1

At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 25th February 2020 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber, Sixth Floor, Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road,

Hounslow Present: The Mayor, Councillor Tony Louki (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Raghwinder Siddhu Councillors: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen

Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Joanna Biddolph, Tom Bruce, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Michael Denniss, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Vickram Grewal, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Sam Hearn, Kamaljit Kaur, Hanif Khan, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Ron Mushiso, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith, Sohan Sumra, John Todd and Mohammed Umair.

1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Patrick Barr, Puneet Grewal, Afzaal Kiani and Hina Kiani. There were no declarations of interest. 2. Announcements Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Youth Services, made the following statement:

“Overall performance at GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) (Key Stage 4) continues to be strong but has dropped very slightly compared to 2018. Hounslow has continued to outperform the national average at GCSE, as well as being in line with or better than the London average for all measures, except for Attainment 8. Performance on Progress 8 remains very strong and better than London and well above national. At A Level (Key Stage 5), performance on two measures has increased, whereas the other two have decreased from 2018. The increase in the percentage of students achieving at least 2 A Levels moves performance on this measure above both London and national. In Hounslow more students achieved some

2

A-Level success but they achieve fewer higher grades at A*, A and B, compared to students across London and national averages.”

There were no further announcements. 3. Minutes Councillor Ron Mushiso thanked the Mayor for welcoming his father so warmly to the last meeting. He was very grateful that he had helped make his father feel so welcome. Councillor Mushiso also thanked Councillor Tom Bruce for actioning his proposal to write to head teachers in the Borough and asked if he could be provided with a copy of one of the letters which related to relationship education. It was then RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 28th January 2020, having been confirmed as a correct record be signed by the Mayor. TO NOTE: All 4. Petitions Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. There being no petitions presented to the Mayor and no petitions to be considered at the Council meeting itself, the Mayor invited Members to note the referrals of previously received petitions as detailed in the report. It was then RESOLVED – That the petitions that had been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority or to ward Councillors or officers for consideration be noted ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All

3

5. Reference From Cabinet: Budget Report 2020/21 Members considered a report by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services The Mayor reminded Members of the long-standing protocol of allowing the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition up to ten minutes for their speeches and asked Members to agree to the waiving of standing order 12.4 in the constitution to allow this. Councillor Sam Hearn advised that he wished to propose a motion without notice to allow for the waiving of standing orders as suggested by the Mayor, but to allow the Leader of the Council and Councillor McGregor from the Conservative Group to speak for ten minutes rather than the two Group Leaders as initially proposed by the Mayor. This was seconded by Councillor Gerald McGregor. Councillor Curran advised that the Labour Group would be prepared to agree to this proposal and it was therefore unanimously RESOLVED – That standing order 12.4 in the constitution be waived to allow Councillors Steve Curran and Gerald McGregor to speak for up to ten minutes if they wished to do so. Members then considered the report by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, who introduced it and made the following statement:

“With our 2020/21 budget, we aim to:

Continue to provide quality services to our most vulnerable service users

Continue to invest in our priority areas

Continue to provide value for money to our Council Tax Payers and Business Rate Payers.

Continue to provide a fair, inclusive and socially aware set of services to all our stakeholders.

This budget is designed to not only build on our successes of recent years in terms of providing quality, value for money services to our residents but also seeks to provide us with a firm basis upon which we can deliver our new Corporate Plan through the remainder of our term of office. To date, we have rebased our budgets, prepared a Climate Emergency Action Plan, witnessed 613 new affordable homes made available in the Borough so far this year alone and as a consequence of that, built one single new Civic Centre at the heart of our community where I stand to present this budget today. As always, our budget report is split into its key constituent parts.

4

We continue to reduce our costs through more efficient ways of working, better procurement prioritising local suppliers (noting the annual procurement plan forms part of this report) and through transforming our structures and departments so they are better able to meet the challenges ahead. Nowhere is this better evidenced than our #1Hounslow programme, which of over months and years will transform our services, delivering better standards of service, at a cost markedly below that we were previously able to achieve through its key strands of Digitalisation, Customer Services, Data and Bureaucracy Reduction – each focussed with our service users at the heart of our redesign of outcomes. However, Cabinet are very aware that we do have material financial challenges. During the year, we have rebased our budgets which has brought the majority of our overspending departments back into balance. This gives us a solid platform upon which I can build this budget and I thank Cabinet colleagues for their engagement in that process. However, we do have some pressures still. We don’t hide from that. As we all know, our funding has reduced significantly over the past decade yet our demand continues to grow. Work I have undertaken alongside the Leader and Cabinet Lead Members has devised a strategy to manage these overspends despite Government legislation challenges and driven demand increases in Housing and Special Educational Needs. We are however determined to ensure that we direct our resources to where they are needed most and those areas deliver value for money. As successive Prime Ministers inform Parliament that austerity is over, our research shows that each & every London Borough is likely to recommend a rise to Council Tax in order to keep essential services funded. Austerity in Hounslow is not over and this budget produced a £14m funding gap that we have filled through corporate financing, Council Tax rise proposals and the savings reported in the 2019 MTFS (Medium Term Financial Strategy) report to Council. However, we do not choose to recommend a tax rise lightly. Hounslow residents have become used to low tax over a number of years and we have continued to retain one of the most generous Council Tax Localisation Schemes in the country to ensure we protect the most vulnerable. This is further evidenced by our continued support for our Local Welfare Support Provision where again Government funding has ceased and we in Hounslow have a choice to either fund ourselves or allow residents to suffer, in addition to our commitment to London Living Wage. We need the additional Council Tax income in order to ensure our financial sustainability in the mid-term and indeed, Government assumptions about our spending power make assumptions about tax rises we will make. The Council continues to fund an ambitious capital programme – a programme aligned to corporate priorities and regenerating our town centres. It is not easy. As ever, although tight on revenue funding, Hounslow is able to invest through one off courses of income. That means we can continue our Housing Building Programme, invest in our trading companies and invest in the town centres of Hounslow, Feltham and Brentford alongside public space in Feltham and Chiswick. It is no secret that the Council has been challenged in delivering its capital programme in recent years given the sheer scale of its ambition but a refreshed approach to capital led by myself and the Leader will ensure we replicate in

5

2020/21 some quite excellent projects that we have delivered previously such as this very building. As always, our budget report updates Council on our plans for the Housing Revenue Account and Dedicated Schools Grant. The HRA (Housing Revenue Account) shows a planned surplus for 2020/21 which will be made available for investment in the HRA refreshed business plan which is due at Cabinet in the Spring. The DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant) shows a planned deficit as the Government Grant to fulfil our statutory high needs provision is, simply, inadequate. Our officers continue to work with DfE (Department for Education) and CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) to mitigate the impact of DSG shortfalls falling on the General Fund but this is a national problem where the DfE must take ownership. Our budget report contains, as always, our Treasury Management Strategy which seeks to continue its well-regarded activity in managing our Council’s internal and external cashflows. The lifting of the Government cap on borrowing for Housing schemes enable us to develop sites within Hounslow for urgently needed accommodation for residents. This will mean our surplus balances for investment reduce over time, but this Council remains committed to delivering on its pledges and will use our funds wisely to ensure we achieve those. I commend this budget to this Chamber.”

