Budget passed amid angry exchanges between councillors

Rochdale Council’s budget for the coming financial year has been passed by councillors amid heated exchanges over austerity, children’s services and trade union funding.

The fiscal plan for the next 12 months was voted through by councillors at the annual budget-setting meeting held at the town hall this week.

It means residents will pay at least an extra £62 per year in council tax, which is rising by 5.31 per cent – including the 1pc ring-fenced for adult social care and the Mayoral and police precepts.

A range of charged-for council services are going up by a blanket 2pc, although some – including for pest control, planning advice and wedding packages – are rising by much more.

The budget also includes a capital spending programme of nearly £85m over for the next 12 months

The bulk of this – some £30m – is earmarked for the council’s property growth fund, while other key schemes include £5m for highways improvements, £2m towards delivering ‘high value housing’ and a £3.7m investment in Manchester Airport.

Three amendments to the budget were tabled – two from the Conservatives and one from the Liberal Democrats – but each was voted down by the controlling Labour group.

Council leader Allen Brett, moved the budget by warning that ‘austerity isn’t over’ and told the meeting that an increase in council tax was the only way the authority could ‘fund vital services’.

He said: “Nobody wants to raise taxes, nobody wants to do all that but until the government starts giving us the money to do the job and stops austerity, then we will have to.

“If they introduce this new ‘fairer funding’ we will be back to where we were before we lost £180m.”

Councillor Brett also told the chamber that the ring-fenced 1pc council tax rise for adult social care would get ‘nowhere near’ funding the service.

Seconding the budget motion, deputy leader Councillor Sara Rowbotham said austerity and the Tory government were ‘damaging the life chances of thousands of children’ in Rochdale.

“I support the budget as it’s the only thing that we are able to do with the limited resources available to us, to ensure that our children are safe and looked after,” she said.

Tory leader Councillor Ashley Dearnley hit back at Labour attacks on his party. He said: “We all care about our services in this borough and we all want to see more money, spent wisely and carefully on providing support to those in greatest need.

“I and my Conservative colleagues will do all we can to ensure Rochdale gets its fair share of money available.”

He mounted a defence of the Conservative record in government, highlighting funding provided for the heritage action zone, transport around the infirmary and the new homes bonus.

Labour’s Councillor Liam O’Rourke launched a blistering attack on the opposition benches, telling Conservatives ‘we are suffering because of your government’.

Councillor O’Rourke also said scrapping the trade union subsidy – as proposed in the opposition amendments – would be a ‘false economy’ and’ bad economics’, citing research which found that councils receive £2.31 back for every £1 spent on facility time.

Dismissing earlier Tory claims of lobbying ministers for a better deal for Rochdale he declared: “Resign from your party and then we might take you seriously.”

The Tories’ amendments were to take £3m out of reserves for further improvements to highways and footpaths, and to put an extra £300,000 into community safety – including CCTV cameras in every ward.

They proposed funding the latter by saving 10pc from borrowing on the capital programme which they said never ran to schedule, usually resulting in a bonus later on in the financial year, which could be realised from the off and – more controversially – by removing the £100,000 financial support to trade unions, a proposal also included in the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Councillor Dearnley told Labour the amendment was ‘prudent and sensible’.

He said: “It’s a case of priorities at the end of the day. Is it right that the council taxpayer should be paying to subsidise trade union reps, and would they not benefit much more from that money being spent on CCTV cameras in their areas to improve safety?

He added: “It’s shameful if you don’t support that – put the interests of the taxpayer first and support our amendment.”

Labour said there was only £17m in ‘useable reserves’ – and that given children’s services was facing a £6m overspend this year, using £3m from reserves would ‘not be good financial management’.

Councillor Brett also said that money for highways improvements and CCTV upgrades was already included in the council’s capital programme, and defended the subsidy to trade unions.

He then criticised Councillor Michael Holly, who devised the Tory amendment, which he branded ‘the worst I can remember from the Conservatives’.

He said: “He has made fundamental errors, and if he was a PLC I think he would be reported to the stock exchange for fiddling the figures behind the scenes.”

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrat amendment sought to plough £1.2m into reviving the town’s struggling outdoor market over the next three years, via measures including  scrapping the trade union subsidy and reversing the 34pc rise in councillor’s allowances awarded in 2016.

Councillor Andy Kelly, Liberal Democrat group leader, said he had been to speak to traders about the problems they face after raising concerns over its future at a scrutiny meeting.

He said: “I made a promise to those traders that day, and this is the start of that, this is the start of this party starting that process of fighting for a better market.

“I know I’ll be accused of tinkering around the edges, but £400k is real money and over the next three years we could use that money to regenerate a better town centre in Rochdale, starting with the market.”

Councillor Kelly told the chamber that, while he was a representative himself, he did not believe employers should pay for union activity.

Labour’s cabinet member for regeneration, Councillor John Blundell said Councillor Kelly had got his priorities wrong by focusing on the market.

He said: “That is a big issue to those traders, and the council will look at it. But it’s not the big thing at this council meeting where we are talking about a council that has lost £180m and we are starting to worry if we are going to have the money there to support children who have seen horrific things and need our protection at desperate times.”

Councillor Brett also defended the level of councillors allowances – arguing they were set ‘to reflect what people do’ and that representatives from areas such as Heywood and Middleton received no travel expenses or paid travel time, while those in ‘inner-city’ wards, dealt with demanding caseloads.

Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter