Tower Hamlets Council has approved its budget for the forthcoming year, including a 4% increase in council tax. The council also discussed and rejected amendments from the Independent Group and the Conservative Group.

Budget and Council Tax for 2016-17

The council debated and ultimately approved the Mayor's proposed budget for 2016-17, which includes a 4% increase in council tax. Mayor John Biggs presented this as a Labour budget aimed at fairness, challenging inequality, and providing excellent services, particularly for disadvantaged communities. He highlighted investments in housing, ethical care, anti-social behaviour initiatives, and street cleaning. The budget aims to address the impact of government cuts, with the council facing £17 million in savings required this year and a projected £59 million reduction in funding by 2019.

The proposed 4% council tax increase comprises a 2% Osborne precept to fund adult social care, as expected by the Conservative government, and an additional 1.99% to build resilience into the budget for the challenging year ahead. Mayor Biggs stated that even with this increase, Tower Hamlets would still have the sixth-lowest council tax in London.

Arguments for the Mayor's Budget:

• It is presented as an anti-austerity budget that makes difficult but necessary choices to protect frontline services and vulnerable residents.
• It aligns with the Labour Party's values of fairness and challenging inequality.
• Investments are being made in key areas such as housing, care for the elderly, and tackling anti-social behaviour.
• The budget aims to restore transparency and good governance to the council after the previous administration's issues.
• The council tax increase is necessary to meet rising costs, particularly in adult social care, and to replace lost government grants.

Arguments against the Mayor's Budget (from amendments and debate):

• Independent Group Amendment: This amendment, which was rejected, proposed a prudent, robust budget that put residents and staff first, aiming for a lean council by cutting waste and consultants. They argued that the Mayor's budget was a Tory budget that hit the most vulnerable and was contrary to Labour's values. They highlighted that the previous administration had left £71 million in reserves, which they believed could be used to avoid cuts. They also criticised the 4% council tax rise and proposed a more progressive and genuine community-based people budget.
• Conservative Group Amendment: This amendment, also rejected, argued the Mayor's budget was irresponsible and an insult to residents. They proposed a more proportionate 2% council tax rise, focusing on long-term planning, shared efficiencies with other authorities, better utilisation of development proceeds, and protecting neighbourhood policing. They criticised the proposed cuts to policing and the prioritisation of spending on other areas.
• General Criticisms: Several councillors expressed concern about the impact of the budget on vulnerable residents, including those with learning difficulties, the elderly, and those relying on services like the incontinence laundry service. Concerns were also raised about cuts to children's services, youth services, and the potential impact on employment and BME bursaries. Some argued that the council tax increase was unjustified and that the council should have explored alternative income generation or more efficient use of reserves.

The Independent Group amendment was lost with 12 votes for and 30 against. The Conservative Group amendment was lost with 5 votes for and 37 against. The Mayor's substantive budget proposals were carried with 25 votes for and 17 against.

Petitions Regarding Budget Cuts and Saving Services

Two petitions were presented to the council concerning budget cuts and the impact on services.

Petition 1: Reserve Funds and Budget Cuts Presented by Ms. Naomi Byron, this petition highlighted the potential closure of the incontinence laundry service, which provides vital support to residents with critical needs, such as those with severe incontinence. The petitioner shared a poignant letter from a resident whose father relies on the service for his daily care. The petition argued that the £41,000 cost of the service, which employs two people, is a small price to pay for the invaluable support it offers. Concerns were raised that alternative solutions, such as personal budgets, were still being investigated and that other public services, like schools and hospitals, are also facing significant cuts, making it difficult for them to absorb new responsibilities. The petition urged councillors not to vote for these cuts.

Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support of the petition, sharing his personal experience of how valuable such a service was to his late mother. He suggested increased publicity for the service and collaboration with GPs and the NHS to ensure its continuation. Councillor O'Neill questioned the petitioner's comparison with Stoke City Council, highlighting differences in their home care charges and provision of free school meals.

Mayor John Biggs responded, acknowledging the points made and stating that the incontinence laundry service is provided by the NHS in 31 London boroughs, which is the direction Tower Hamlets aims to move towards. He stressed that the decision was not solely about cost-effectiveness but also about commitment to vulnerable people. He also referenced a letter from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, emphasizing the need for councils to set balanced budgets to avoid intervention from the Secretary of State. He argued that using reserves year after year would create unmanageable savings targets in the future. The petition was referred to the Corporate Director Resources for a written response within 28 days.

Petition 2: Budget Cuts and Saving Services Presented by Mr. Patrick Dickinson and Mr. Hugo Perry, this petition also called on the council to oppose cuts. They argued that the government could be made to back down on cuts, citing examples of concessions made by the Conservative government. They urged a united stand from affected councils and highlighted that their anti-austerity campaign was popular. They referenced a statement from John McDonnell, suggesting Labour councillors should do all they can to defend services and develop mass campaigns. The petitioners proposed using the council's £71 million in general reserves to plug the budget gap, arguing that the planned £15 million in cuts would translate to £30 million over a full year.

Councillor Rachel Saunders questioned the petitioners' suggestion to join forces with the Tower Hamlets Independent Group, pointing out that this group had proposed £25 million worth of cuts when they ran the council. Councillor Oliur-Rahman asked how cutting the CEMS service would be effective. Mayor John Biggs responded, stating that while the Labour group opposed austerity, using reserves to wipe out the budget gap within one year would be reckless and create massive problems for future years. He noted that the council faced a high risk of £42 million and needed to make £30 million in savings next year. He also mentioned that reserves would be cut by 44% over four years, but a single-year cut to £23 million would be unsustainable. The petition was referred to the Corporate Director's Resource for a written response within 28 days.