Bromley Conservative’s are imposing a 0.94% increase in Council Tax from April 1st. This includes a 1.24% increase in Bromley’s expenditure and a 0% increase in the GLA precept.

Labour councillors argued that at a time when some residents were facing financial insecurity, everything should be done to keep council tax rises as low as possible.

Councillor John Getgood, Leader of the Labour opposition on Bromley Council, commented:

“There is no need for this increase this year. The Labour government has given Bromley a 4% increase in overall funding – well above inflation. Bromley Tories are sitting on £45 million pounds worth of tax payers money that could have been used for one-off expenditure such as the cost of the election. Councillors’ allowances should also be reduced. The Tories have too many of their members on the payroll. These measures would have done away with the need to increase council tax at all without cutting any services.

“The Labour councillors warned that there were a number of areas, such a support for elderly people, that had suffered as a result of so called efficiency cuts. The council also needs to improve some services – provision of youth activities, regeneration of the poorer areas of the borough, clean and tidy streets and roads are all areas of regular complaint by local residents.”

Cllr Smith adopted his best Mr Grumpy face for your article on the future of the Freedom Pass but some of the assertions in the article should not go unchallenged.

The only threat to the Freedom Pass comes from some Conservative controlled boroughs that do not want to fund it.

The Government funding referred to in your article was intended only to compensate London Boroughs for the extension of the scheme to cover bus journeys by pensioners from other areas (as has happened across the country).

In times such as these, it is especially important that tax payers money is used most effectively. The extra cost of extending the scheme in London has come out at £7mn a year, far less than was anticipated, and will be even less next year. As a result, London councils have received a £49mn surplus per year in additional concessionary fares funding.

It is unfortunate but understandable that the government has decided that it is right to claw back some of this overpayment. London boroughs will still make a surplus on the scheme next year but the overpayment, which is funded from other tax payers, will be much reduced.

Prior to the introduction of this grant London’s boroughs fully funded the Freedom Pass scheme in conjunction with TfL. The surplus on this grant simply enabled them to reduce their contribution. Unlike Bromley Tories, Labour councils throughout London are fully prepared to increase their contribution once again.

Labour councils in London have always fought for more resources for London and have lobbied successfully to minimise any loss to London.

Last year, Labour supported a proposal to retain a surplus of £20mn to offset future changes to Government and TfL grants. The Tories and Lib Dems voted it down and put the money back into their own budgets. What short sighted, poor financial management that has turned out to be.

Cllr John Getgood
Leader, Labour Group
Bromley Council

David West’s letters regarding Council Tax raise some interesting issues.

However, in nearly 8 years on the council I do not recognise a single post in Bromley that has been forced on the council tax payer by the government. Bromley Council officers work hard to provide much needed services and improve the quality of life for all the people of Bromley, especially those that need them most. I wish they could do more.

Bromley’s central government grant has not been reduced. It is undoubtedly lower than most. That is because grants to all councils are measured in the same way, according to the level of need in the borough as a whole and the ability a council has to raise funds through council tax. There will always be arguments over the accuracy of a complex system but is does not discriminate against boroughs of any particular political control. Those who argue that the government should give Bromley more are arguing that the poorer areas of the country should subsidise the wealthier.

Voters in Bromley will vote again on the level of service and council tax they want in May this year. I am proud to represent part of the population in Bromley that recognises that good services have to be paid for and that sometimes the aim of securing the lowest level of council tax (which is what Bromley has currently) is not necessarily the best policy. Small amounts of money could significantly improve services to the elderly and to young people.

Of course, we support the elimination of duplication and waste but we also support the unique role that public services can have in ensuring our quality of life.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr John Getgood
Leader, Labour Group
Bromley Council

Cllr Peter Fookes told the meeting about his recent experience trying to book Dial-A-Ride, Transport for London’s dedicated taxi service for people with disabilities.

Trying to book a service for a friend on an early Friday evening recently, Peter was told that a service could not be provided. In this day and age that simply is not good enough.

