or terms for funding. The capital programme includes CIL funded schemes totalling £46m. The total CIL allocation includes contributions towards the fit out cost of 3 medical centres, a new facility in Wembley for the College of North West London, the new Morland Gardens educational facility, a new pedestrian and cycle bridge in Alperton and contributions towards community facilities in Stonebridge, Preston Community Library, Learie Constantine Centre and Brent Indian Community Centre

 

Full Council Decision

Given the top down nature of the Cabinet system of local government  and the huge Labour majority, adoption of this budget by Full Council is inevitable.  The Tory and Lib Dem groups may put forward alternatives and they will be voted down.

 

FULL DETAILED OFFICERS' REPORT

Scrutiny Report on Brent's forthcoming budget makes many telling points - including being honest with the public by calling a cut a cut where appropriate

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force, made up of members of both scrutiny committees, has done a thorough job, and brought up issues that have concerned observers. 

The full report is available here and will be presented to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee tonight (6pm) and be considered by the Cabinet and Full Council as part of the budget process.

The report tackles the lack of fit between the Draft Borough Plan and the Council's climate strategy (Rec.1) as well as asking for more transparency so that cuts in services are actually called that rather than 'savings' etc (2) . The likely rise in Council Tax of 4.99% brinsg a recommendation that the Council review eligibility for the Council Tax Support Scheme and the Resident Support Fund (4).  The danger of digital exclusion (6) as the Council relies more on such provision is partially addressed with a recommendation that help be provided for digital form filling. There is a call for more active lobbying of the appropriate bodies on a range of funding issues (9)  including on the reform of Council Tax.

Recommendation 1- Borough Plan 2023-27 Alignment

It is important that the proposed budget properly aligns with the strategic priorities identified in the upcoming Borough Plan 2023-27. The Task Group are concerned that the draft budget omits solid proposals to deliver on our strategic priorities around our climate commitments, including our goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030. There is a real opportunity for the Council to clearly communicate the relationship between its strategic priorities and budget proposals to residents, local councillors, and partners. The Council should strive to publish both the Budget and Borough Plan at the same time but the Task Group has noted that this has been challenging on this occasion due to time restraints and budget uncertainties.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council more clearly demonstrates how public money is being spent in line with the democratically agreed strategic priorities for the borough.

Recommendation 2 – Proposal Categorisations

The Task Group are concerned with how the draft budget proposals were being presented to residents. It was noted that using language such as ‘savings’ in past budget setting processes may have been acceptable; however, on this occasion this is not applicable due to the great amount that needs to be cut from the budget moving forward. Given that the Council has to continue to deliver savings over the next two years to balance the budget, there is a greater need for resident’s expectations to be managed correctly and honestly to ensure that they are prepared for the difficult changes to important services.

 

The Task Group recommend that each budget proposal is categorised as one of: Cut; Income generation; Service transformation; Efficiency; or Investment for transparency purposes. This language should also be used in Council communications in order for residents to distinguish between the proposals which are cuts/service reductions, those which are investments, and those which are efficiencies/service transformation.

Recommendation 3 – Income Generation

The Task Group welcome and are encouraged by the Council’s efforts to identify options for income generation. We would encourage officers to continue being innovative in identifying further opportunities for income generation to offset the impact that many of the proposals will have on vital council services. Specifically, around increasing parking fees/charges and generating income from our assets, such as parks. With regards to the former, we note the Chief Executive’s comments around ensuring that if we are able to increase parking fees/charges, that the messaging to residents would have to be very clear in specifying that any charges recouped from parking fees would be reinvested in highways infrastructure as is legally required. However, any fee/charge increases must adopt a balanced approach that accounts for the impact of the Cost of Living crisis on different communities.

 

We would also like to stress that utilising our parks to generate income could assist us in our legacy work as ‘Borough of Culture 2020’.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council:

• Increase parking fees/charges to a more comparable rate charged by surrounding boroughs to secure safe movement of traffic and adequate parking and;
• Utilise our parks to generate additional income – as part of this process, the Council should draw comparisons with other local authorities to learn from good practice.

Recommendation 4 – Additional Financial Support for Residents

The Task Group note the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, which gives provision for local authorities to raise Council Tax by a maximum of 4.99% without a referendum. We appreciate the Council is likely to have no other viable options but to raise Council Tax by this amount to navigate the current financial challenges. However, Council Tax is a regressive tax; should this increase happen, the Task Group is concerned that this may cause greater hardship to those residents who currently do not qualify for relief under the Council Tax Support Scheme or Resident Support Fund. Additionally, the Task Group are
concerned that in response to tax increases, along with rising energy costs and unaffordable rents, it is frequently only food which is left for residents and families to sacrifice.

 

The Task Group therefore recommend that the Council:

• Increases funding and reviews the eligibility criteria for both the Council Tax Support scheme and the Resident Support Fund, should the financial modelling process allow and;
• Explores options to provide additional support to children to tackle food poverty, such as extending universal free school meals provision.

Recommendation 5 – Additional Advice & Support for our Voluntary Sector partners

It is clear that our voluntary sector partners are also experiencing significant financial difficulty and, like the Council, have been subject to consistent budget reductions over the last 10 years. The voluntary sector provide vital support for many residents and act as a safety net for the Council by going above and beyond to offer services that are beyond their traditional remit (e.g. food aid). The Task Group are satisfied that the Council is doing the best it can to protect the voluntary sector and frontline services in its proposed budget. However, it is likely that in the future funding to the voluntary sector could be scaled back. It is important we provide the voluntary sector with its own safety net.

 

To assist in building voluntary sector resilience, the Task Group recommend that the Council develops:

• An approach to increase the value of the commissioned contracts offered to the VCS to help them navigate the current volatile economic environment. The Council could also use this as an opportunity to tighten and improve its contract monitoring process to ensure further robustness and transparency in achieving outcomes.
• A collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams. This should also include scope for increased opportunities to make joint bids for grant funding.

• A transparent policy for distributing Council community assets to our voluntary partners in need of space. Specifically, offering capped peppercorn rents to the sector to expand their operations.

Recommendation 6 – Equal Access for All Residents

The Task Group understands the importance of the Council taking advantage of the opportunities/benefits associated with digital transformation, especially when taking into consideration the possible savings and efficiencies they can provide. However, we are still mindful that not all automated services are fit for purpose nor accessible to all residents (e.g. those who are digitally excluded, those with disabilities etc.)

 

The Task Group recommend that:

• The proposed automated services (e.g. chat bots) are tested by residents ahead of implementation, especially by those who have accessibility needs to ensure that all residents have equal access to services and;
• Additional advice and support is provided to disabled residents and those cohorts of residents with other access needs (e.g. literacy needs/English not a first language etc.) to navigate digital-form filling so they can maximise the benefits/grants they are eligible for and entitled to.

Recommendation 7 – Improving Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)

The Task Group noted that the Council has undertaken individual equality impact assessments (EIA) on each proposal, but improvements could be made to the current process to ensure greater transparency so EIAs are not seen as a ‘tick box’ exercise.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council:

• Include an evidence base/rationale section in the EIA for each proposal where it has been deemed that there are no potential or likely impact on service users and employees with protected characteristics (e.g. how the Council arrived at such decisions) and;
• Undertake a cumulative equality impact assessment of the budget decisions since 2018 to understand fully the medium and long-term impacts of its financial decisions. It is
recommended a cumulative EqIA is completed during financial year 2023/24 and is included in the final budget report 2024/25.

Recommendation 8- Increased Collaboration

The Task Group is not clear on how health partners will be involved in the decision-making around in agreeing step down plans into general needs accommodation (proposal AH05). This partnership is vital to ensure our most vulnerable residents have the appropriate support in place at the right time, especially considering the difficulties in recruiting and retaining high quality staff. More generally this proposal raises interest from the Task Group regarding how we can work better with the NHS and other stakeholders around hospital discharges e.g. how we collectively mitigate the risks around discharge, and how we leverage contributions from partners/agencies in providing high quality social care and support. At present we have concerns that the rising costs in Adult Social Care cannot be met by the Council alone, where there is a need for clarity on the NHS funding responsibilities.

 

To ensure a holistic approach to residents’ care, specifically ‘those with complex needs’, the Task Group recommend that:

• A collaborative mechanism is established between the Council, NHS, and other relevant stakeholders to agree discharges/step down plans. If possible, this should be considered as part of the review process currently taking place with Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CNWL) in the Integrated Care Partnership and;
• The Council leverage sufficient financial contributions from the NHS (and other relevant anchor institutions) to improve the Health & Social Care function in Brent.

Recommendation 9 – Lobbying

 

We note that many of the challenges in the draft budget proposals are reliant on the powers and funding from central government to be resolved.

 

The Task Group therefore recommend that the Council works closely with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek:

• Additional funding in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), notably the High Needs Block of the DSG which is currently in deficit. Although the Task Group is pleased with the activity undertaken to manage the deficit and despite the fact that the Council will see increased funding from central government, there is still a need for additional financial support to meet rising demand.
• Powers to levy proportionate charges on parked motorcycles/mopeds. If successful, this would enable the Council to expand the parking permit system in the borough to include other forms of vehicles.
• Local Government funding reform, including reform of regressive taxes such as Council Tax.
• Changes to gambling legislation and regulations that enable local authorities to generate additional income from gambling licensing fees. This money could then be used to reinvest in vital Council services.
• The introduction of ‘Short Term Letting’ legislation that will allow local authorities to
establish licensing schemes for ‘Air B&B’ accommodation in their respective boroughs.
This would enable the Council to generate additional income from ‘Air B&B’ businesses in Brent that could then be reinvested back into  services for the benefit of residents.

Recommendation 10- Phased Reduction to Care Packages Provision

In relation to proposal CYP03, the Task Group note that the Children and Young People department has identified discrepancies between care packages and the need for clarity and consistency in regards to the eligibility criteria and presenting needs when determining the level of support to be provided. The Task Group supports the review of care packages and better aligning resources to the evidenced needs of children; however we still have concerns about the impact this proposal could have on disabled children in the borough as a whole if the cut to overall provision is made over one financial year.

 

The Task Group recommend that a proportion of the additional funding from the Local Government Finance Settlement is used to enable the Council to defer a proportion of the savings in this proposal to financial year 24/25. This is to ensure changes in provision are implemented in a phased way.

Recommendation 11- Review Areas of Focus for Town Centre Management Function

The Task Group believe the current town centre management infrastructure has made great strides in revitalising our town centres and supporting our businesses. This has been essential post-covid and in the current economic climate. We felt assured that proposal CR05 would not impact service delivery, however we believe this proposal presents an opportunity for the Council to rethink its town centre management structure to ensure more effective focus on economically deprived areas.

 

The Task Group recommend reviewing the areas of focus for the town centre management function, whereby resource can be balanced against need; and work duplication prevented.

Recommendation 12 – Mitigating the impact of reducing the library stock budget

Although proposal RS08 is likely to have a small impact in the context of the collective budget proposals, the Task Group has concerns with the potential impact that this specific proposal could have on Brent’s most vulnerable residents, and in particular children.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council explores external options to leverage additional resources for our most vulnerable residents, such as the promotion of schemes (e.g. Letterbox Club run by BookTrust) offering free books to vulnerable and disadvantaged children. This could help offset the impact of the proposal on disadvantaged residents and children; and could assist with ensuring children in Brent have equal access to a broad range of reading material.

Recommendation 13 – Mitigating the impact of reducing the Corporate Learning and Training budget

The Task Group recommend that the Council be guided by staff satisfaction surveys when deciding what training courses to discontinue as part of the reduction to the Corporate Learning and Training budget (GOV03).

 

 

Brent Council to allocate funds to help qualifying schools with redundancies as they face in-year budget deficits

 Wembley Matters has reported previously on the budgetary difficulties faced by Brent schools as overall funding reduces in real terms and some experience falling pupil numbers, while others that were expanded to cater for more pupils have never filled to capacity.  Add to that inflation and energy costs and governing bodies face hard decisions.  Brent is also moving towards the level of the Government's new National Funding Formula which represents a reduced amount for London boroughs.

A report going to School Forum reveals how many of our schools are facing financial problems and unable to balance their in-year budgets (i.e. current income and outgoings balancing):

The number of Brent schools experiencing difficulties in 2022/23 has increased with 67% projecting an in-year deficit. 23% of these schools’ plan to use over 50% of reserves to balance their budgets in 2022/23. 

Schools will be forced to restructure their staffing, seeking voluntary redundanies, as staffing this takes up the major part of their expenditure. Brent is proposing to Schools Forum that monies that should be delegated to schools instead be 'de-delegated' back to the authority to allocate to schools in 'exceptional circumstances' tand if they are eligible, to help with rededundancy payments.

 It is therefore proposed to continue to de-delegate funds to support schools in financial difficulty. There is a £0.02 increase in the proposed rate for 2023/24 at £8.53, due to reduced number of pupils, to allocate £0.175m. Schools Forum agreed in January 2022 that if in exceptional circumstances school redundancies are eligible to be funded centrally then these will need to be found from within wider Direct School Grant funding. It was agreed that redundancies should be funded from the Schools Facing Financial Difficulties Fund (SFFDF). However, the budget was not increased to allow for the additional costs from redundancy pay outs.

 
It is therefore proposed to allocate £0.2m at a rate of £9.73 per pupil for centrally funded redundancies, where schools are eligible for funding. This is based on forecast payments in 2022/23 and the expectation of increased requests in 2023/24.

The report concentrates on the financial issues but of course redundancies will impact on the people concerned who will often be female and ethnic minority support staff on low pay.  The contribution of support staff is often underestimated but they have contributed hugely to recent improvements in school standards, so there will also be an impact on the quality of education.

An additional mainstream schools allocation grant (MSAG) will be made later in the spring which will also help. 

The budgets (minus MSAG) are tabled below. As an aside it reveals very low pupil numbers in the two South Kilburn schools that have been cited in the controversy over the re-location of Islamia Primary School to the Preston ward. Carlton Vale Infants have 52 pupils against a capacity of 230 pupils and The Kilburn Park School Foundation 72 pupils against a capacity of 240. Brent Council expects numbers to increase as the South Kilburn population increases through the new developments.  Islamia Primary has 421 pupils.

Newman Catholic College with 466 pupils is the smallest secondary school, and smaller than many primary schools.

Click bottom right square full pull page view.

Adult Social Care in the firing line as Brent Council seeks £18m cuts/savings and increases Council Tax by 2.99%

With its budget under pressure Brent Council is proposing £18m in 'savings' (which are often actually cuts) and raising Council Tax by 2.99%:

  The key features of the 2023/24 budget are:

· A Council Tax increase of 2.99% (consisting of a 1.99% general increase plus 1% for the Adult Social Care Precept), making a Band D Council Tax of £1,461.96 (for the Brent element). The GLA precept is unknown at this stage and is subject to their own decision making and consultation processes.
· New budget savings proposals of £18m to be delivered in 2023/24

Summary

Adult and Social Care -£4.3m

Children & Young People -£2.4m

Communities and Regeneration -£0.6m

Residents' Services -£4.2m

Finance & Resources  -£1.8m

Governance -£0.4m

Corporate -£4.1m

I have embedded fuller details below and as you read it you will see that it is likely that extensive job losses are likely to be involved, and many of those low paid workers. ethnic minority and women.

Adult Social Care

Adult social care  costs are rising across all councils but it is likely that some of the justifications made for the cuts by Brent Council, under a general argument that they will increase the independence of recipients, will be challenged.  There will be no general public consultation on the changes because of the 'personalised aspects; of the proposal. This limits the opportunity to campaign and narrows implentation to individual negotiations with recipients, family and advocate. The final paragraph on key risks is important.

 Extract from Report

There is some evidence that Brent provides more homecare hours in community care packages than other London boroughs –potentially around 1 hour per week extra per client over the age of 75 than expected.

There are a number of interventions that need to be delivered both in response to the pandemic and because they are good practice, which should reduce the overall levels of homecare. These include:

Double handed care reviews – partly as a result of the pandemic, and the reduced access to care homes for discharge we have seen a significant increase in double handed care packages (where 2 carers are needed to carry out care). Reducingdouble handed care packages, means fewer people entering someone’s home, better use of community equipment and, therefore, more independence and less intrusive care.

Reablement – the new and redesigned dedicated reablement service goes live inFebruary 2023. The new service has been designed after a full review and brings a range of new features, which have been successful in other Local Authorities,therefore, we expect to see a significant increase in the number of people supported to maximise independence and so require lower or no care packages.

High and Low costing care Packages – the purpose of social care is to assist people to live as independent a life as is possible outside the formal care system. For these cohort of service users focused reviews will be undertaken with a stronger attention on Personalisation and promoting Personal Budgets/ Personal Assistants as a means of receiving their services. For very low costing support packagers the aim will be to Promoting Independence. Looking at housing adjustment / equipment’s, telecare and digital solutions to support individual’s so that they will no longer require funded support.

How would this affect users of this service?

We carry out reviews at the end of the reablement process and on an annual basis. We will ensure that these reviews are strength bases reviews and with a focus on independence. This will also be true of double handed calls because although the person will not be full independent with activities of daily living, they may only require a single carer, which should be seen as a positive as it will reduce the number of carers and should improve the relationships.

Key milestones

The nature of this proposal means it will be part of all reviews on an ongoing basis. Individual reviews will be done with the person who receives the care, their family or advocates and the care agency. The only specific milestone is the implementation of the new reablement service in February 2023.

Key consultations

Service users and families will be consulted on a case by case basis – there will not be a wider consultation given the personalised aspect of this proposal.

Key risks and mitigations 

Reducing packages becomes harder to achieve in practice than in principle, because of a reliance on the care provided – social workers use their experience and understanding of the Care Act to promote a strength based approached to care, to mitigate these issues.

Outline of the proposals are below and fuller details are available in a 200 page document available HERE.  

Click bottom right for full page.