Members of the Cabinet,
Since 20 December Cllr Shouler has made some changes to the proposals discussed then; indeed some changes as recently as yesterday. In general I welcome these changes, (some of which I suggested when I spoke on 20 December). However I still see serious financial problems in later years, and I do not think that the Budget being proposed meets residents' wishes for improvements in local services. The Medium Term Plan assumed £5m of efficiency savings every year, but these are not currently being achieved and, indeed, a lower figure of £4m is being suggested from 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.
Substantially more money has become available for 2006/7 from Council Tax and Collection Fund Surpluses. This has been such a regular last minute addition to the County Council's income that I wonder whether some of it should be regarded as recurrent rather than for one year only.
The report of the Budget and Council Tax Survey states 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. And the MORI residents' survey last summer showed that people were dissatisfied with the services currently being provided by the council in most of these areas. I will discuss these in turn
At last week's 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 3 page 3 and 4, 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). This means a net £2.5m of reductions (or "reprioritisations") in care for older people.
One proposed use of the extra one-off income is a £1m to an Emergency Fund for pressures in Social and Community Services - including the knock-on effect of NHS cuts. This is a one-off contribution, but can anyone see the need for it reducing? It is inadequate to deal with Older People alone.
This Budget proposes cuts in highway maintenance, but instead more is needed to repair roads and pavements more speedily. Cllr Robertson is right to boast of progress with Controlled Parking Zones, but they are holding up short-term measures urgently needed near, for example, the closed Milham Ford School. At Council he stated that he hoped to set up a special team to deal with these problems, but I cannot find it in these Budget proposals.
This Budget proposes cuts in Waste Reduction Initiatives (from 2008/9).
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.
The youth facilities desired by respondents include the Youth Offending Team, which is losing staff, the County Youth Service (whose preservation in this Budget I welcome) and youth clubs and leisure provided by Districts, Towns, Parishes and Voluntary Organisations. However, residents clearly want improvements. I regret that this Budget does not seek to improve youth facilities, perhaps by providing matched funding for these bodies.
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 the Government figure of 5% to maintain more services - an increase of only £6 per year for Band D houses. It is a shame that the Tories are more interested in maintaining a minor decrease in the rise in Council Tax than in thinking about what improvements to services people have asked for.
Follow the party's activity on...