He has since discovered that 40% of respondents to a survey conducted by the London Assembly Transport Committee rated the service poor or very poor.

Peter’s call for Bromley Council to scrutinise the performance of Dial-A-Ride for the borough’s residents was backed by councillors from all sides.

Cllr Fookes commented: “Trying to find out what is going on with the service is not easy but it is clear that the it does need to be far more locally managed and accountable. There has been a large increase in demand for services across London and this figure is expected to grow much further.

“There is a sensible proposal from London Councils to look at all services currently offered to those with mobility problems as there are various schemes available which probably need rationalising. The proposals include the transformation of Dial-A-Ride into borough based bus services managed and operated either by boroughs or sub-regionally.”

Councillor Graham Arthur, the Conservative Party Portfolio Holder responsible for adult care, answered three very similarly worded questions from his own party in councillors’ question time. It turned out that one of the councillors in whose name the question was submitted had no knowledge of the question. This is against the rules governing councillor questions. Clearly, Cllr Arthur was placing friendly questions to avoid having to answer the serious questions which need to be put following the critical report.

When serious questions were raised by Cllr John Getgood, Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Arthur chose to deny and ridicule the findings rather than address the serious concerns. Cllr John Getgood commented:

“The findings are not all bad and in many areas Bromley is performing well. However, it remains a fact that all but 7 councils in England were found to be performing better. Cllr Arthur refused to acknowledge the criticisms that commissioned residential care homes for older people in Bromley were below standard; that there is low provision of intermediate community settings for people being discharged from Hospital; that the number of older people helped to live at home is lower than the London average, or that a higher proportion of voluntary or third sector organisations, felt they did not receive positive support from the council. We all want Bromley’s services to elderly people to be even better but we will only reach that standard once Cllr Arthur stops being so defensive and treats seriously the issues raised by the inspectors.”

The council’s provision has been criticised as only adequate in the areas of Improving Health and Well Being, Increasing Choice and Control, Freedom from Discrimination and Harassment, Maintaining Dignity and Respect and the overall Delivery of Outcomes.

Cllr John Getgood, Leader of the Labour group, commented:

“The council is failing vulnerable adults. Some aspects of the service are rightly recognised as good but we have warned Bromley Tories that waiting times are too long and we have been ignored. We have fought against cuts to services to the elderly and we have again been ignored. Now the Labour Government is having to intervene to put right their failure of care for the elderly people of Bromley.”

People living in Kings Hall Road, Beckenham, have been complaining about the speed reduction measures the council introduced just over a year ago.

They want the speed of traffic slowed in their road. But the large central islands that the council installed have not slowed the traffic and have led to more accidents than ever on this busy rush hour commuter route.

The latest incidents were over the weekend when there were three accidents in less than 12 hours. Sunday evening, a van finished up wrapped around a tree, Monday morning a lorry failed to take the bend safely and hit the previously damaged van, and then an hour later another lorry ran along the grass verge in an attempt to avoid the traffic island. The driver failed, collided with the traffic island, and his tyre blew out.

Ever since the traffic islands were installed, local people have complained about cars hitting the islands or the street trees. Motorists also go round the islands on the wrong side to avoid having to slow down. Residents have asked the council to remove the islands but the Portfolio Holder for the Environment, Cllr Colin Smith has refused to take any action until the scheme has been operational for a year.

Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator, said:

“I have been told of at least 10 incidents in the last twelve months. Trees have been damaged, several garden walls demolished and ambulances called on at least three occasions. This problem has been caused by the council’s unwillingness to take appropriate action to slow down speeding motorists. As a result, residents are suffering. We have been asking the council to change this plan since it was installed. This particular island needs to be removed before someone is seriously hurt.

“Recently, the council installed traffic bollards to slow down cars in Southborough Road, Bromley. When these caused damage to cars, the council had to make payments to the motorists concerned. How long before the council will start paying damages to people affected by this scheme?”

