Read Cllr Rachael Robathan response to Labour-led Westminster Council's budget at tonight's Full Council.
Lord Mayor, tonight we have heard the Leader of the Council set out his budget - a Fairer budget for a fairer Westminster? I don’t propose to set out tonight an alternative budget - it will be three years before we again set the budget - so rather than waste my time setting out ideas which won’t be adopted, let me instead focus on whether this really is a fairer budget for the people of Westminster and how robust the assumptions and process are on which it depends. This is Westminster taxpayers' money spent to provide vital services for them so it is critical that the numbers can be trusted.
But first let me turn to their proposal on Council Tax.
In their manifesto, less than a year ago, they were clear that they would freeze Council Tax until 2024. Yet tonight we hear that they are going to raise it by 2% to levy the Adult Social Care precept. Their rationale is that this is what we - the Conservatives - did last year. And we did - we raised it by 1%, which they opposed. But it is a pretty poor political argument to say that they’re going to do something just because we did - and, moreover, we know that they don’t approve of levying the social care precept because they voted against it last year. How then can they square the decision to raise it by 2% this year, having only just promised the electorate no rises? And I don’t think the argument ‘Because the Tories did it’ or ’The Tories would have done it’ is going to get them very far. Isn’t it a worrying first precedent for our residents of what Labour will do to their taxes when in power?
Isn’t it terrifying enough to see the part of their Council Tax bills levied by the Labour Mayor of London rising by another 9% this year - that’s almost 60% over the last 7 years - without the Council’s part also being raised despite the promise this wouldn’t happen.
It is the legacy of years of Conservative administration which have kept Westminster Council Tax the lowest in the country - but for how long will that continue?
Let’s move on to the process for setting this year’s budget. It’s not as if the Labour Party didn’t have enough time to get ready for this. In the amendment they tabled last year in this Chamber, they were very clear what their process would be
- implementing a zero-based budget review - ensuring every penny is spent on local community needs
- establish a critical friends board of independent local government experts to seek new savings and tackle waste
- beginning a trial of participatory budgeting so that residents can be involved in the process
And these were also clearly set out in their manifesto. But when I asked the Cabinet Member for Finance at the Last Full Council whether he had implemented any of these he merely said that he’d had a conversation about it - so that means nothing’s been done.
But Lord Mayor, if you really believed there was waste and the potential for savings why on earth wouldn’t you have implemented these things - as you promised in your manifesto - which might have meant that you wouldn’t have had to raise council tax by 2%? In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis wouldn’t you have turned over every single stone and delivered on your manifesto commitment in order to avoid burdening people with an extra bill? How is that a fairer budget?
And what of the other things they said they would do - one of their favourites repeated every year was to reduce spending on temporary agency staff. Last year in their proposed amendment they committed to saving ‘at least £1.5m in 22/23 by reducing temporary staff costs'. But when we look at the numbers for the end of December they have made not a single reduction in the numbers of temporary staff versus a year before. If they had delivered on this pledge it would have more than covered the cost of the ASC levy - not needing to burden our residents with more taxes.
And what of their other budget proposals?
£1m from cutting the Public Relations budget and of course their favourite, £400k from cutting the Westminster Reporter. I also note that they proposed cutting £100k from the Lord Mayor’s budget but I didn’t notice you arriving on a bicycle this evening Lord Mayor! If they had done any of these things they pledged to do, they might even have been able to fund a rebate for band A - D taxpayers as our neighbours in Conservative-run RBKC have done. It wouldn’t offset the massive bill from London’s Labour mayor, but it would help. And it also might have meant that they wouldn’t already be cutting into reserves to pay for unfunded new spending pledges.
So, let’s look at some of the key items in the budget.
First, capital - clearly there is a huge question mark over the viability of the major regeneration schemes at Church Street and Ebury Bridge. We know these were wafer-thin in any case, but the switch away from affordable key worker housing towards social will stretch this further. There is only so much money their friend Sadiq Khan can give them and with developers telling us that the Council’s Planning department has seized up, what is the outlook for CIL receipts which they seem to be relying on? We will come back to this, but the funding of these is something we will watch closely.
