The motion was moved by Councillor David Williams and seconded by Councillor Hamish Badenoch.

The Labour amendment, as set out in agenda item 19 was moved by Councillor Mark Allison and seconded by Councillor Mike Brunt.

The Labour amendment was then put to the vote and was carried – votes in favour 35, and votes against 22 with 1 abstention.

The amended substantive Motion was then put to the vote and was carried – votes in favour 35, and votes against 22 with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

This Council notes that financial forecasts are by their very nature estimates but with local authorities required by law to set a balanced budget they are the only tool we have to ensure we comply with the law.  Council acknowledges the intense effort officers put in to assessing likely demand and inflationary pressures, coupled with the complications of uncertainty and in year cuts to government grants, and also acknowledges the in depth work the Financial Management task Group do in challenging some of these assumptions, although Councillors similarly can only estimate the likely pressures in any given year. With this in mind council notes:

•       Merton’s projected 2015-16 deficit at the time of the Budget Council meeting that took place on 2 March 2016 to agree the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2016-20 was £2.605million.

•       By contrast, the Council’s actual overspend in the published draft accounts for 2015-16 (as presented to the Standards and General Purposes Committee on 30 June 2016) was £0.699million.

•       General Fund balances have not in fact reduced by the amount of the overspend as was advised would happen during consideration of the Budget by councillors earlier in the year - by a margin of £1.906million – but this is because we reduced the Balancing the Budget Reserve as was always advised was one of the options.

Council congratulates officers on taking management action where necessary to bring in overspends in some areas and notes that the overall net position was helped by underspends/additional income in corporate provisions.  However this cannot be relied upon in future years and the underlying overspends in some areas are a concern that need to be understood and addressed.

Given that the Council rejected increasing council tax for hard pressed residents, and earmarking the additional £1.35m for  Adult Care Services which would have helped to mitigate the £5m savings required in 2016/17 as ASC’s share of the £21.7m cuts the council was faced with at the start of the budget setting process, and instead established a £1.3m Savings Mitigation Fund to reduce the impact of the cuts on vulnerable residents, and given the on going demographic pressures facing those services coupled with the increasing number of older residents and people with more complex needs requiring access to services in Merton, this Council regrets the continued reduced levels of funding which have led to the council’s difficult  decision - as part of its recommended MTFS 2016-20 - to cut or cease completely funding for the following frontline council and local voluntary sector services:

•       Support packages (personal budgets, homecare, direct payments)

•       Mental health peer support (Imagine)

•       Day care centre staffing

•       Meals on Wheels

•       Access and Assessment staffing

•       Managing crisis support for older people

However council notes that due to continued reductions in our funding from central government, further cuts will be required over the next six years so that these savings, or similar, will need to be implemented whether or not residents are required to pay extra council tax. 

In light of the above and taking into account the considerable variance between Merton’s projected and actual overspends for 2015-16, this Council resolves to review its financial monitoring processes in order to ensure that cuts are not made unnecessarily to services for older and vulnerable residents across the borough, or indeed to any council services, notwithstanding the need for further and deeper cuts in future years due to the government’s continual reduction of local government funding.