Agenda item

It was proposed by Councillor Stuart Munro and seconded by Councillor Charles Margetts that the proposed Medium Term Financial Plan 2023/26 and Revenue Budget Submission 2023/24 be amended with the Budget changes set out in the table below:

In proposing the amendment, Stuart Munro stated that it demonstrated how the Conservative Group would make savings and reallocate money. The amendment was a prudent proposal which was what residents wanted. The amendment would deliver savings of £2.1m from reductions in wasteful increased spending on back office staff, too much focus on communications, too much focus on projects that were no longer progressing and removing expensive interim posts. The proposals would reallocate money to freeze current car park charges, increase spending on road maintenance and retain weekly waste collections. Previous Conservative administrations had built up over £100m of available reserves. The Liberal Democrat Budget failed its own test of sound finance and failed to address the needs and wants of residents. It lacked the ambition to continue the Conservative goal of getting the local economy back on its feet after Covid. It wasted money on internal reorganisations while cutting back and underinvesting on services affecting our communities such as roads and waste. It took money out of residents’ pockets that could have been found through better financial management.

In addition to the amendment, Members received a copy of a paper from the Chief Finance Officer which provided an assessment of the proposed Budget amendment. The paper stated that the Budget Amendment put forward additional growth proposals and/or reduced income proposals totalling £1.6m. To fund this, £2.2m of savings had been proposed. The Substantive Budget Submission already incorporated a significant cost reduction/income generation challenge of £11.8m, which for context was more than double the £5.1m agreed at Council last year and was over 7% of the Council’s Net Budget. The additional savings would increase this total to £14m, or almost 9% of the Council’s Net Budget. This would inevitably add sizeable risk on top of the challenging targets and subsequent risks already included in the Substantive Budget Submission.

Councillor Clive Jones stated that he did not accept the proposed amendment.

In opposing the amendment, Councillor Stephen Conway referred to the Chief Finance Officer’s paper. Councillor Conway felt that the amendment demonstrated a lack of understanding of the financial challenges facing the Council. He stated that the amendment was based on inaccurate assumptions and false figures. It proposed to forego savings and income generation without a plausible explanation as to how the shortfall would be made up. The Conservatives pinned their hopes on abolishing a Citizens’ Assembly which was not in the Budget and making savings in interim staff. They ran the Council for 20 years and made no such savings. The current administration had made savings and increased income in the Place and Growth budget in order to protect Children’s and Adult services. The proposed Budget sought to target help on those who needed it most. It had gone through gone through a rigorous process of scrutiny since last autumn. It deserved to be rejected by all Councillors who believed in sound finances and focussing help on those who needed it most.

Upon being put to the vote, voting on the amendment was as follows.

The Mayor confirmed that the amendment was lost.