Brent Council issued the
following press release yesterday on its budget proposals. I drew attention
recently to Camden's revision of its Council Tax Support Scheme in the light of
Council Tax increases. There are, as far as I can see, no proposals for a
review of Brent's scheme. LINK
BRENT COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE
Plan to protect
local services by raising income set to be discussed
14 October 2016
Protecting local services is the
top priority for Brent, the council leader has said, as a plan to get residents'
views on a draft set of budget proposals for the next two years is set to be
discussed.
Brent Council's Cabinet will meet on Monday 24 October to consider a paper
which includes a proposal to protect local services by increasing council tax
by 3.99 per cent - or 85p a week for an average Band D household.
The report sets out how councils are still in an era of austerity and are
facing further cuts in Government funding despite growing demand for local
services from an increasing and ageing population. The paper also includes some
savings proposals although these are relatively small compared to recent
council budgets.
Last year was the first year council tax had risen in Brent for six years after
successive freezes despite Government funding being slashed by £117million
since 2010.
Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:
"Imagine your household bills went up every year, but your salary kept
being cut. You would have to make some tough choices and find new ways to make
your money go further.
"That's what this council has been doing in finding new, more efficient
ways to maintain and improve the services that we all need, but it has also
meant making some very difficult decisions.
"We know how important our local services are to the people of Brent which
is why, rather than cutting back on those vital services, the option of raising
income through a small council tax increase to protect these services is being
considered.
"The choice we face in Brent is this: will we pay a bit extra each month
to keep our services available to those who need them, or will we let the
Government's cuts to our budget further limit the services we can
provide?"
In addition to the proposal on council tax, the paper includes proposals to:
·
Help residents with low-level nursing
care needs to live independently, which will improve their quality of life and
save £300,000
·
Negotiate a £500,000 reduction in
spending on contracts with mental health service providers
·
Outsourcing the management of two day
care centres in the borough to save £300,000
·
Negotiate a £900,000 saving in the
public realm contract with Veolia
·
Charging for a next-day and 'pick your
day' bulky waste collection service, generating £250,000 each year
·
Consult on saving £100,000 in the
Regulatory Services team through a reorganisation
·
Participation in the London wide sexual
health transformation programme to achieve better services while saving
£600,000 over the next two years
·
Consultation on plans for differential
parking charges to help manage pressure for spaces in high demand areas -
£1million
·
Dim street lights where appropriate
which would save £100,000 and benefit the environment
Cllr Butt added:
"As a Cabinet, we will discuss the draft proposals set out in the report
at our next meeting and, if approved, will then put them to residents to have
their say in a detailed budget consultation."
The budget consultation is set to run from November to December with a series
of public meetings arranged for January. A final decision on the budget will be
taken by Full Council in February 2017.
View the full Cabinet report here.
There is little information on
any debate within the Labour Group or the Brent Labour Party as whole over
these proposals although Cllr Michael Pavey in his letter resigning from the
Cabinet LINK said,
'I think it is clear that the
Leader and myself have developed differing views regarding how Brent Council
can best serve its residents at a time of brutal Tory cuts.'
Pavey may have fought against cuts in his own brief, Stronger Communities, or perhaps he had an alternative strategy which was defeated.
As usual the devil will be in
the detail and one has to look beyond the phraseology of the bullet points to
see what they really mean. Some appear to be deliberately vague.
Taking the first proposal on
helping people with 'low-level nursing care need to live independently' , the
report acknowledges that this 'help' may not be welcome - but it delivers
'savings' through what will be a reduced service:
Proposal to move lowest need (c.20%)
of clients currently in nursing care to Supported Living which would deliver a
£0.3m saving. This is based on an analysis of nursing home placements, which
suggest there are a number of placements at the simpler end.
How would this affect users of this service?
Clients would need to agree to the move and some may find moving traumatic.
Families and carers may also be averse to disrupting stable placements. Some
users may prefer a less institutional environment and regain independence and
skills lost through being in nursing care.
