Last Thursday, the Council’s meeting was dominated by the recent cuts from central Government, which left Southend Borough Council with £1.4 million less funding than planned at the start of the financial year. Here, Deputy Leader of the Labour group Cllr Ian Gilbert gives Councilbust.com his view of what might be this year’s most important Council debate.
I’d expected this Full Council to be long, and it didn’t disappoint.
Public speaking is not a side of politics that I enjoy, and I was rather more nervous and wound-up than usual before this council. As Deputy Group Leader with our Leader absent, I knew I’d have to make rather more contributions than normal. With the Conservative and the Lib Dems in coalition nationally, and several members of the independent group describing themselves as ‘conservative’, it’s almost as if the four Labour councillors are the only opposition.
My first business of the evening was to present a petition on bus services on behalf of the Youth Council. Young people in Southend are angry about the policy of certain bus companies to have 14 as the cut-off age for the child discount in Southend, whilst it is 16 in other areas. I’m trying to draw attention to the link between young people ‘not having enough to do’ and lack of affordable and convenient public transport in Southend.
I asked a question about Southend schools opting to be academies. At least two schools have applied for academy status, and we don’t yet know how many others will follow suit. I’m genuinely anxious about the effect that this will have on Southend council’s budget, and hence the services we provide for the schools that remain under our control. These reforms could lead to an even more unequal and divided education system. I’m quite frustrated by the lack of public debate and scrutiny of what will be a huge change.
As usual the debate in Full Council ranged over a very wide area; health inequalities, dog fouling, pavements and Youth Centres were just some of the issues touched upon. Debates in Full Council rarely change a policy by themselves. Votes rarely matter. The Conservatives have a majority and maintain their discipline. Although they claim that they do not ‘whip’ votes, the Conservative administration has never lost a vote in full council for at least five years.
Nevertheless, what is said can make a difference. A good contribution made before the assembled councillors, officers, press and public can serve to push an issue up the agenda or change people’s thinking. None of us are so entrenched in our views that we can’t be swayed by the right argument.
The most controversial issues of the night were the package of cuts and councillors’ expenses.
On the package of cuts themselves, councillors felt rather powerless. We had less than a week’s notice of the proposals. The government’s haste to chop the budget has meant that we can’t properly plan for reductions. I had the sense that we were just cutting what was ‘easy’ to cut rather than thinking more strategically. I would have rather seen the burden of cuts shared out between council departments rather than falling so heavily on our youth services.
The most controversial issue was councillors’ allowances. An audit committee report had discovered ‘irregularities’ in members’ expenses. Although the amounts involved were trivial, any mention of politicians’ expenses is controversial.
The Labour Group has argued for some time that it was wrong for members to claim expenses for travel within the Borough. This view was accepted by the independent panel set up to consider the issue. However, the panel proposed that councillors should be awarded an extra £100 allowance to cover this. We thought it would send a terrible signal to anyone adversely affected by the budget cuts, or staff how have had their pay frozen, if we accepted any increase at all.
My colleague Stephen George proposed an amendment to delete the extra £100 from the report. It went to a vote and, unusually, every opposition councillor present voted with us. Unfortunately every Conservative councillor voted against, so the motion fell.
Many councillors will, individually, refuse to accept the extra money, or give it to charity. Whether that will be enough to satisfy the public, I’m not sure.
I am delighted that the Labour group have decided not to accept the increase. For those Tories who have decided to accept it and give the money to charity, may I propose my favourite (newly formed) charity. It is the “Parents Who Pay Disgracefully High Bus Fare For Their Children Get To School Charity”
Children in Southend do not even pay half fare, it is a concessionary rate, To receive this, they have to purchase a Faresaver photocard as proof of age. There are no term time only bus passes. (weekly or 4 weekly passes, so with 6 week half terms, not value for money.) Many routes do not run at evenings and weekends, despite the fact that we have paid for 28 days… Oh and few services operate via the new Garon’s swimming pool.
I am paying close to ONE THOUSAND POUNDS per annum to Arriva for my CHILDREN. Someone subsidise me please!!!!
Well done Labour Councillors for voting against a personal allowance increase. I really believe the public will not forget about this and all I can say to Conservative Councillors is; DUCK HOUSES- you don’t deserve Southend residents votes at the next election-enjoy your pay-rise!