In the meantime, what of those low-income key workers desperate to get on the Westminster housing ladder when less than 2% of our City’s housing stock is affordable rent versus 25% social rent? How is this fairer to those teachers, nurses, young people starting out? This is sending a clear message that Westminster is not a place where there will be any housing for them. Hardly a fairer Westminster for them
The next biggest item in the capital budget is the PDHU (Pimlico District Heating Undertaking) - or at least you would assume so. We’ve heard numerous times, including in maiden speeches, that the works to invest and renovate these are critical and urgent. Indeed, in response to questions at the Budget Task Group officers said ‘The Council is committed to decarbonising the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking. A strategic outline case was approved in January 2023 setting out four options for this work with costs expected to be between £175m and £225m with works completed before 2030. Yet we are being asked this evening to sign off an HRA budget for the next 15 years which only includes a figure of £13.3m - the maintenance for the next few years. How is this roughly £200m going to be funded? Why is no provisional figure set out in the budget? How can anyone trust this capital budget when one of the single biggest items for us as a Council isn’t even provisionally budgeted?
We are all agreed that something desperately needs to be done to address the PDHU both for the sake of our residents suffering burst pipes and to meet our carbon emissions goals, but if this administration has established the likely cost it needs to be budgeted.
What of the cost to leaseholders? For many - indeed most - this will be a completely unaffordable bill. What is being done by this administration to engage with them about this project which could mean many of them having to sell their homes because they can’t afford the bills.
And what of looking at other solutions?
My colleague, Cllr Pitt Ford, has twice raised in this Chamber the need to consider installing individual electric boilers in people’s flats. Is any work being done on this?
This administration came to power promising to have community engagement at the centre of everything they do, but what community engagement has there been with the leaseholders of Pimlico about these massive costs? So not a fairer budget for leaseholders - at least not in Pimlico.
And what of our social tenants? On top of failing services, social tenants are facing a rent hike of 7%. Fortunately capped at 7% by the Secretary of State, but this administration, this Cabinet Member, has decided to raise it by the absolute maximum allowed. Now I know that last year we raised rents by 6% - but they voted against that, and the Cabinet Member was vociferous in her attack on my colleague Cllr Harvey.
So how do they now justify their decision to raise it by even more? How does she justify that?
How do they explain to those social tenants - who saw them attacking us last year and must have assumed that wouldn’t, therefore, happen under Labour - that they’ve raised them by even more during a cost-of-living crisis. Is it any wonder that Cllr Cunningham received an email from a resident saying ‘I voted for Labour to sort out housing but it’s actually got worse?’
Talking of ferocious speeches last year - I also recall Cllr Butler Thalassis ripping into our plans for Adult Social Care and arguing how different it would be if she were in charge - more investment, no savings, completely different. But there are no new proposals, no new initiatives and what we see in this budget is that she’s accepted all of the budget savings for Adult Social Care which we proposed and she railed against last year.
City Management - so let’s have a look at the biggest items. The parking fee structure review we are told will raise an additional £3.25m over the next two years. Cllr Fisher when he chaired the group commented that he was quite happy for owners of Lamborghinis to pay through the nose - well I wouldn’t disagree, but there aren’t enough owners of Lamborghinis in Westminster to raise this on their own. Against a backdrop of falling car use anyway, the only way these numbers can possibly be achieved is by hammering those people who bought small, clean cars because they thought they were making the right choice and also those with electric vehicles. The numbers are so precise that it’s clear they already know where the additional revenue will come from, so tonight we need the Cabinet Member to set out how this will be achieved and confirm whether he intends to impose charges on Electric vehicles.
And what of the service which affects every single one of our residents every single day? The waste collection and street cleansing service. We were told by the head of that service that Veolia is quite happy to absorb the cost of at least four waste collections every week for our residents rather than the three under us, given that the new administration has committed to keep the second black bin collection for all residents.
We know what’s really happening - we can see it on our streets. Other corners are being cut. Dumped rubbish isn’t being collected as quickly. The pavement isn’t swept after the rubbish is collected meaning detritus left strewn across our pavements. That is the result for our residents - a deterioration in service which impacts all of us.
And as for carbon emission targets? Yes, more food waste will be collected but we know it will be nowhere near enough to hit our recycling target as a City as they are keeping both black bin collections for all residents.
But Lord Mayor, there is another larger group of residents for whom this doesn’t feel fair - all those who don't live in the north of the City and specifically a Labour ward in the north of the City. Is this a fairer budget for them?
We have heard much of the Future of Westminster Commission which will be proposing policies and deciding priorities as we heard at Scrutiny from its Chair. Yet these are all made up of representatives from the north of Westminster - or with no connection to Westminster at all. We even have one strand of work chaired by the MP for Westminster North - but no involvement at all for the MP who represents all those living in the centre and South of the borough. Do their views not matter at all? What message does this send to those residents who didn’t vote Labour or who don’t live in the North? This administration isn’t interested in your views. Indeed, of the four communities priorities grant programme pilots which have been launched - with £300k of funding each - all four were for Labour wards in the north.
Why couldn’t there have been at least one of these pilots in the South? Deprivation exists in the Centre and South of the City as well. Communities in the Centre and South of the City need support as well. Their priorities matter as well.
But when we talk of fairness Lord Mayor, this all pales into insignificance compared to what this administration is proposing to award themselves as allowances. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, with so many of our residents struggling to make ends meet, they are proposing awarding their Cabinet Members a 45% increase. I’m amazed they can even look our residents in the face. These are part-time roles - how can they possibly explain to our residents that this is fair….to vote a 45% increase for themselves with - I should be clear - absolutely no support from the Conservative councillors on this side of the Chamber.
And deputy Cabinet Members - in 2014 the Labour Party tabled an amendment to the budget before full Council calling for all deputy cabinet member allowances to be scrapped. They felt so strongly about it that they tabled it again in 2016 and in 2017. Yet what do they do now they are in power - you’d think given that they called for deputy cabinet member allowances to be scrapped three times that they would be the first to go. But no. They are proposing an inflation-busting increase of 15%. How can they possibly justify this?
They also called for Councillors to receive no more than one Special Responsibility Allowance - yet now in power 14 of their members receive more than one, with some receiving four and two Cabinet Members even receiving more than one. What happened to their calls for this to end?
How can the residents of Westminster trust them when even in their first year they have broken all of these commitments which they made?
How can our residents - worried sick about the Cost-of-Living crisis, facing a 7% rise in their rent and another huge bill from London’s Labour mayor - understand Cabinet Members sitting there and voting through massive pay rises for themselves?
But let me say this to them - if you really believe this is justified, make this the first element of your participatory budgeting programme. Take this to our residents and see whether they think it would be fairer to spend £180,000 of taxpayers' money on up to 45% pay rises for the majority group over the next three years or would it be fairer to spend that money funding more initiatives to help the poorest in Westminster struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
Without the support of our residents through this process, this increase would be truly shameful and would make a mockery of any pledge to engage with residents, start participatory budgeting or listen to their priorities.
So Lord Mayor what we have before us this evening is not a Fairer budget for a Fairer Westminster.
It’s not fair if you’re a leaseholder facing massive bills, it’s not fairer if you’re a social tenant with a 7% rent increase and a repair service which doesn’t respond, it’s not fairer if you live in the Centre or South of the City, it’s not fairer if you’re worried about bills and can only dream of giving yourself a 45% pay rise, it’s not fairer if you are a low income, hard-working person or family who’s desperate to get on the housing ladder and it’s not fairer if you were a Westminster resident who believed what Labour said.
