LibDem Budget speech at Epsom & Ewell Council meeting 15 February 2022

Thank you, Mr Mayor,

Before making comments on the various parts of the Recommendation, I want to add Councillor Morris's and my own thanks to all the Council employees for their hard work over the last 12 months. They have had to deal not just with the implications of COVID (impacting staff, residents and businesses) but also the significant internal reorganisation that was carried out alongside very high staff turnover. All of which was within a financial framework from the national government which, as the Report makes clear, lacks strategy, coherence, and respect for local democracy. We want in particular to thank four departments;

• both the finance and grants & benefits teams for keeping on top of the turbulence caused by COVID and the government,
• Jon Sharpe's team for the efficient and cheerful waste service collection that we enjoy, and
• Stewart Cocker and others who look after our countryside and parks so well.

I mention these last two teams because while going round talking to our residents it is these aspects of the Council's activities - refuse collection and our parks and green spaces - that get the most positive feedback.

Councillors, I had considered calling for a Motion to split the 10 parts of the Recommendation into three and voting on them separately, because they are so very different in nature. Some are just points of fact - for example part 9 setting out the precepts from Surrey County Council and the Police Authority. Some are concerned with single aspects of our finances - for example part 3 on the proposed fees and charges, and others are more far reaching in their scope. However, I knew you would not support this, and I don't want to keep people from the football or other interests more than strictly necessary, so we are happy to consider the whole Recommendation in its entirety.

Much of what is in our pack this evening we can support, since we have so little room for manoeuvre given the framework set out by the Conservative government. Indeed, at the relevant prior Policy Committee meetings Councillor Morris and I have supported some of the component papers before you. However, when we bring everything together there are important strategic points of principle embedded within the papers and projections that we need to bring to your attention. These are:

• Climate Emergency
• Resilience, and
• Thinking Widely.

First, on the climate emergency. I will start with referring you to the Annual Investment Strategy set out from page 90 of your pack. You are implicitly being asked to approve this as part of section 7 of the Recommendation. Last year at this equivalent meeting I said the following: "Another area to consider is how our liquid reserves are invested, to ensure that they are consistent with our values. As you are aware many pension funds and insurers are taking action here. We are therefore disappointed that section 4 of Appendix 11 makes no mention of this aspect of investment, nor does it seem to have been discussed at the relevant FPP meetings. It would be relatively easy to ensure some of our approximately £14m Treasury Portfolio is redeployed into equivalent funds with Green credentials." All I would change tonight from what I said a year ago is that we now have £18.7m not £14m, the climate emergency is increasing, even more asset owners have taken action, and regulation over the reporting of direct and indirect CO2 emissions is increasing. So, let's be joined-up, live our values and revisit how we invest our funds.

The other aspect of the climate emergency is our own Action Plan. Agenda Item 8 this evening considers the overall Action Plan for the Council. We still have no funds allocated to specific actions to reduce our own emissions three years on from agreeing a rather good high-level climate change action plan. It was very disappointing, for example, that renewable energy sources were ruled out when assessing options to replace boilers at the Wellbeing Centre. We welcome the use of a 10 year rather than 5 year pay-back period for CO2-reducing capital projects but let's get on and DO some of these projects. There does not seem to be any provision for this in the forecasts. It is worth noting the amazing things LibDem-lead South Cambridgeshire council is doing in this area

Second, resilience. The revenue and capital expenditure forecasts set out on page 25 show that we need to find £1.4m of "efficiency savings" for 2023/24. We also see from the various reports that (a) the cost of homelessness is very large and very volatile, and (b) we are sitting on nearly £11m of funds across CIL, s106 and the Residential Property Fund. I recognise that there can be limits on how some of these funds are used, but let's really try to invest where we can to improve our service to those in acute or chronic need for housing. I understand from a recent meeting that providing emergency housing for one family can cost £10,000, and that getting Defoe Court on-stream may produce net annual savings of £150,000. Further, what we are being asked to approve is the provisional capital programme up to 2027 and this does not seem to include any investment of these funds. I say we should "invest to save", proactively seeking ways to use our existing capital to both provide a better solution to our residents and to reduce our financial risks.

The other aspect of resilience is our own direct costs. I am very surprised that a major internal reorganisation has left us with broadly the same £13m annual cost base as we had previously. When we look to the future, we need to concentrate on what we have to do ourselves, and positively look at ways of sharing the remaining costs with others. This does not seem to be in the plans, with the recent decision on Building Control seemingly forced on us by necessity rather from a strategic approach to analysing where shared services or joint purchasing with our neighbours could be effective.

My last theme is Thinking Widely - meaning locally, regionally and nationally:

Locally, I started by praising our refuse collections and park and country services - because this is what our local residents value. We are therefore very concerned to see the proposals in Appendix 4 include nearly £170,000 annual savings from waste collection and cost of grounds maintenance - with no explanation of how quality would be maintained. Are all the Councillors here this evening signing up to those reductions?

Incidentally, we continue to suffer from the absence of local planning policies and trust that despite the lack of meetings to progress our Local Plan, we are on target to deliver a new Local Plan in the very near future.

Regionally, the report makes much of the objective for our council tax being below the average of other Districts. Superficially this seems attractive - why not aim to tax less than the average? But when you pause to think about this financially, it does not really have any merit as a metric to manage our business. We need to look at our own area's needs and resources. And so do all the other Districts. If other Districts benefited from unusual windfalls enabling them to cut council tax, or a reduction in the demand for their services, why should we aim to cut our council tax just because of circumstances in other Districts? I think this goal is purely political, and not financially coherent, hence it should not be part of the overall strategy. This ranking of our Council Tax may result from a proper process, but the ranking should not be an objective on its own.

Nationally, I come back to the point I made about thanking the Finance team for dealing with the incoherence from the national government. Unfortunately, we have been dealt the cards we have been by the current regime. We shall do the best we can with those cards, but as individuals, if you want to achieve real change for our residents, then I suggest next time you go to the ballot box for Westminster, you consider what the last 7 years, and particularly this Prime Minister, have done to your council.

Until then, we are stuck with the national cards (the Jokers?) we have. As a result, we are in support of most of the components of the Recommendations, including the proposed rates of council tax, but cannot actively support some of the implicit assumptions underlying some of the other components of the Recommendation.

Thank you.

(delivered by David Gulland - LibDem Councillor for College Ward)