Prime Minister clashes with council leader over budget
0
- David Cameron. Image: Number 10
By Colin Marrs & Gavin Hinks
Oxfordshire County Council leader Ian Hudspeth has written to prime minister David Cameron expressing “disappointment” about comments made over the county’s budget cuts.
Earlier this year, Cameron wrote to Hudspeth criticising cuts to front line services. However, Hudspeth responded by pointing out a number of errors made by the prime minister, and pointing out the effect of central government grand cuts. He told Cameron: “I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72m or 37% as a ‘slight fall’.”
Hudspeth takes issue with the Prime Minister’s assertion that Oxfordshire’s spending has increased in “recent” years.
In a letter published on the Guardian’s website, Hudspeth says that the county’s revenue support grant funding has fallen by almost 50% from £122m in 2011/12, to £62m in 2015/16, and is expected to fall to zero by 2020.
But Hudspeth adds: “Other funding streams have not kept pace with this, particularly in real terms.”
He points out that new functions have been transferred to local government, such as Public Health and that Oxfordshire has cut its workforce from 7,498 in 2010 to 4,695 in June this year.
Hudspeth also challenges the Prime Minister’s claim that the county is not following the best practice of other Conservative councils. He complains directly about the council tax referendum threshold which has “meant that we have been unable to keep pace with our challenges by using local revenue raising powers – if we had been permitted to make the planned modest increase of 3 – 3.75% over the decade we would be facing £50m less of required savings.”
Most damningly, Hudspeth points out that the Prime Minister’s claim that Oxfordshire has “cumulative” savings of only £204m is wrong. He insists the number is an annual saving. “The cumulative savings since 2010/11 are in fact £626m,” he writes.
There is further detail of the council’s approach to property assets. Hudspeth says the council has disposed of 110 for revenues of £62m. But he goes on to clarify how the income from sale may or may not be spent.
“However, capital income cannot be used to support revenue costs – it is neither legal nor sustainable in the long term since they are one-off receipts. The council therefore changed its strategy in 2014 to priorities income generation over capital receipts.”
