Leader Cllr Chris Roberts declines to comment on leaked £26.8m cuts proposals (From News Shopper)

Leader Cllr Chris Roberts declines to comment on leaked £26.8m cuts proposals

8:30am Tuesday 10th November 2009

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(1)

PROPOSALS to make £26.8m worth of cuts across council services have been revealed in a leaked Labour document.

The confidential document, which would cover the period after the next election, discusses restricting access to social care, cutting voluntary sector funding and increasing leaseholder charges.

And the document also questions whether the council should continue to fund both Cleansweep and the Violent and Organised Crime Unit - a Met police unit which has led to 25 young gang members being charged in its first 18 months.

It warns that continued funding of those programmes would require an extra £3.2m in savings.

The report, outlining a “future financial strategy” for 2011/12 to 2014/15, was presented on behalf of council leader Councillor Chris Roberts and discussed at a Greenwich Labour group meeting on October 12.

News Shopper has repeatedly asked to speak to Cllr Roberts about the proposals but he declined to comment.

The report states: “Current best estimates are that a four year freeze to council budgets would require a reduction in revenue budgets of £26.8m over the four year period of the next administration.”

Comparing this period with the previous four year's £24.7m in savings, it claims that this financial period will be “particularly challenging” warning of “difficult choices”.

The report says officers have been assigned specialist areas in which to investigate making savings.

In particular, it notes there will be increased pressure on social care costs.

It asks officers to form a “cross cutting group“ to look at reviewing eligibility criteria and to “examine options to reduce demand and volume” for services.

And the report discusses identifying “those services, activities or projects which are low priority and could cease.”

It also asks them to review the council’s membership of a number of organisations, including the Green Chain Walk and the London Councils grants programme which provides money to voluntary groups.

Continued membership of the Thames Gateway London Partnership is also questioned by the document.

Leader of Greenwich Conservatives Councillor Spencer Drury said: “The Labour Party has clearly got a hidden programme of cuts already in place.

“They are taking voters for granted and refusing to be honest about their plans.

“Labour are planning to cut whole areas of services, potentially including the VOCU police unit which has worked so hard to reduce crime in the Woolwich and Thamesmead areas.

“I think they’re really hitting older people who are some of the most vulnerable. By their own admission what they’re intending to do is cut services and stop people accessing them.

“This is a badly run council which is inefficient. I’m convinced that just better management would improve things.”

Instead of being allowed to speak to Cllr Roberts we were given a statement from Greenwich Council which does not directly address Labour's proposals.

It said: "The council has a four year medium term financial plan in place which comes to an end in 2010/11.

“We are therefore considering a new medium term financial strategy that will set our spending priorities up until 2015 taking into account future widely anticipated reductions in levels of overall public expenditure.

"The council is therefore reviewing all expenditure in order to continue to achieve positive outcomes for residents and the community whilst continuing to deliver the best possible value for money for residents during a period of significant financial constraint.”

PROPOSED CUTS

Neighbourhood services

Voluntary sector contracts

Social care provision

Access to services

Abandoning “low priority” services and projects

Contributions to the Thames Gateway London Partnership, Green Chain Walk, London Councils grants programme

Increases to leaseholder charges

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(1)