The recommendations were then seconded by Councillor Steve Curran. The Mayor advised that three proposed amendments to the budget had been submitted for consideration, which had been circulated to Members in the supplementary agenda published earlier in the day. He therefore intended to take debate on each one in turn. PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE The Mayor advised that a proposed amendment to the recommendations had been received which read as follows:

“Proposed Councillor Gerald McGregor and Seconded Councillor Jo Biddolph Amendments to Scheduled Fees and Charges That the Council make no change (establishment of charge if new, reduction or increase if the fee is already established) to the following charges, until Councillors have received a further schedule establishing how the accounting for full cost (or other quoted method) arrives at the fee specified in Appendix schedule B, such a further schedule to be delivered within ninety days of the commencement of the Financial Year 2020/2021 and further provides from contingency a sum of £1,200,000 to cover the proportionate loss of revenue in the period of up to 90 days indicated above

6

[please note that text or numbering in yellow relates to the precise original wording or numbering in the original report] Amendment to Fees and Charges 1 Annual permit Personal Trainer Annual Parks Permit April - March up to 2 ppl per session Per Permit 0.00 300.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 2 Events Summer permit Personal Trainer Summer Parks Permit April - September up to 2 ppl per session Per Permit 0.00 225.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 3 Events Winter permit Personal Trainer Winter Parks Permit October - March up to 2 ppl per session Per Permit 0.00 150.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 7 Events Lesiure application charge Single Traiing or Small Group Activity <50 on the day Per Permit 0.00 100.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 5 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 3-10 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 520.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 6 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 3-10 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,040.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 7 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 3-10 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,560.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 8 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 11-20 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,040.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 9 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 11-20 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 2,080.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 10 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 11-20 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 3,120.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 11 WITHDRAWN Amendment to Fees and Charges 12

7

Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 21-30 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,560.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 13 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 21-30 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 3,120.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 14 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 21-30 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 4,680.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 15 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 30+ per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 16 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 30+ per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 17 Events Annual permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit - Annual 30+ per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 18 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 3-10 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 390.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 19 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 3-10 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 780.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 20 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 3-10 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,170.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 21 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer Permit 11-20 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 780.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 22 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer Permit 11-20 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,560.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 23 Events Summer permit

8

Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer Permit 11-20 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 2,340.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 24 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 21-30 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,170.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 25 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 21-30 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 2,340.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 26 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 21-30 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 3,510.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 27 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 30+ per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 28 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 30+ per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 29 Events Summer permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Summer permit 30+ per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 30 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 3-10 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 260.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 31 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 3-10 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 520.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 32 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 3-10 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 780.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 33 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter Permit 11-20 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 520.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 34 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter Permit 11-20 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,040.00 New Discretionary

9

Amendment to Fees and Charges 35 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter Permit 11-20 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,560.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 36 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 21-30 per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 780.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 37 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 21-30 per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 1,560.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 38 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 21-30 per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 2,340.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 39 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 30+ per session <£6 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 40 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 30+ per session <£11 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 41 Events Winter permit Bootcamp or Group Training Parks Permit: Winter permit 30+ per session <£16 per session Per Permit 0.00 By Negotiation New Discretionary Events Leisure - Parks Professional dog walker license Per Permit 0.00 145.00 New Discretionary Amendment to Fees and Charges 42 Events Leisure - Other events Single Training or Small Group Activity <50 on the day Per Permit 0.00 100.00 New Discretionary Policy, Performance & Strategy Assistant Chief Executive Corporate Information & Land charges Statutory Corporate Information & Land charges Amendment to Fees and Charges 43 Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (LLC1) - This contains only part of the information contained in the full search - per search Per search 45.00 50.00 11.11% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 44 Corporate Information & Land charges Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Residential - per search Per search 186.00 207.00 11.29% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 45 Corporate Information & Land charges Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Commercial - per search Per search 227.00 253.00 11.45% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 46

10

Full-cost Corporate Information & Land charges Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Part 2 enquiries - per search Per search 13.50 15.00 11.11% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 47 Full-cost Corporate Information & Land charges Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Con 29 only (Residential) per search per search 141.00 157.00 11.35% Amendment to Fees and Charges 48 Corporate Information & Land charges Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Con 29 only (non-Residential) per search per search 182.00 202.00 10.99% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 49 Policy and Intelligence Management Intelligence Hub - Street Naming & Numbering Amendment to Fees and Charges 50 Existing Premises or New Development: Naming or renaming of House or Flat per unit or plot* Per unit or per plot 101.00 115.00 13.86% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges Existing Premises or New Development: Numbering or renumbering of House or Flat per unit or plot* Per unit or per plot 101.00 115.00 13.86% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 52 Policy and Intelligence Management Intelligence Hub - Street Naming & Numbering Existing or New Premises: Naming or renaming of Street per Street per street 255.00 285.00 11.76% Full-cost Assistant Chief Executive LD Day Service Opportunities Amendment to Fees and Charges 53 Non-Residential Social Care Services and Support Charges Attending either an AM or PM session at LBH Day Care or Day Opportunities (cost of attendance only): The Triangle Per attendance 23.00 23.50 2.17% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 54 LD Day Service Opportunities

Non-Residential Social Care Services and Support Charges Attending a full day session at LBH Day Care or Day Opportunities (cost of attendance only): The Triangle Per attendance 46.00 46.50 1.09% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 55 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Longer term Residential Care at Independent Home (per week) Per Week Full cost of placement full cost of placement 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 56 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Longer term Nursing care at Independent Home (per week) Per Week Full cost of placement full cost of placement 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 57 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees

11

Sandbanks Resource Centre (single room) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week per week 915.00 928.50 1.48% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 58 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Sandbanks Resource Centre (single room) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week Per Week 1,029.00 1,044.50 1.51% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 59 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Sandbanks Resource Centre (double room occupied by 2 people) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week Per Week 893.00 906.50 1.51% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 60 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Sandbanks Resource Centre (double room occupied by 2 people) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week Per Week 1,004.00 1,019.00 1.49% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 61 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Sandbanks Resource Centre (double room occupied by 1 person) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week Per Week 1,078.00 1,094.00 1.48% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 62 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Sandbanks Resource Centre (double room occupied by 1 person) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week Per Week 1,212.00 1,230.00 1.49% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 63 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Clifton Gardens (single room) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week Per Week 1,084.00 1,100.50 1.52% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 64 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Clifton Gardens (single room) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week per week 1,185.00 1,203.00 1.52% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 65 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Clifton Gardens (shared room occupied by 2 people) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week Per Week 1,081.00 1,097.00 1.48% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 66 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees

12

Clifton Gardens (shared room occupied by 2 people) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week Per Week 1,182.00 1,199.50 1.48% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 67 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Clifton Gardens (shared room occupied by 1 person) Residential/EMI (Low to Medium Dependency) per week Per Week 1,250.00 1,268.50 1.48% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 68 Older People Residential Long Term Residential Care Fees Clifton Gardens (shared room occupied by 1 person) Residential/EMI (Medium to High Dependency) per week Per Week 1,367.00 1,387.50 1.50% Amendment to Fees and Charges 69 Full-cost Extra Care Provision Extra Care Fees Bridgewater House extra care fees per individual per week Per Week 260.82 260.82 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 70 Extra Care Provision Extra Care Fees Park Lodge extra care fees per individual per week Per Week 260.82 260.82 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 71 Extra Care Provision Extra Care Fees Greenrod extra care fees per individual per week Per Week 260.82 283.65 8.75% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 72 Extra Care Provision Extra Care Fees Bristol Court extra care scheme - per individual per week Per Week 364.22 364.22 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 73 Extra Care Provision Meal charges Bristol Court catering charge for one hot meal per day (weekly charge) Per Week 41.65 42.19 1.30% Full-cost Assistant Chief Executive Amendment to Fees and Charges 74 Redless / Reflections charges Charge per party hire at Redlees or Reflections premises. Per Party Hire 155.00 160.00 3.23% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 75 EIS West Locality Redless / Reflections charges Admission Charges per adult entry, for LBH residents, to the Redlees One O’clock Club. Per Adult 2.20 2.30 4.55% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 76 EIS West Locality Redless / Reflections charges Admission Charges per adult entry, for non-LBH residents, to the Redlees One O’clock Club. Per Adult 2.80 2.90 3.57% Full-cost

13

Amendment to Fees and Charges 77 EIS West Locality Redless / Reflections charges Admission Charges per adult for non-LBH residents per entry to Reflections. Per Adult 2.80 2.90 3.57% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 78 Non Delegated DSG Funding Schools - Academy conversion fees Recoupment of Academy conversion costs (maintained schools where the Council is the employer and property owner) Conversion cost 5,500.00 5,500.00 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 79 Non Delegated DSG Funding Schools - Academy conversion fees Recoupment of Academy conversion costs (maintained schools where the Council is not the employer or property owner) Conversion cost 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 80 Transport Operations Transport Operations charges School Meals Delivery Per Day 56.00 55.00 -1.79% Discretionary Westbrook Amendment to Fees and Charges 81 Charges to other authorities Charge per night to Other Local Authorities for use of Council Operated Residential / Respite Home for Children with Physical Disabilities - Westbrook. Per night per attendant 778.00 900.00 15.68% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 82 Westbrook Charges to other authorities Charge per six hour day session per attendant to Other Local Authorities for use of Council Operated Residential / Respite Home for Children with Physical Disabilities - Westbrook. Per six hour day per attendant 0.00 500.00 New Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 83 Westbrook Charges to other authorities Charge per each hour after the first six for a day session per attendant to Other Local Authorities for use of Council Operated Residential / Respite Home for Children with Physical Disabilities - Westbrook. Per each hour after the first six for a day session per attendant 0.00 50.00 New Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 84 Westbrook Charges to other authorities Charge to Other Local Authorities for a Care panning Assessment per child per child 0.00 500.00 New Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 85 Specialist Services Adoption Service Voluntary / Agency Placement Fees

14

Voluntary / Agency Placement Fees - Outside London (Set by the consortium of voluntary agencies) Per Placement 31,620.00 31,620.00 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 86 Adoption Service Voluntary / Agency Placement Fees Voluntary / Agency Placement Fees - Inside London (Set by the consortium of voluntary agencies) Per Placement 31,620.00 31,620.00 0.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 87 The Ride Charges to other authorities Charge to Other Local Authorities for Council Operated Residential Respite Home for Looked After Children - The Ride- per week Per Placement 2,581.00 2,581.00 0.00% Full-cost Assistant Chief Executive Heritage and Arts Amendment to Fees and Charges 88 Leisure - House events Events in Historic Houses, Booking Fee, Community Per booking 65.00 66.98 3.05% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 89 Heritage and Arts Leisure - House events Wedding - lawn hire in conjunction with venue/historic house Per booking 543.00 559.51 3.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 90 Heritage and Arts Leisure - House events Corporate and private - lawn hire in conjunction with venue/historic house Per booking 814.00 838.75 3.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 91 Heritage and Arts Leisure - House events Charity - lawn hire in conjunction with venue/historic house Per booking 109.00 112.31 3.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 92 Heritage and Arts Leisure - House events Community - local resident - lawn hire in conjunction with venue/historic house Per booking 65.00 66.98 3.05% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 93 Heritage and Arts Leisure - Hogarth House Hogarth House Private Visits (per head, min 6 visitors) per 90min+ visit Per head 7.50 7.73 3.07% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 94 Heritage and Arts Leisure - Hogarth House Hogarth House Private Visits (per head, max 10 visitors): Adult Education per full day session Per head 10.00 10.30 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 95 Heritage and Arts Leisure - Hogarth House Hogarth House Private Visits (per head): School Groups - per visit Per head 3.50 3.61 3.14% Full-cost Heritage and Arts Leisure - Arts Duty Management & Security (per hour) Per hour 34.50 35.55 3.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 96 Heritage and Arts Leisure - Arts Redlees Studios (Artist Space per Square Metre) Per Square metre 24.00 24.73 3.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 97

15

Parks and Open Spaces Allotments Keys to Allotment sites Per Key 0.00 6.00 New Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 98 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Adults Football / Rugby, Pitch & changing Rooms Per rob £14.55 (6-10 rob) £7.25 (1-5 rob) £14.99 (6-10 rob) £7.47 (1-5 rob) 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 99 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Adults Football / Rugby, Pitch Only Per booking 104.75 107.89 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 100 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Adults Football / Rugby, 5/7 a Side Per booking 86.55 89.15 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 101 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Under 18s, Pitch & changing Rooms Per booking 55.65 57.32 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 102 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Under 18s, Pitch Only Per booking 75.85 78.13 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 103 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Football Block Bookings, Adults Per booking 52.35 53.92 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 104 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Football Block Bookings, Youth Per booking 44.15 45.47 2.99% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 105 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Football Block Bookings, 5/7 a Side Per booking 32.00 32.96 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 106 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Rounders, Adult Per booking 18.95 19.52 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 107 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure - sports pitches All parks Rounders, Concession Per booking 68.35 70.40 3.00% Subsidised services - concession rate Amendment to Fees and Charges 108 Parks and Open Spaces

16

Leisure - sports pitches All parks Baseball / Softball, Adult Per booking 42.40 43.67 3.00% Full-cost Parks and Open Spaces Amendment to Fees and Charges 109 Leisure - sports pitches All parks Baseball / Softball, Adult Per booking 92.90 95.69 3.00% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 110 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Swimming (Full) per session 5.30 5.50 3.77% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 111 Parks and Open Spaces Land Charges Local Land Charges Search Fee (Full) - Additional Parcels of Land - per search Per search 27.00 30.00 11.11% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 112 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Spectator (Full) per session 0.75 0.80 6.67% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 113 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Gym (Full) per session 8.50 8.70 2.35% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 114 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Junior Gym (Full) per session 4.10 4.20 2.44% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 115 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Induction / Programme (Full) per sesson 60 mins 24.00 24.50 2.08% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 116 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Group Exercise - 30 mins (Full) 30 mins 4.75 4.90 3.16% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 117 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Group Exercise - 45 mins (Full) 45 mins 6.30 6.50 3.17% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 118 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Group Exercise - (Full) 60 mins 7.90 8.10 2.53% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 119 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Group Exercise - Pilates / Tai Chi (Full) 60 mins 8.70 8.90 2.30% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 120 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Group Exercise - Yoga (Full) 90 mins 9.45 9.70 2.65% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 121

17

Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Health Suite (Full) per session 5.30 5.50 3.77% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 122 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Squash / Racketball (Full) 60 mins 5.75 5.80 0.87% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 123 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Badminton / Table Tenis / Sht Tennis -(Full) 30 mins 3.05 3.10 1.64% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 124 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Badminton / Table Tenis / Sht Tennis - (Full) 60 mins 4.65 4.80 3.23% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 125 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Sports Hall - Half (2 courts) (Full) 60 mins 37.20 38.00 2.15% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 126 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Sports Hall - Single (4 courts) (Full) 60 mins 55.45 56.70 2.25% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Sports Hall - Double (8 courts) (Full) 60 mins 101.25 103.50 2.22% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 127 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Creche (Full) 60 mins 3.60 3.70 2.78% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 128 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Soft Play (Full) 90 mins 3.35 4.10 22.39% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 129 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Tennis Court (Full) 60 mins 5.80 5.90 1.72% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 130 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Outdoor Court - Adult (Full) 60 mins 34.90 35.70 2.29% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 131 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Outdoor Court - Junior (Full) 60 mins 20.95 21.40 2.15% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 132 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Outdoor Court - Floodlights (Full) 60 mins 8.85 9.10 2.82% Full-cost

18

Amendment to Fees and Charges 133 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Primetime (50+) session (incl sauna) (Full) 60 mins 4.85 5.00 3.09% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 134 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Swimming Ladies session (day) (Full) 120 mins 6.15 6.30 2.44% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 135 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Swimming Ladies session (evening) (Full) 120 mins 8.20 8.40 2.44% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 136 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Exercise Prescription - Induction (Full) 60 mins 7.15 7.30 2.10% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 137 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Exercise Prescription - Exercise session (Full) 60 mins 3.55 3.60 1.41% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 138 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Athletics - Casual Usage (Direct Debit Member / Athletics Club Member) (Full) - 60 mins 3.55 3.60 1.41% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 139 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Athletics - Casual Usage (Full) 60 mins 4.90 5.00 2.04% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 140 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Gala 60 mins 146.85 150.10 2.21% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 141 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Swim Club - Main Pool 60 mins 84.70 86.60 2.24% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 142 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Swim Club – Teaching Pool 60 mins 66.45 67.90 2.18% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 143 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres – hire Hire : Swim Club - Minor Pool Space 60 mins 38.45 39.30 2.21% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 144 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Swim Club - Lane Hire 60 mins 24.30 24.80 2.06% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 145 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Ancillary Hall / Room Hire 60 mins 37.40 38.20 2.14% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 146

19

Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - (Mon-Fri) 60 mins 56.45 57.70 2.21% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 147 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres – hire Hire : Athletics Track - (Weekends) 60 mins 71.85 73.50 2.30% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 148 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - 4 hrs (Mon-Fri) 60 mins 136.55 139.60 2.23% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 149 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - 4 hrs (Weekends) 60 mins 147.35 150.60 2.21% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 150 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - 8 hrs (Weekends) 60 mins 282.40 288.60 2.20% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 151 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - In-field Pitch 60 mins 63.65 65.10 2.28% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges 152 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - hire Hire : Athletics Track - Additional staff 60 mins 13.05 12.90 -1.15% Full-cost Amendment to Fees and Charges WAS 126 NOW 153 Parks and Open Spaces Leisure centres - full price Sports Hall - Double (8 courts) (Full) 60 mins 101.25 103.50 2.22% Full-cost”

The Mayor then invited Councillor Gerald McGregor formally to propose the amendment, which he then did with the following comments:

He thanked Councillor Curran for agreeing to the proposal to allow him to speak for 10 minutes on behalf of the Conservative Group and also clarified that this speech was not the one where he proposed to speak for 10 minutes.

He observed that the income on fees and charges was projected to be £48,000,000 which was an increase of £5,000,000 in one go.

He also noted that the fees and charges element of the annual budget was rarely called into question and was increased as a matter of course each year.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had only done limited work on analysing the fees and charges proposals on behalf of the Council and therefore he believed it to be essential that the Council took the opportunity to look at the proposals on fees and charges and the basis on which they were being increased in detail.

He confirmed that the Conservative Group was not against fees and charges in general or the proposed levels for them and stated that it was possibly the case that in some areas the Council was not charging enough for services.

He noted that Councillor Rajawat at had stated that the Council had severe financial constraints and so it was doubly important that within this context fees and charges were looked at with care and attention by Members.

The proposed amendment that he had submitted contained approximately 150 elements relating to the fees and charges proposals : in each case he accepted that

20

there may not be anything wrong with the charge but it was essential for Members to know what the true and full cost of each service being charged for was, whether it had been market tested, whether it was discretionary to Members or to officers, etc

It was his view that Members did not know enough about the mechanisms for setting making fees and charges and that was the basis for the proposed amendment which was not trying to be obstructive but to give time for all Members to study the fees and charges in detail.

He added that further to his earlier statements there were some areas relating to fees and charges which were of concern to the Conservative Group in their own right. One example was the proposal to charge people for performing athletics and exercises on common land specifically to run around park tracks where previously no charge had been made which he considered worked against the public policy on healthy activities and outdoor pursuits.

Another area of concern was the proposed £30,000 charge for adoptions which he considered to be a great deal and asked how often the fee was actually charged in full. This was once again an area where Members needed to know more before a decision could be safely taken.

He reiterated that the purpose of the proposed amendment was not to be party political. Nor did it imply that the proposals for fees and charges were wrong in themselves but it was important for light to be shared on the matter an order to allow Members to make the right decision, hence the request for a 90 day moratorium in imposing the new charges during which time the status quo would prevail.

He concluded by noting that the last time that the Councils fees and charges had been properly market tested was in 2008/9 and as things had changed considerably since that time it was appropriate to request that this be done again. He then formally proposed the amendment.

The proposed amendment was formally seconded by Councillor Joanna Biddolph. The Mayor then asked Councillor Steve Curran in the temporary absence of Councillor Rajawat, the mover of the original motion, if he was prepared to accept the proposed amendment. Councillor Curran formally advised that he was not. That being the case, the Mayor then invited debate on the proposed amendment to the motion, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Steve Curran expressed disappointment to hear that the Conservative Group had not used the opportunities afforded by the Council scrutiny process more to raise its concerns. He also expressed disappointment that the Conservative Group had not proposed an alternative budget. The proposed amendment related to fees and charges which was a long-established element of the Councils budgetary process and so there had been plenty of time to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to look at the issue if it was one of concern. To address the issue about new charges in relation to parks, it was his view that if you were to hire a rugby pitch you would be expected to pay for it and therefore similarly, if someone organised running events as a private enterprise it was right that the organisers should pay towards the cost. He considered it reasonable to ask people who were using parks for profit making purposes to contribute

21

towards them in the same way that a resident wanting to use a Council gym would do. He considered this to be a good example of market forces.

Councillor Ron Mushiso show observed that Councillor Curran had frequently told him that he had an inability to “read the room” but in this case it appeared that Councillor Curran had not read the amendment. He seemed to be using the idea that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should validate his position whereas it was his (Councillor Mushiso’s) view that the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was to dig deep to find where the costs were coming from. Conservative Members had not been allowed to do that in those meetings.

Councillor Ranjit Gill stated that he had heard Councillor Curran’s view on why commercial users of parks should be charged but this raised the question about why the Council was paying £150,000 for the Hounslow Heath car park. This was an issue he had raised with Councillor Smart when she had been the relevant Cabinet Member eight years ago, before he had even become a Councillor. The car park was used by only one local community and therefore it did not seem appropriate for the Council to be paying for the resurfacing and maintenance of the facility. The issue was still a live one and he had raised it with Councillors Vickram Grewal and Councillor Samia Chaudhary who had confirmed that users of the car park should be charged, yet the Friends of Hounslow Heath continued to be given free parking. He then raised the issue of fees and charges relating to Children's and Adult Services where in-house support services were being raised from £5 for 50 minutes to £18 pounds per hour. His main concern, however, related to the quality of the invoicing that arose from this service and he gave details of his own personal experience where charges in invoices were in excess of the hours actually spent providing the support in question. He had received two successive invoices, both of which were incorrect. In his view, where the Council was charging for more hours than provided when giving a service on a fees and charges basis then this was a “red flag”.

Councillor Curran observed that Councillor Gill was now talking about casework and advised him that this was a matter that should be pursued using the independent Members’ casework system. The Mayor reminded Members to keep their comments to the proposed amendment. He then sought further comments and the following statements were made:

Councillor Khulique Malik advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had provided plenty of opportunities for deep dive investigations into the budget had they been raised by Councillor Mushiso or any other Conservative Member. He then confirmed that the Committee had looked at the proposed budget in detail and subsequently raised concerns with the Cabinet on some issues. However, he observed that all Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been happy with the recommendations that the Committee had referred to the Cabinet.

Councillor Joanna Biddolph light heartedly congratulated the Mayor on avoiding putting on weight during his year in office, despite the many meals to which he had been invited. She admired his will power. She also then congratulated Councillor Guy Lambert on reducing his waste (rather than waist), in the sense of increasing recycling rates and added that both she and Councillor Curran probably needed also to look at

22

their own waistlines. She then advised that her comments brought her to the issue of the proposed charges for boot camps and other privately-run exercise Groups taking place on Council land such as parks. She observed that the proposed new charge was in her view expensive and would ultimately prove to be a tax on health. She noted that the Council frequently advised residents to change their lifestyles in order to improve health and lose weight and that the creation of boot camps and park runs across the Borough was helping with that, so the proposed fee in this area appear to be an attack on both health and on the entrepreneurial approach of local residents. It was essential to allow those who were running the exercise Groups to make a living and it was unwise of the Council to tax everything it saw. She asked who had been consulted on the proposed fee how the level of charge had been fixed. She reported that she had already been advised by a resident that it was seen as a penalty and it could only have the effect of reducing the number of such Groups as it deterred people from organising them and from taking part. She therefore requested that this charge be withdrawn in order to help encourage people to stay fit.

Councillor Theo Dennison asked if Members of the Conservative Group spoke to each other as Councillor McGregor had stated that some charges might be too little whereas Councillor Biddolph seemed to be saying that they were too much. He then observed that Councillor McGregor had previously been the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance between 2006 and 2010 and that full cost charging had been in place at that time in relation to fees and charges. He also observed that the financial definitions used in fees and charges had been previously considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when the late Councillor John Chatt had been in the chair; the analysis of them at that time had been rigorous and had involved Conservative Members in the debate, including Councillor Todd. He then chastised Councillor McGregor for waiting until the Council meeting to ask the basis on which fees and charges were being levied as he could have done this well in advance. As such he did not think there was any need to delay the imposition of the new schedule of fees and charges for 2020/21. He also noted that despite the “hype” the increase of £5,000,000 would still see an income of only £47.5 million expected to be raised from fees and charges in the coming financial year which was less than that which was received by the Council in 2018/19. He therefore considered it reasonable to ask residents to help bear the cost of providing services.

Councillor Sam Hearn noted that Councillor Khulique Malik had stated that the budget had been thoroughly reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but he stated that Cabinet Members and Directors were not all present in the room when those meetings took place. He also questioned whether there was specialist accounting advice available to the Committee during its discussions. He confirmed that the Conservatives knew what full cost charging meant but it was not an unreasonable question to ask when an analysis of this had been last done to make sure that full cost charging was accurate. It appeared that many charges had not been properly reviewed for many years and in addition, there were many new charges where the figures were arbitrary rather than based on analysis of full cost. He concluded by stating that he was sorry to have asked these questions after Councillor Malik had spoken as he knew it would not be possible for him to speak again in the debate on this amendment.

23

In response to this, the Mayor asked Councillor Malik if he would be willing to respond to Councillor Hearn's questions purely as a statement of fact. In response Councillor Malik advised that Cabinet Members had been involved in the discussion on the budget at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that the Executive Director of Finance and Resources had also been in place. Councillor Hearn advised that this was not helpful as it was not the Executive Director who had generated the figures in relation to fees and charges and full cost charging. Councillor Ron Mushiso requested a point of order and stated that to his knowledge as a Member of the Committee, the figures relating to the fees and charges had not been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Mayor thanked him for his intervention and noted that his statement would be recorded in the minutes. The Mayor then sought further comments and the following statements were made:

Councillor Katherine Dunne stated that she encouraged all Members to take part in the free Boot camps provided by the Council in its parks and also to use the free gym equipment which the Council had placed in a number of places across the Borough. She then noted that the proposed charge applied only to those making money from the Council's parks and it was necessary for the Authority to identify a fair pricing structure for that. However, she recognised that some people could not afford private classes for exercises and so she encouraged people to use the free services promoted by the Council.

Councillor Nisar Malik observed that it was usual for people to identify alternatives if they were unhappy with original suggestions; there were 153 elements to the proposed amendment relating to fees and charges but he could not see any alternatives being identified for any of them, except that there be a delay in the implementation. In his view, he was disappointed to see no alternative budget or proposals identified by the Conservative Group.

Councillor Salman Shaheen noted that Councillor Biddolph ran a public relations company in her professional life and considered that this had influenced the Conservative Group’s approach to the proposed amendment as it was “all spin”. He considered it wrong to claim that the proposed charge on individuals running companies which operated in Council parks as a tax on health when it in fact was a tax on private companies and was therefore a progressive tax. He also considered it less offensive than taxes on dementia and the infamous “bedroom tax” introduced by the Conservative Government.

Councillor Lily Bath expressed disappointment that the Conservatives had not submitted an alternative budget and hoped that there would be one in 2021/22. She also noted that Councillor McGregor had been a Councillor with the London Borough of Hounslow for many years and had vast experience of the charging of fees and charges both in Administration and in Opposition. As such he knew the opportunities available to him to go to Scrutiny to allow for concerns to be raised in good time. That was the appropriate venue to do deep dive investigations on budgetary concerns and to ask questions. However, the Conservative Group had chosen not to do so. She then reiterated the point raised by Councillor Dunne that the Council provided free gymnastics equipment

24

in parks and that there was a method by which individuals could earn points by using them to spend elsewhere, including in boot camps and exercise events.

There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up the debate which he did with the following comments:

He observed that it was unsurprising but he found he agreed with the comments made by Labour Members during the debate and disagreed with the Opposition’s assertion that Conservative Members had not had the opportunity to use the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to interrogate the assumptions behind the budget. He reminded Councillor Mushiso that it was the responsibility of the Conservative Group to raise concerns in Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings rather than the Chair of that body.

He noted that, as was the long standing custom of the Borough, the Finance Department had provided a dedicated officer to the Opposition Group to support them in any budgetary proposals they might wish to develop and so he considered it too late to raise concerns about the proposed fees and charges at the budget meeting of the Council.

He counselled the Conservative Group to do better in the future. The Mayor then put the proposed amendment to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the proposed amendment to the motion be not agreed. This was a named vote, and Members voted as follows: In favour of the proposed amendment: Councillors Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Gerald McGregor, Ron Mushiso, Kuldeep Tak and John Todd Against the proposed amendment: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Tom Bruce, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Vickram Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Kamaljit Kaur, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Balraj Sarai, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith, Sohan Sumra, and Mohammed Umair. There were no abstentions. This was therefore a majority decision.

25

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2 The Mayor advised that a second proposed amendment to the recommendations had been received which read as follows:

“Proposed Councillor Gerald McGregor and Seconded Councillor Jo Biddolph The Council directs that the budget should contain further provision, for adult and child social care and for SEN (Special Education Needs) and EHCP (Education and Healthcare Plan) children of £960000 drawn from the contingency reserve. The provision will be as follows:

£400000 for the provision of further staff in the Education Department to ensure that backlogs of cases can be brought up to date and dealt with in greater expedition.

The remaining sum (£560000) to return to the system of embedded social work by placing Hounslow officers in the major hospitals used by Hounslow residents and children to ensure greater liaison with particular reference to discharge from treatment and the provision of care, and within that sum, the provision of a Finance Manager to ensure that no cost shunt takes place between the National Health Service and other health provision and the London Borough of Hounslow.”

The Mayor then invited Councillor Gerald McGregor formally to propose the amendment, which he then did with the following comments:

He knew that all Members received visits from residents at their surgeries expressing trouble getting help for children with special educational needs.

The proposed amendment also suggested that the Council return staff to bases in hospitals to help avoid waiting for hospital discharges before being able to liaise with social workers and to avoid the threat of a “cost shunt”.

He considered that the budget allocated to this area of work was pitiful and that there was a regular overspend in the relevant Department’s budget as a consequence.

There were problems in dealing with cases relating to special educational needs and he was aware of an individual case where a parent was attempting to get support for an adopted child which had met with difficulties year on year because of an error in the child's record suggesting that he had been excluded from a school which was not the case: it was absolutely essential for the Council to get such details correct and to provide specific support for vulnerable children. the proposed amendment would help this.

Furthermore, because the cost of special educational needs places in schools was enormous, it was correct that a dedicated officer be created to help improve this area of work for the benefit of children who needed care.

The amendment had been fully costed in that the cost of the post would be covered from contingency funding.

26

However, he concluded by expressing the view that he feared the Labour Administration would not support the proposed amendment and therefore the relief that he was suggesting would not be forthcoming to those who needed it most.

At this point Councillor McGregor accepted an intervention from Councillor Mushiso who asked how the Council could do more to support children in care who needed help. In response, Councillor McGregor advised that this was possible by supporting the proposed amendment which would allocate resources to help deal with the problem.

The proposed amendment was formally seconded by Councillor Joanna Biddolph. The Mayor then asked Councillor Rajawat, as the mover of the original motion, if he was prepared to accept the proposed amendment. Councillor Rajawat formally advised that he was not. That being the case, the Mayor then invited debate on the proposed amendment to the motion and the following comments were made:

Councillor Tom Bruce stated that this was the second Council meeting in a row where he had become perplexed at the attitude of the Conservative Group; he had first assumed that the proposed amendment had been submitted in good faith with the best intentions, even if he personally did not agree with it. However, he had now concluded that this was not the case. He then clarified that support given to children with special educational needs helped those who were amongst the most vulnerable in society and he recognised that there were challenges with funding and that demand was increasing. Nonetheless, the London Borough of Hounslow was not alone in experiencing that situation, and it had been exacerbated by inadequate Government funding over many years. The Department for Education allowed Councils to hold a deficit reserve as finances had reached a critical point, which was a tacit acknowledgment of the chronic underfunding problem. However, he appreciated the comments made by Councillor McGregor that support in this area was important and clarified that the Council was putting in one-off funding to assist. He had also previously spoken to Councillor McGregor about this issue outside of the Council meeting and as he (Councillor McGregor) therefore knew that the Council was undertaking a full review of special educational needs provision in the Borough. Two special educational needs centres in schools were closing which was sad but nonetheless, the correct thing to do as a result of the ongoing review as it would allow resources to be more accurately focused on where they were needed. Subsequently, he could not agree with the proposed amendment and advised all Members to wait for the special educational needs review to conclude and its subsequent action plan to be identified and put in place for implementation.

Councillor Candice Atterton advised that the Council and its partners were fully aware of the problems resulting from delayed transfers from care and the resulting bed blocking which could occur; it was an issue that was being worked on and solutions were being found. She also advised that the Council already had a social worker in place in hospitals and was trying to move to an integrated care model. Whilst there was some shunting of costs, this was due to the Government ignoring the adult social care crisis

27

for many years. It was not possible to solve the issues if one focused only on acute hospitals and not on adult social care. The government had moved the problem to the responsibility of local authorities but not provided funding to go with this. The Council was currently in the situation with its partners of having to discharge to access services, meaning that hospitals could discharge people so they could be assessed in the community for further support; this was a Government requirement but had resulted in the problems identified by Councillor McGregor in his proposed amendment. Consequently, the Council and other local authorities had pushed back on this. She concluded by observing that it was the Government that created a cost shunting situation.

Councillor John Todd stated that he wished to remind Councillor Tom Bruce of his own budget report. He had spoken to officers earlier about the new social grant for the London Borough of Hounslow which totalled £5.8 million and saw an increase of £4.1million to tackle the rising costs of adults’ care. It was clear that the new precept and the new social care grant provided by the Government would help fund pressures on the cost arising from children’s care. It was important therefore to note that whilst there had been significant financial pressures, new funding was helping to ameliorate that.

Councillor Steve Curran expressed his shock at the proposed amendment. He reminded all Members that previous Conservative Governments had cut money year on year from Council budgets and had decimated social care. As a result, it had allowed for Council Tax to be increased within limited parameters to help bail out the social care services in local authorities for both adults and children and consequently residents had felt the burden. The Council did not wish to raise Council Tax but had done so as it was necessary in response to aggressive Conservative Government cuts affecting the budgets for both children and adult related social services. Hounslow had one of the best integrated care systems in North West London and it was envied by other authorities. The Council worked very successfully with the community care Group, although it was well aware of the need to further improve services. The Council had already arranged for housing officers to be included in the delayed discharged team to make sure that people had safe housing to go to on discharge from hospital if necessary. He considered that the proposed amendment should have been worked through on a cross party basis with Councillors McGregor, Bruce and Rajawat if it was serious in trying to find a successful way forward. This had not been done. As such it was just a politically motivated proposed amendment to the budget in lieu of any alternative Conservative budget - something the Opposition Group had failed to do since 2010. He accepted that Councillor McGregor was passionate in his support for local residents but the proposed amendment was not good enough. The Council Tax could include a precept but it was defined by Government set parameters which the Council could not go over; in addition, the Council generously supported a Council Tax support scheme which was a good thing and happily maintained by the Council even after successive Conservative Governments had cut the funding for it. However, his biggest concern was the proposed use of the Councils contingency fund to support the proposed amendments; he asked where the money would be to provide this service in the longer term. Contingency funding expenditure meant that the money could not be used again and that the proposal was ultimately financially unsustainable. It was better

28

to get improved integrated care. He was not prepared to take lectures from the Conservatives and considered waiting until the Council meeting to make the proposal was an example of “disgraceful political showboating”.

Councillor Lily Bath advised that she had had trouble understanding the purpose of the proposed amendment. She accepted that all Members were passionate and dedicated in their support for helping people with special educational needs. However, she spoke as someone who had been through the process of getting support for somebody with special educational needs in her personal life and she could testify that there was a funding crisis at a national level as the area had not been funded properly for a long time. She counselled the Conservative Group to lobby the Government to increase funding in this area but observed that they were not doing so. She questioned the use of reserves and echoed the comments made by Councillor Curran that once they had been spent they could not be used again. The only sustainable solution was a properly funded system to support people with special educational needs. The Council had a hospital social work service and recently put outreach workers into hospitals to help those people who needed support at the point of discharge.

Councillor Theo Dennison expressed strong regard for Clive Palfreyman, Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Resources and for his colleagues in the Finance Team. However, he added that he had much less respect for the Conservative Group for proposing “raiding” contingency funding in two out of three of their proposed amendments. He believed that contingency funding was there to help mitigate risk but nothing was more likely to incur risk than the one off use of expenditure to fund a recurring need; this was a recipe for failure. He expressed the view that Council McGregor seemed to wish to see a return to a bygone age like the Victorian era which built magnificent railways, canals and pieces of national infrastructure but did not help those in poverty. He considered that Conservative policies nationally and locally impoverished people as shown by the introduction of the “Bedroom Tax” and Universal Credit. He believed such Victorian values to be abhorrent in the 21st century. He then reminded Members that when Councillor McGregor was Cabinet Member for Finance he had employed consultants from the private sector costing the Council £5.4million order to identify ways to save money.

There being no further comments the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up the debate which he did with the following comments:

He agreed with those Labour colleagues who had spoken during the debate as they had clearly articulated the arguments why the proposed amendment should not be supported.

He considered that if he was a user of adult social care or the parent or guardian of a child with special educational needs he would be insulted at the approach taken in the proposed amendment.

He believed the Conservative Group was “asleep” and surmised that the proposed amendment had merely been submitted in order to allow for a press release to be published tomorrow on the issue. He expressed the view that if the Conservative Group really cared about such matters, it would have pressed for improvements to the support in this area annually and this had not been the case.

29

The Mayor then put the proposed amendment to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the proposed amendment to the motion be not agreed. This was a named vote, and Members voted as follows: In favour of the proposed amendment: Councillors Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Gerald McGregor, Ron Mushiso, Kuldeep Tak and John Todd Against the recommendations: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Tom Bruce, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Vickram Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Kamaljit Kaur, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Balraj Sarai, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith, Sohan Sumra, and Mohammed Umair. There were no abstentions. This was therefore a majority decision. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3 The Mayor advised that a third proposed amendment to the recommendations had been received. He therefore invited Councillor Kuldeep Tak formally to propose the amendment which he then did by reading it to Members, as follows:

“Proposed Councillor Kuldeep Tak and Seconded Councillor Gerald McGregor The Council wishes to draw the attention of Members to a duplication in the waste management charges for bulk waste as per the schedule of charges identified herewith [attached to these minutes as an appendix], and therefore withdraws the more costly fee.”

Councillor Gerald McGregor formally seconded the proposed amendment, and in so doing made the following comments:

He advised that the Cabinet Member for Finance had been made aware of this duplication.

30

The Council was inexact in its procedures as illustrated by this proposed amendment to correct an error (as well as the errors in the original budget report text which had been highlighted in the first amendment already considered by Members).

In the case of the current proposed amendment, the Conservative Group wished to clarify what appeared to be a duplication in the budget report relating to waste collection rates for landlords and residents which was not clear .

It was important for the Council to get information like this correct when placing it in the public domain and charging the population.

The nature of the charge itself was not the point - it was the lack of detail and how it was presented which left the Council open to challenge

He lamented the reduction in the number of scrutiny officers in the Council since 2010 and whilst he paid tribute to them for doing a good job, he observed that the reduction of resources in this area has resulted in the Council’s scrutiny function being less effective.

He regretted that the leadership of the Council did not see the benefit and savings that could come from effective budget scrutiny.

He also did not think that criticism from Councillor Shaheen, who had previously written for the Morning Star newspaper, objecting to what he described as spin was acceptable or clever.

He concluded by agreeing that Councillor Curran did not need a lecture from the Conservative Group about the budget - he in fact needed a complete education.

The Mayor then asked Councillor Rajawat, as the mover of the original motion, if he was prepared to accept the proposed amendment. Councillor Rajawat formally advised that he was not. That being the case, the Mayor then invited debate on the proposed amendment to the motion, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Guy Lambert considered the proposed amendment to be pointless and observed that if the Opposition Group had read the Single Member Decision which he had written and approved last year, it would have been clear to them that there were two different classes of user – hence, the two entries in the budget report. He concluded by expressing the view that all the other comments made by Councillor McGregor on this issue were waffle.

Councillor Khulique Malik noted that the strength of the scrutiny team supporting the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been mentioned and he repeated his assertion that the Committee had been given sufficient time to address all the questions it had relating to the budget. He also observed that no specific question on this issue had been raised. As the issue had not been mentioned it had not been looked at. As Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, he was happy to hear specific questions. He also counselled Members to be more specific rather than general when raising concerns and stated that it was not satisfactory to say that one had problems with elements of the budget such as the fees and charges but then not state the reasons for this. He formally wished to defend the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the way that it has looked at the budget.

Councillor Steve Curran advised that, whereas he thought the first proposed amendment had been interesting and the second amendment less so, he considered

31

the third one to be “pitiful”. It addressed a matter which had already been dealt with by the Council using a Single Member Decision over a year ago. He also questioned why any Members would wish to wait until the budget meeting to deal with such an issue, if they believed there was one. He lamented that the Conservative Group had identified this as an issue to raise at the Council's budget setting meeting rather than an alternative budget, particularly given that Councillor McGregor had been given extensive support from the Council’s Finance Team in the build up to the meeting . He concluded by referencing Councillor McGregor's last statement in his seconding of the proposed amendment to the motion and considered that the residents of Hounslow had educated the Conservatives by electing the Labour Group as the Council majority.

Councillor Ron Mushiso advised that he would talk with Councillor Khulique Malik as the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee about its role in reviewing the budget outside of the meeting. He added that the Conservative Group had identified over 150 issues in its amendments and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not considered more than one of these. He then paid tribute to Councillor Lambert for doing a good job in trying to improve recycling of waste in Hounslow but nonetheless, he still considered that there was duplication or lack of clarity relating to Councils budgetary papers as identified in the third proposed amendment. There was a potential for differential charges for different classes of waste collection to lead to fly tipping and he urged the Council to be clearer with residents in order to get improvements in recycling. He also paid tribute to Councillor Tak on making his first contribution to a Council meeting and for spotting the duplication in the first place.

Councillor Ajmer Grewal considered the proposed amendment to be trivial and one which missed the point; the Labour Administration cared very much about residents and had produced an effective budget to maximise support in the community. She considered that the Conservative Group should commend the Administration on a great budget and also criticise the Government for years of ongoing cuts to local government finances.

Councillor Gabriella Giles advised that the Conservative Group had identified three proposed amendments to the budget in order to improve it and none were minor; they all had an impact and were aimed at helping to improve the budget to support residents. She stated that the Conservative Group had read the budget but had not produced an alternative budget, as it was more necessary to identify the problems in the Labour Group’s budget and try to repair them. It was not reasonable to expect residents to fully understand the intricacies of the budget and as it was clear that few Members of the Labour Group had read it, so it was right for the Conservatives to attempt to improve it.

Councillor Shaida Mehrban observed that there had been several criticisms of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee by the Conservatives who alleged that it had not debated the budget sufficiently well. However, she asked why the Conservatives sat on the Committee if they did not consider that it was addressing the problems they wished to raise. She had been a Chair of a Scrutiny Panel and it was her view that it was for members of all parties to raise issues at such bodies to try to get them dealt with before they reached the Council or Cabinet. She asked why the Conservative Group had waited until the Council to bring up the issue in its third proposed amendment when it could have been dealt with much earlier. She advised Conservative Members to raise

32

such issues in future with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or with the relevant Cabinet Member.

Councillor Vikram Grewal wondered what residents would think about the quality of their Conservative Group given the evidence of the meeting so far. He noted the accusation that Labour Members had not read the budget and he countered by stating that it was clear that the Conservatives had not acknowledged Government cuts to local authority funding. He criticised successive Conservative Governments as being the architects of a lost decade due to Austerity which had seen life expectancy go down for the first time in a century according to an independent report. He also noted that the Conservatives were represented on Scrutiny Panels and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He also observed that the Councils fees and charges had been discussed at the Scrutiny Panel he had chaired last year. He did not understand why the Conservatives had not taken that opportunity to raise their concerns there.

There being no further comments the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up the debate which he did with the following comments:

He wished to congratulate Council Tak on his first contribution to a Council debate although he regretted that it was in support of such a poor amendment.

As had already been stated, the issue was not one of duplication and had already been addressed in a publicly available Single Member Decision published over a year ago.

He noted that the Council's proposed budget document was over 200 pages long and yet the Conservative Group had only identified one inconsistency - which had then proven not to be one at all – so he considered this to be a commendation of the Councils proposed budget.

He called on the Conservatives to bring a higher level of professionalism and expertise to the budget debate in 2021.

The Mayor then put the proposed amendment to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the proposed amendment to the motion be not agreed. This was a named vote, and Members voted as follows: In favour of the proposed amendment: Councillors Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Gerald McGregor, Ron Mushiso, Kuldeep Tak and John Todd Against the recommendations: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Vickram Grewal,

33

Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Kamaljit Kaur, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Balraj Sarai, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith, Sohan Sumra, and Mohammed Umair. There were no abstentions. This was therefore a majority decision. SUBSTANTIVE MOTION The Mayor advised that the three proposed amendments having been rejected, debate would now take place on the substantive motion, namely the recommendations in the reference to the Council from the Cabinet. That being the case, the Mayor then invited debate on the recommendations, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Gerald McGregor expressed the view that the budget in the report was full of holes “like a Gruyere cheese” but unlike the Swiss cheese making industry the Council did not make money. He noted that the medium-term financial strategy agreed by the Council in November had found £4.2million worth of savings and it remained to be seen if the Council budgets would balance at the end of the financial year. He lamented the lack of detail in the budget book on page 55 of the agenda which denied Councillors the opportunity of drilling down into the specifics of each proposal. This was unlike previous equivalent budget reports in the past during the Conservative- Independent Administration of 2006-2010. He observed that, whereas budget reports had been of 170 pages or more in the past, the one before Members today was merely 20 pages long. He was not satisfied that the service summaries in the document gave enough detail for effective analysis and judgement. He noted that in October 2019, a rebasing exercise had been undertaken which he believed had been done ostensibly to provide money for those Departments which had failed to meet their savings targets from the past. He decried the current budget before Members as being “all gloss” and he believed that this was because a number of Cabinet Members did not have full control of their departmental budgets. In some cases he understood that very little steer was given to departmental finance teams who therefore had to resort to the Labour Group manifesto from 2018 to identify policy. It therefore followed that where there was no control, there could also not be effective benchmarking and without that there was no forecasting so it was impossible to budget effectively or well. He was not satisfied that the Council relied puerely on incremental budget increases by basing this year’s budget on small changes to the budget used last year, rather than interrogating and investigating budget figures to create a better document; there had been no zero based budget set since the 2006-2010 Administration. He reiterated the point that a good set of accounts provided people with information which could be effectively interrogated but, without that detail, this could not be done and this had led to overspending in many Council Departments. He also criticised the budget before Members for including areas which were wastes of money including £70,000,000 of unspent capital project funding. However, he did welcome the creation of a new Capital Strategy Board but regretted

34

that this was only being introduced to address savings issues. He then addressed the issue of the Treasury Management strategy and noted that it relied on funding derived from savings. He concluded by stating that the Conservative Group opposed the proposed budget as its underlying foundation did not work and that there were insufficient financial controls, and then added that whilst it was to be welcomed that the Lampton group of companies had developed a business plan it was very possible but the market might not like it.

Councillor Sam Hearn stated that the Conservative Group had given the newly elected Labour Administration an easy ride at the budget meeting in 2019 and had abstained in the vote rather than voted against the budget as they had been encouraged by what they saw as a positive change of tone in the approach to budget control within the Authority. He noted that on that occasion the Section 105 officer had stated that it was the responsibility of budget holders to deliver the budget and recognised that the then levels of overspending in the budget were unsustainable. The Conservative Group had also been encouraged by the appointment of a new Chief Executive and Cabinet Member for Finance and had decided to give the Administration a chance to prove that it was committed to dealing with the issues. As such, Conservative Members had merely given advice to Labour councillors on how to introduce rigour in financial controls. However, it had since become clear that the Group’s optimism was misplaced. He considered that the continuation of departmental overspends were not indicative of an organisation where budget holders delivered their budgets effectively and noted that it had been stated in the latest budget that the savings identified for 2018/19 would not be met. Furthermore, in October 2018 the Cabinet had authorised £60 million of budgetary rebasing and so the Conservative Group was of the opinion that the trend of the Councils budgetary controls was down rather than up.

