BUDGET FARCE CONTINUES
Last year I raised the significant concerns I had for the way the minority SNP Administration (surprisingly aided and abetted by the so-called opposition Tory Group) are running PKC. (see article attached).
The Budget debate last week followed a familiar depressing pattern. The Group of Independent Councillors decided to continue their approach of not presenting a budget, given the political arithmetic in the chamber and the fact that our repeated request for earlier dialogue with the other groups had again met with such a disappointing and mixed reaction. Subsequent events were to again prove the wisdom of that decision.
Given that Scottish Local Authorities under the Nationalist Government have little choice but to accept the continuing council tax freeze (by 2015/16 it will have been static for 9 years, during which time the rate of inflation has consistently been above government targets, leading to a real terms reduction in funding) and act as mere agents of government policy, it remained imperative that PKC’s decision on use of its limited resources, in a continuing difficult climate, be given careful decision on use of its scrutiny. All 4 political groups put forward their budget proposals for the years 2014/16, meaning examination of eight papers in under one hour (it would have been ten papers if we had presented our proposals and up to last year I have never known such complexity in previous budget examinations). In our view this is not a good way to set up £325,000,000 budget.
Our Independent Group had spent considerable time on the budget process and we had a balanced budget amendment in place for possible use, having circulated our thoughts in advance to all the other Councillors on areas where we believed more money needed to be spent. These mainly concerned the Environment Service featuring new footpaths, extra road gulley cleaning, more bus shelters, increases in grounds and roads maintenance, roadside verge cutting at junctions, additional brown bin collections and an increase in the community waste fund. As I had said in an earlier debate on the budget situation, we would support whichever group incorporated most of our suggestions in their proposals. . It was interesting the number of areas where additional expenditure or rejected savings found common ground amongst all 4 political groups.
There followed a highly political debate on the various proposals which culminated yet again in the Tory Group’s amendment, that was to be set against the SNP motion, being withdrawn; hence for the second year running no vote took place and the Administration’s budget with minor changes, was effectively passed. In reality, I again did not have the opportunity to vote on it and asked, amongst other opposition members, to be disassociated from this process. In fact, our Group had decided, in the short time allowed to digest the various papers, that ‘on balance’ we could support the Administration’s proposals.
I maintain, along with Councillor Robertson, that the whole procedure is a ‘farce’ and there must surely be a way to allow more time to examine the relative merits of each budget proposal in order to reach a better consensus and proposal to take forward on behalf of the people of Perth and Kinross we seek to represent; especially since all groups accept the terms of the Local Government settlement and council tax remains frozen. This year’s debate again highlighted more than ever the iniquitous position of the largest so-called opposition Tory Group that do not engage with the rest of the opposition and openly attack them, whilst happy to take the paid convenorships of audit and scrutiny (I have resigned from this latter committee because it is so ineffective) traditionally reserved for the leading opposition (the phrase taking money under false pretences again springs to mind). In effect the actions of the Tory Group mean that there is no effective way in which the SNP minority administration is held to account. It would be interesting to know if the Tory leader at Holyrood is aware that her party in giving such succour to the Nationalists in PKC in this referendum year? (I shall not bother writing to her since she remains the only party leader who did not respond to my request letter on the Referendum issue).
Turning now finally to the Council’s Capital Budget for 2020/21 presented on 13 February 2014, our Group’s amendment last year to allocate an extra £2 million from uncommitted reserves was dismissed by the administration when they chose to accept a Tory amendment relating to the A9 improvements only (part of our amendment which had also included money for major mitigation measures needed on the A977 and core paths). I was dismayed when the preparation of an outline business case for the A977 measures was put on hold last November and our Group had proposed again an increase in the Capital Budget by £3 million by using recurring loan charges of £180,000 per annum from revenue; it is disappointing that this suggestion was not taken up by an Group’s proposals.
Given that we are in an unprecedented era of low minimal interest rates, not expected to increase significantly before 2017, it is surely wise in the medium term to identify options (from the Capital Fund Reserves or Revenue) for creating an increase in the loan charges budget (I suggested an extra £200,000 per annum) from 2015/16 to restart the Capital Programme. I sincerely hope that the administration will look at this in the coming year and that my fellow local members in Kinross-shire will support the request I made during the debate.
Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire