Home

News

IWCA budget proposals: more funding for working class areas and a stand against privatisation

11 February 2007

The IWCA will be setting out its budget amendments at the full council meeting on Monday 12 February. Here is an outline of our proposals.

Scrap Lib Dem Leisure Trust proposal

The IWCA is against the privatisation of public services and while we understand there are current problems with the management of leisure services we believe the council should sort these out in-house rather than abdicating it’s responsibilities to an external provider. Outsourcing council departments risks incurring high-cost and poor-quality public services in the future, with the need to pay shareholder dividends taking priority over providing a high quality service to local residents.

The scrapping of the Leisure Trust proposal will save £100k in 2007/08, although we understand there will be tax implications in 2008/09 and 2009/10 and we are awaiting further info from the council’s finance department on the likely impact of these.

Back a 3% council tax increase

Council tax is highly regressive tax that has a disproportionate impact on the least well-off. The Conservatives introduced this system but New Labour has overseen it for almost 10 years and continues to present local authorities with the effective choice of cuts to public services or swinging tax increases, both of which are felt most acutely by working class people.

The IWCA therefore supports proposals to keep council tax increases to 3% next year.

Reducing pay inequality by cutting salary for (vacant) chief executive post

While mindful of the council’s existing obligations, the IWCA would like to promote the aim of reducing pay inequality. The current vacancy for the chief executive post presents an opportunity to take a stand against escalating top level salaries.

Pay inequality in the UK has soared under the current New Labour government to levels unseen for 100 years. The IWCA believes that the public sector has a duty to promote equality and stand as an alternative example to the unregulated private sector. This also represents a prudent use of taxpayer’s money.

Reducing consultancy and outsourcing costs

The IWCA has asked officers to investigate consultancy services and other external suppliers with a view to making savings in this area. We have already identified the £100k contract with Diagnostic Health Solutions, which provides a staff sickness reporting scheme, as an area to cut. Reducing staff absence should be the job of local management and we see little to be gained from paying a company to answer telephones.

More money for refurbishment of small parks and play areas

Last year the council, without proper consultation, (prematurely) announced the closure of a number of small parks and play areas. Most of these are in working class areas and represent the principal access that many residents have to Oxford’s leisure facilities. With the savings identified above, the IWCA will be calling for the refurbishment of those play areas that are well used and popular with local residents.

More funding for area committee authorised spending, based on need

In line with the IWCA’s goal of a more redistributive local tax regime, we will be calling for any surplus money remaining from our identified savings to be devolved as additional spending for area committees, weighted according to assessment of need based on published deprivation indices for super output areas (sub-ward level). We will also be calling for any additional area committee spending contained in the administration budget to be distributed in the same manner, according to need.

Opposition to proposed 50% Saturday-only car parking increase

The IWCA is opposed to arbitrary parking increases used for revenue-raising. If there is a need to reduce city-centre congestion, the logical approach is to reduce the number of spaces, which impacts all equally, rather than increase charges which makes access to parking dependent on how well-off you are and may actually do nothing to reduce congestion.

Unfortunately the regressive council tax system, which makes it very difficult for local authorities to introduce new spending, however important or worthwhile, makes car park charging schemes all-too attractive.

The forecast revenue from the proposed Saturday-only parking price increase will pay for a number of useful new initiatives. We are looking at alternatives but if necessary we will, reluctantly, agree to retain this revenue increase. However, we would seek to spread the cost of parking increases so it does not affect one group disproportionately, which we believe a Saturday-only increase would.