Liberal Democrat Budget

Speech by Cllr Dermot Roaf, Leader of the Opposition (Lib Dem) delivered to County Council on Tue 14th Feb 2006

Members of the Council,

I am still amazed that the Cabinet welcomed the grant settlement for 2006/7 on the ground that the total government grant (including the Dedicated School Grant) turned out to be more or less what was expected. The settlement is good for schools, but not for other services. I am also amazed that the Cabinet believes that their budget proposals involve no cuts in services. They boast that all the other Conservative-controlled County Councils in the South-east will have higher rises in Council Tax and cuts in services. I have the consultation document sent out to Council Tax payers in Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire, which offers three choices: 4% with very large cuts in road maintenance, 5% with major cuts and 6% with significant cuts. Do the other councils know something that our Cabinet does not - or are they just more honest?

Cabinet proposals, like the Labour proposals, do not address the fact that the damping grants of over £15m can be expected to reduce over the next few years

However I still see serious financial problems in later years. The Medium Term plan assumed £5m of efficiency savings every year, but the total listed in Annex 2 is less than £5m and some of them may well not be achieved. There are further such savings in Annex 4, so the total may reach £5m this year. But can these savings be kept up? The Cabinet is suggesting a lower figure of £4m in 2009/10 onwards. If only £4m were be achieved in 2006/7 onwards severe problems would occur and might require a reversal of the Manifesto commitment to reducing rises in Council Tax.

Our amendments are aimed at providing the people of Oxfordshire with the services they require within the capping criteria which we think that the government will impose. The report of the Budget and Council Tax Survey given to the Cabinet on 17 January stated that respondents would like the Council to spend more on care for older and vulnerable people, highway maintenance, recycling centres, public transport and facilities for youth. The final version given to all Councillors last week confirms these preliminary results. It also shows how important each service is and how satisfied or dissatisfied people are with them.

At the last Council, Cllr Godden asked how the new vision statement about Oxfordshire being "a special place to work, live and visit" would apply to older people. She was told to wait for the budget. This shows, in annex 4 page 3, reprioritisation of £4,948k, including a million pounds of actual cuts and £510k of past underspend. The only improvements in service are from the Day Centre Strategy (which is to be reduced from £1,986k to £761k over four years). She will talk about these issues in seconding our amendments, which include £1m to meet some of the demographic and other pressures.

The Conservative Budget proposes cuts in highway maintenance. We would reduce these cuts - particularly those to pavements. The cost would be a first charge on the £1.5m reserved for the extra Pension contributions which would be required if the Deputy Prime Minister does not abolish the 85-year rule. Consultation on this will finish on 28 February. If he confirms his proposal, then the £1.5m will be available, at least in 2006/7 and 2007/8 for other purposes. There will also be extra money coming fro the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme, expected to be about £300,000 for the County Council. The Cabinet has made last-minute proposals for the use of these sums, but I believe that pavement maintenance has a higher priority than some of the Cabinet proposals.

The Conservative Budget proposes cuts in Waste Reduction Initiatives (from 2008/9). We think this short-sighted and would reverse the cuts.

The cost of providing buses is rising faster than normal inflation. This Budget is not providing for this extra cost so there will be fewer rural buses. We would provide an extra £100k to mitigate the hardship to car-less people.

The youth facilities desired by respondents include the Youth Offending Team, which is losing staff, the County Youth Service (which is facing higher charges for its broadband connections and unachievable "efficiency savings") and youth clubs and leisure provided by Districts, Towns, Parishes and Voluntary Organisations. This budget does nothing for the Youth Offending Team and not quite enough for the Youth Service. Our amendments give some protection to these excellent services.

The Survey suggests that people are happy to pay an increase of 4.375% in Council Tax to maintain the present level of services. But this budget cuts services. Perhaps they would prefer to pay our figure of 4.94% to maintain more services - an increase of only £6 per year for Band D houses - less than two pence a day. Councillor Mitchell uses tins of beans as a measure. Prices can vary, but perhaps this would mean one fewer tin of beans each month.

For that tin we can give some protection to our older people. Support the amendment.