In his 2008 election manifesto Boris Johnson promised £744,000 a year (£2.23m over three years) to keep London’s one existing rape crisis centre open and to fund three more. His manifesto said: “We will act immediately to provide long term funding for four rape crisis centres by cutting the number of GLA spin doctors”. He promised ring-fenced funding of “around £744,000″ a year.

But, one year after his election, the Mayor announced that only £1.4m had been earmarked for rape crisis centres – almost a million short of what he promised when seeking Londoners’ votes. As of last month, London’s one existing rape crisis centre in Croydon was still to receive a penny of funding from City Hall – a far cry from the four funded centres promised in Boris’s manifesto.

On 21 October nine Tory London Assembly Members voted against a motion calling on the Mayor to honour his manifesto pledge. The motion, proposed by Green Assembly Member Jenny Jones, and seconded by Labour’s Jennette Arnold read:

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor promised in his election manifesto to provide ‘desperately needed’ funding for rape crisis centres in London out of savings in his Media and Marketing budget, at a cost of £744,000 per annum. It notes that the Mayor announced £1.4m over three years towards rape crisis centres, in May this year, and in August provided a breakdown of this funding for the Croydon and proposed West London centres. This Assembly calls on the Mayor to honour his election manifesto and set out a timetable to ensure that funding for four centres is secured by the end of the year, providing the remaining £832,000 from his promised savings if match funding cannot be found.”

The motion was passed by fourteen votes (eight Labour, two Green, three Lib Dem, and one BNP) to nine. All nine Tory Assembly Members present however voted against the motion.

The Tories who voted against improving rape crisis provision in London were:

* Gareth Bacon (London-wide list member and Bexley councillor);
* James Cleverly (Bexley & Bromley AM; linked with Beckenham parliamentary seat);
* Victoria Borwick (London-wide list member and councillor in Kensington & Chelsea);
* Andrew Boff (London-wide list member and former Hackney councillor);
* Tony Arbour (South-west London AM and Richmond councillor);
* Brian Coleman (Barnet & Camden AM and Barnet councillor);
* Roger Evans (Havering & Redbridge AM and Havering councillor);
* Richard Barnes (Deputy Mayor of London, Ealing & Hillingdon AM and Hilingdon councillor).

Following the meeting, Labour Assembly Member Jennette Arnold said:

“This is a further betrayal of rape victims in London. The Mayor made a clear promise to provide immediate funding but has spent the last year back tracking and coming up with excuses. This is an issue that should transcend party politics and I’m appalled that the Tories can’t see that.”

Tory Assembly Member James Cleverly attempted to justify his group’s decision, saying he felt the motion was intended to suggest the Mayor’s commitment to delivering his pledge had faded.

The possibility was first raised at the June council meeting by Councillor Peter Morgan. In response, the Portfolio Holder for Children & Young People, Councillor Ernest Noad, had said that he would look into the matter.

After the Evening Standard reported on the plan, Councillor Morgan told Radio 5 his proposal and said the council were looking into the possibility, only to find his Leader had slapped down the notion later in the day.

Councillor John Getgood, Leader of Bromley’s Labour opposition, suggests that an explanation may be found in the fact that Councillor Morgan unsuccessfully challenged Councillor Carr for the leadership of the Tory Group in May, and is known to lead a group of Tory councillors who have policy differences with the current Tory leadership.

Councillor Getgood explained:

“Today’s developments show that the Tory majority on Bromley Council are deeply split. Like the Tories nationally, Bromley Tories are always trying to give the impression that they have changed from the old Thatcherite Tory party but today we have seen that the traditional Tory priorities of bashing ordinary people and helping the wealthy are only just being hidden below the surface.”

Councilor Getgood told Labour Matters:

“This suggestion is just another feeble attempt by Tories to divert money meant for ordinary children from hard working families to subsidise their friends amongst the better off. Government grants to schools are meant to benefit all children in those schools. Bromley state schools have the capacity to take these children and provide them with a very good education. It’s not the role of the general tax payer to bail out the private sector. If private schools are the charities they claim to be, why are they not stepping in to help any of their families?

This suggestion appals all those who support and use our excellent local state schools.”