Katesgrove Lib Dems

Budget situation: no agreement after second meeting

We have always made the rule that this blog should not be used for the sort of political posturing that certain other blogs in Reading are, as it is for information on our work as ward councillors.  As our council work for each of the last two evenings has been spent in the Civic until gone 11pm, while a budget has failed to be set, it is now right to set out some thoughts on the situation.

Labour's budget set out a Council Tax increase of 4.24%, with only one new spending proposal (a long-overdue plan to increase funding on enforcement on private rented housing), and taking £1.4m from Council reserves to pay for it all, with the balances run down to the bare bones.  We could not support the overall package as it left the cupboard bare, at a time when the economy is uncertain and we know next year's Government grant for local councils is rotten; it will mean for sure, we fear, that there will be nowhere to go next year other than big Council Tax rises and cuts in services.  With Labour going quickly backwards in Reading, we presume they calculate they won't have to take those decisions.

We tried to amend the budget by making £780,000 worth of savings, costed in advance with the help of officers; making targeted service improvements (on environmental enforcement, reducing charges for bulky waste collection, integrated promotion of Neighbourhood Policing so residents can actually hear from their local teams, and road safety), reducing the Council Tax increase to 3.99% and leaving some balances to cope with the economic storms.  We also wanted a review group to tackle the difficult issues in the budget, ensuring that it wasn't just Labour who could access information so this situation couldn't happen again.  Like the Labour Budget, this was thrown out by the other parties.

The Conservatives failed to present a Budget amendment.

On the first night (Tuesday) after both proposals were voted down, group leaders were sent into huddles.  Three-party talks lasted barely a minute after the Conservatives withdrew; Labour discussed our amendment but were unable to commit to the savings we were after (claiming that any savings meant cuts in services: untrue, unless you describe items like sandwiches for Councillors - part of our savings package - as a cut!).

Then something extraordinary happened.  After we gave a clear steer as to the basis of a compromise, Labour after a group meeting tried to back out of any compromise at all.  Presumably their group thought that other parties would cave in, or they didn't understood they needed support to get their budget through.  I left them with a clear message that we wanted to see a new proposal to be discussed before the meeting reconvened.

Yesterday (Wednesday) officers made themselves available for discussions.  I took a half day from work and tried to work up alternatives, although it quickly became apparent that officers would find processing further late budget proposals difficult.  Although there was some conversation with the Conservatives (who remained unwilling to vote for any version of our proposals and were not tabling an amendment based on their own), nothing was heard from Labour by phone or email until after 5pm.  The draft amendment sent by email was another attempt by Labour to water down our proposals still further, to the point where we felt it was undeliverable.  Unfortunately, Labour chose not to formally discuss this with us before the meeting, but merely moved their proposal as an amendment.  The silence spoke volumes about Labour's willingness to agree a budget.

When it was clear this was to be voted down, the Council adjourned and we went in for more negotiation.  Labour remained unwilling to make savings, even after alternative approaches were discussed.  They failed to understand our concerns about deliverability, although the review of Fees and Charges agreed at last year's Budget meeting never happened due to Labour reprioritising officers' time, and none of us felt that we could trust Labour to turn a vague aspiration into a clear commitment.

Senior Conservatives asked why we were not prepared to sign up to a Labour proposal which they had no intention of supporting.  How bizarre.

We made one final effort to try and get agreement.  In order that Council Tax bills could be printed as planned without setting up the Council for further costs, we sought to get Labour to commit to the savings in the course of the financial year as part of our cross-party budget review; savings which the Budget papers stated twice needed to be made anyway to bring in a saving of over £8 million needed over the year.  Labour considered this for barely a minute, before deciding it was better to waste £60,000 of taxpayers' money on cancelling the printing of the bills, than commit to savings which their own budget book committed them to anyway.

So deadlock is the depressing outcome.  Labour are clearly stuck in a Stalinist mindset with an inability to compromise. 

Until the Conservatives propose a costed amendment to the budget, their negativity does little other than remind people, perversely, of the antics of Militant politicians in the dark days of the early 1980s.

Somehow, a budget has to be set among all this.  I shall comment on the politics of it all elsewhere.

Bin There, Done It

For more than two years Gareth has been highlighting the problems caused by bins blocking pavements and now the Environmental Scrutiny Panel will be discussing the success of a scheme piloted in Katesgrove to stop pavements being blocked by bins.

Last August the Council's Streetcare team began a trial in Alpine and Edgehill Streets, two streets with narrow pavements and a mix of front gardens. Persistent offenders who regularly blocked pavements with their bins were sent an escalating series of letters and notices, starting with a friendly warning letter reminding them of their responsibility to clear their bins from pavements.

Where bins continued to be left out, a Section 46 Notice - prohibiting them from leaving their bin on the pavement - was issued, warning the householder that they risk being prosecuted. In cases where the offences still continued, a third and final warning letter was sent out. 
 
Fixed penalty notices of £100 were only issued if the third letter was ignored and people continued to block the pavement with their bins. Trials showed most people complied at each of the various stages of warning, well before a fine was issued. 

The problems with bins blocking pavements in Alpine Street has been regulalrly reported to us and was a particular problem as the narrow width in places and a mix of properties with and without front gardens was stopping disabled residents from getting around. Because of this we supported this move.

It is not been without controversy but we have had many residents praising it, with only one complaint. It is not a question of Councils enforcing their policy: it is a fundamental question of people's right to get about.  We couldn't support a situation where residents were fined 'on the spot', but a balance has to be struck somewhere.
 
However, it is equally important that the Council listens to residents, especially those with little or no front garden.  There are still many problems caused by forcing residents to have two large wheelie bins, no matter what size their house. 

Liberal Democrats have consistently said that 'one size does not fits all'. The Council needs to tackle problems by giving people smaller bins or putting them onto sack collections where this is the best solution.

If you have a particular problem with bins on your street, please contact either of us.

Parking Matters

The A327 corridor study is still a little way off when it comes to making improvements to the Whitley Street layout, but I'm pleased to say that the car park across the road from the shops is about to have its parking restrictions changed.

Obviously with its location, the worry is that it will be used as a parking overflow area for the Oracle, but equally a 30 minute time limit is way too short for visiting the opticians, the dentist, fitness centre, three restaurants or the sun tan centre.

It's something I suggested before I became a councillor, so I'm very pleased to see it going ahead in the next few weeks.

Now. if only I could do something about the fact that when you leave the car park you have to go down to the Oracle roundabaout... we'll see!

Council Taxing

For people on low incomes, the council tax is likely to be their biggest bill after fuel and rent. Council tax is not related to a person’s ability to pay and it affects people on low and fixed incomes disproportionately.

Uncovering information whilst doing some some casework I've been doing for a constituent, I've discovered the staggering amount that Reading Borough Council is clawing back from the poor.

Last year the council raked in £550k in late payment charges. In fact, so sure are they that they have a nice little earner here that the figure is budgeted for and makes more than twice the amount they get for parking fines.

This is not right. Charges should not be added to a council tax account unless a person has been offered an arrangement to pay arrears and has refused to take up that offer. Summons should be issued only in cases where people can pay but won’t. And does it really cost £50 to send out a few reminder letters?

If the policy is not changed then the Leader of the Council’s 'concern' about the credit crunch can be exposed as no more than crocodile tears and the much trumpted credit crunch summit is a just spin to disguise yet another example in Reading of Labour stealing from the poor.

As a party we are committed to creating a fair local taxation system where the ability to pay is the most important factor in determining a person’s level of payment. It's only fair after all.