Edinburgh Trade Union Council has urged the City of Edinburgh Council to demand extra powers and additional finance from the Scottish Government. Responding to the city’s budget consultation, Edinburgh TUC secretary Des Loughney said city politicians of all parties should lead and promote a campaign to retain good quality public services.
Statement from Edinburgh Trade Union Council about proposed draft Council Budget 2015/2016
Council Income 2015/2016
The Council states that its income from Council Tax will be £209m and the income from the Scottish Government and rates will be £731m. The income from the latter sources is
£12m less than the previous year. There has been no allowance from these sources for an increase due to inflationary costs. Such an allowance would be around £50m. Although we have been told that the Scottish Government would compensate local authorities for the Council Tax freeze there is no evidence that this is the case in 2015/2016.
The total savings/cuts that the Council is proposing to make is £22m. If the Scottish Government permitted the Council to increase the Council Tax by 5% and if it increased
rates similarly then the £22m reduction would not be necessary. It is therefore well within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to fund/allow local authorities to avoid these cuts.
Looking further ahead the Scottish Parliament could pass legislation to allow local authorities to generate funds which would not be paid by citizens of the City. One of the
ways would be a hotel bedroom tax which is already operated by some European cities. At a level of £2 to £5 per night per adult the tax would be easy to collect and generate significant amounts. The income could be used specifically to support tourist services. This would, however, release resources for other services. It is our understanding, from what experts state, that a tax at the level specified would have no impact on the number of tourists coming to Edinburgh,
Another possible tax is the so called supermarket tax. Supermarkets make considerable profits from the purchases of the people of Edinburgh. These profits do not presently
remain in the city. We think that it is only right and just that in the age of austerity that Scottish local authorities have the power to impose a levy on local supermarket profits and
that this money is earmarked to tackle poverty and inequality in the city.
Comment: the cuts are unnecessary – the money can easily be found if there was the political will of the Scottish Government. The Council must lobby the Scottish Government to provide more money or to allow the Council to generate more money.
The Council must not be fobbed off by the Scottish Government saying that the problem is solely due to Westminster cuts. This is not true. We believe that there would be political support from the public for more money if the context was properly explained.
Additional Income 2015/2016
We believe that the Council’s description of its income and expenditure neglects describing the additional income that is necessary for the Council to honour its policy commitments
regarding poverty and inequality.
In the area of Social Care the Council requires £7.445m
more than it is budgeting for in order to provide recipients with the Social Care they require, at the current quality of service. If the Council was to tackle in-work poverty of
those voluntary and private sector workers who provide Social Care it would need an additional £15m. This would ensure that all people providing Social Care were employed on basic local authority terms and conditions.
Comment: the Council should maintain its policy of reducing poverty and inequality. It should tackle in-work poverty.
Expenditure 2015/2016
The Council’s description of possible savings/ cuts did not provide an impact assessment which the public, never mind trade unions, required to make a proper judgement. There is
no useful information on loss of jobs, loss of wages, loss of job security, impact on in work poverty, impact on the Council’s general anti poverty strategy, and impact on equality or
impact on quality of services.
The Council does not describe, for example, the increase in expenditure that is required to meet increasing demand for social care services. Money needs to be made available for
an increasing volume of demand but also, as recommended by the Care Commission and SSSC, to employ staff on reasonable terms and conditions. Some sources have estimated that the Council may need over £15m to do this in 2015/2016 but this is not mentioned or commented on.
An overall assessment of the savings proposed seems to suggest that the ‘third sector’ will be required to save £4m directly through cuts in grants although other savings may be
required indirectly. £4m is equivalent to about 200 full time jobs but it is impossible to say how many real jobs are under threat or whether savings will be achieved by wage freezes
or cuts in other terms and conditions. There will not necessarily be forced closures of whole organisations.
The biggest element in the savings/cuts package is ‘workforce savings’ referring to the Council’s own staff. This seems to total some £6.6m. The main element of this is cutting
sickness absence. From a trade union point of view we think it is glib to state that sickness absence can be cut without a cost to staff morale, to having a disability friendly workplace
or a workplace where you can work until you retire. After cutting sickness absence for years the City Council as an employer now mean making working life very difficult for
those who are disabled or relatively old (that is 50+).
Comment: If the Council expected us to make a considered comments on their draft budget they needed to supply us with a lot more information including a detailed impact assessment in relation to Council anti poverty and equality policies.
The purpose of an equality impact assessment has been defined as:
‘Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic and evidence based process which verifies that the Council’s policies and practices are equality proof and not discriminatory.’
We suspect that some of the savings/cuts proposed in the Council’s draft budget will have a negative and discriminatory effect on older people, women and disabled people.
Our overall recommendation and plea to the Council is that its Budget Meeting on 12/2/15 consider a motion to the Scottish Government demanding extra powers and additional finance to render unfair and counter-productive cuts and savings unnecessary.
The Council must call on all Edinburgh MSPs and MPs to support its motion regardless of political party. The Council should convene a civic conference and ask a range of community organisations to back its demand for extra resources.
The Council should lead a campaign to make sure we keep the services we need for a decent quality of life. The Council should actively promote good public services whether provided directly by the Council or indirectly by subcontracting.
Des Loughney
Secretary, Edinburgh TUC
23
0
20