Brent's poor provision of mental
health services came under sharp criticism at the recent 'Extremism' debate so
the £0.5m cut in spending on contracts will need close scrutiny:
£0.5m ('savings') achieved through:
enabling a more effective recovery pathway – better access to housing and
employment will accelerate step
down to general needs housing
Supported by ongoing negotiations with providers to manage costs and focus
on the right support.
How would this affect users of this service?
This would support the delivery of the current objectives of the service,
supporting people to move towards independence, and further efficiencies would
be achieved through negotiations, which would not mean a change in
service.
The key here is 'negotiation
with providers' which often means reducing the payment to providers affecting
the pay and working conditions of those working for them and perhaps
contradicting the Council's commitment to the London living wage.
Despite Jeremy Corbyn's remarks on Council 'in-sourcing' LINK, Brent may decide to
outsource the management of the John Billam and New Millennium day care
centres. There is little detail in the proposals but they expect to generate
income by opening up the use of the buildings to outside groups.
The report notes:
Key consultations
Extensive consultation required
with users and carers in both day centres would be required however the service
developed, and with Unions, staff and with potential providers
Key risks and mitigations
Risk that users and carers will oppose the changes to the service – mitigated
through extensive and ongoing communication and engagement
If the first risk becomes an issue, significant risk of adverse publicity and
public protest – mitigated through extensive and ongoing communication and
engagement Risk that the council cannot generate the additional income and
efficiencies – mitigated through financial modelling and change management
Risk that we will need to consider outsourcing as the way to drive the change.
The almost £1m efficiency
savings over two years on the Public Realm contract with Veolia which covers
street cleaning, waste collection, waste recycling, parks maintenance and much
more are in a proposal so vague as to be virtually meaningless:
This proposal generates £900k
from operational efficiencies within the Public Realm Contract. These will
rationalise operational arrangements so they better manage and properly resolve
hot spots and other persistent problems.
How would this affect users of this service?
Service users may see revised working practices and operational schedules.
This is coupled with a proposal
to raise £0.25m by charging for bulky waste collections. Whether to
charfe for bulky waste collections has been an ongoing debate between
Labour and the Lib Dems. The introduction of a charge for next day or pick your
day collections follows widespread complaints about the length of time it takes
Veolia to pick up bulky waste under the present free system LINK. It is unlikely that
residents expected charges to be introduced as a result of their complaints and a two tier system may well result in longer delays for the free service and
increased fly-tipping.
Participation in the London wide sexual health programme and consequent savings
of £0.6m are based on moving away from face-to-face consultations with health
professionals to a web-based service:
Analysis of activity in current
sexual health services and a waiting room survey indicates that not all current
attendances at GUM clinics need that specialist service. Brent is participating
in a London wide procurement of a new ‘front door’ to sexual health services.
The front door into services will be web based, a single platform providing
patients with information about sexual health, on line triage, signposting to
the most appropriate service for their needs and the ability to order
self-sampling tests.
Tellingly one of the risk
factors identified for this saving is:
- a failure to
change patient and / or clinician behaviour and so not achieve the
diversion of activity on which savings are based
Given the nature of the
Opposition on Brent Council the proposal on parking charges is likely to be the
most controversial, but again it is pretty vague:
This is an exercise to account
for the parking pressures that are expected to arise from an increase in the
borough’s population. Regeneration and increased development may result in
additional cars and increased parking pressures. This creates the need to
provide parking restrictions that meet current and future demand, with the
revenue paying for the service and any additional revenue being reinvested in
the service. This exercise will consider residential parking permits and some
car parking tariffs but will not include a review of visitor parking charges.
With the exception of some
fairly minor proposals on Regeneration which is Cllr Mashari's remit, all the
above proposals either come under Cllr Hirani (Adult Social Care) or Cllr
Southwood (Environment). There are none under Cllr
Pavey's Stronger Communities remit. Perhaps he was not so keen to see services
reduced.
Now that Cllr Butt has taken over that brief, pending a 'review' LINK, is there a possibilty that further
proposals will be tabled?