At this point Councillor Ron Mushiso sought an intervention However, as it was not framed as a question as required by the constitution, the Mayor decline to permit it. He therefore invited Councillor Hearn to continue making comments which he did as follows:

Councillor Hearn observed that at the end of the 2019/20 financial year the Council was expected to be overspent by £25 million although the final outturn could prove to be higher still. It was his belief that Cabinet Members should take responsibility for these overspends and should explain to Members why their departments had failed to meet their budgets and what was being done to rectify this. However, he regretted that instead it was likely that speeches would be an attack on what was termed “Tory Austerity”. He requested an individual apology from each Cabinet Member and the Leader for the budgetary overspends. He also invited all Cabinet Members to attend meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to explain the overspends in their departments. He concluded by stating the Conservative Group would not be giving the Labour Administration the benefit of the doubt in the future.

Councillor Steve Curran advised that he was unhappy with the tone of Councillor McGregor's comments which appeared to be maligning the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its supporting staff. However, in his view the Scrutiny Team was very effective in its support for Members engaged in the Council’s scrutiny function. He also noted that there was nothing in the Council's constitution which prevented Members of the Opposition taking questions on any subject, including the budget, to the meetings of

35

the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Despite this, they had not done so. He also expressed respect and thanks to Clive Palfreyman, the Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Resources and the wider Finance Team for their hard work over the years and particularly during the budget making time. He then expressed his personal respect for Councillor Sam Hearn who he stated had done a very good job when he had been Leader of the Opposition but was clearly out of touch with his Conservative Group which was why he was now speaking from the backbenches. He also noted that the Conservative Group had had plenty of time since going into Opposition in 2010 to present an alternative budget but they had not done. Nor did he forget that one of the first acts of the 2006-2010 Conservative-Independent Administration was to spend £5.4 million on external consultants. It was to the credit of Councillor Jagdish Sharma on becoming Leader of the Council in 2010 that he got rid of the consultants. There has been real leadership in the Council from the Labour Administrations elected since 2010; all the budgets had been prudent, a fact widely recognised by residents across the Borough who kept voting for Labour Group into power. The people of Hounslow trusted the Labour Group with their money. He also reminded Members that it was important to recall that the Council’s dedicated staff were working to keep services going in the context of the worst ever series of cuts inflicted on local government and the National Health Service. This was made all the worse by coinciding with a surge in demand for the services. However, the Conservative Group on the Council seemed unable to recognise this fact and instead attacked staff it. It was incorrect to accuse the current Council of being anything other than prudent in its financial affairs and Hounslow remained a low tax Council. The Authority for many years since 2010 had either frozen or cut Council Tax and had only recently needed to increase it. He noted too that the London Boroughs of Barnet, Bexley, Bromley and Wandsworth, all of which had Conservative Administrations, were proposing to raise their Council Tax in the forthcoming financial year to 3.99% which was the same as being proposed in Hounslow and was being criticised by the Conservative Group. He added that he was not prepared to take lessons from the Conservatives. He also observed that in the past they had claimed that too much detail had been included in budget reports but were now claiming there was too little. He invited them to submit an alternative budget to show how much detail should be provided. However, the truth was the Council's Opposition Party had done very little and had nothing to do but to resort to blaming the Labour Administration for its budget . He concluded by thanking Councillor Rajawat, the Cabinet, backbenchers, the Chief Executive, the Finance Team and all officers who worked hard on a daily basis for residents and businesses across the Borough and had worked together to create an effective budget for the new financial year. He contrasted this favourably with the Opposition Group who had not submitted an alternative budget, and had merely provided three unthought through uncosted proposed amendments which had been rightfully rejected.

Councillor Candice Atterton regretted that a Labour Government had not been elected in December. She had wanted a Labour Government to stop the current stalling in life expectancy in the United Kingdom and for help to local authorities to improve areas such as Hanworth Ward which was the most deprived area in the London Borough of Hounslow. She was appalled that since 2010 life expectancy for her constituents had stalled - something which had not happened in the country since 1900. She stated that

36

health had stopped improving over the years of Conservative Austerity which had recently been highlighted in a widely publicised report. She was also keen to see a Parliamentary Green Paper on adult social care which had been promised by the previous Prime Minister, Mrs Teresa May MP. However, this had not yet been produced. She warned all Members that this was an issue that could not be ignored and she called on the Government to start doing some of the things it had promised to do to help alleviate the issue.

At this point it was proposed by Councillor Collins, seconded by Councillor Steve Curran and unanimously RESOLVED - that standing orders be suspended to allow for debate to continue on the budget and remaining items. The Mayor invited Members to continue the debate on the budget and the following comments were made:

Councillor John Todd stated that it was necessary for a Council to be prudent and to have a credible budget. He reminded Members that in that in July 2019, the Chief Executive and Councillor Curran had written a report entitled “Leading Hounslow” which called for the Council to become a more transparent organization. The report had been considered by the Cabinet which had noted that the Council did not interact with a large number of residents. He acknowledged that setting budgets was difficult and noted that the Chief Executive had set up two bodies to assist with the process: the Hounslow Sponsorship Board and the Capital Strategy Board. These bodies were intended to help stop overspending in Council Departments but had so far failed. He also called on the Council to help develop green infrastructure and noted that the leading Hounslow report had acknowledged that there had been a disjointed approach to this work; he observed that there was an Environment Fund which was under the control of the Leader of the Council and which had made some useful donations to green infrastructure projects but he regretted to note that £463000 remained unspent. There was also a £300,000 Carbon Offset Fund which had also not been spent. This was simply therefore “dead money” which was doing nothing to help the residents of Hounslow. He criticised the Council for making it difficult for Members to get the essential details they needed to scrutinise Council and Cabinet decisions effectively. He noted that the Cabinet had now adopted a new style of performance monitoring reports which claimed to allow a richer more nuanced way of judging Council services but had in fact made it harder for Members to work out what was going on. He noted that there was £2 million in a value for money fund and there was no evidence this had been used. He agreed with the statement at the beginning of the meeting made by the Mayor that the budget meeting of the Council was important. Nonetheless, despite this importance, he considered that the format of the budget report failed as it forced Members to rely on pure financial data and not substantive comments or observations on budgetary spending in departments from Cabinet Members. As a Councillor he wished to hear the thoughts and explanations of the Cabinet but this had not happened at the meeting; he called for a

37

statement to be produced with the budget annually. He recognised that the Council was performing very well in many areas and gave an example by identifying the Children Services department as high performing but noticed that, by contrast, over £60 million had been provided to the Lampton family of companies which showed their ongoing failure to help contribute to the Council’s budget.

Councillor Katherine Dunne stated that she agreed with Councillor Todd's comment that the Cabinet had done well particularly given the financial context in which it was having to operate. However, she had no intention of complying with Councillor Hearn's demand for an apology particularly given that the Council was recognised for doing so well. She accepted that Labour Members frequently attacked the Government to complain about “Conservative Austerity” but this because it was a genuine problem and continued to be an ongoing one. £150 million worth of funding had been removed from the Council since 2010 and so this had resulted in departmental overspending. She accepted that this needed to be controlled.

At this point Councillor Hearn made an intervention and asked Councillor Dunne if she committed to deliver the departmental budget in the forthcoming year. In response Councillor Dunne undertook to do the best she could and stated that she wold be happy to discuss the matter at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee if it were discussed there. The Mayor then invited Councillor Dunne to continue making her comments which he did as follows:

She objected to the accusation that the Council the Cabinet was passing the buck for financial difficulties to the Government and she advised Conservative Members but it was they who should apologise for the Conservative Government and the damage that it had done to Hounslow and to society in the name of Austerity; this has been evidenced by the recent report reviewing the effect of Government spending reductions on life expectancy and which showed that it had stalled in the United Kingdom for the first time in over a century. She considered this a disgrace and called on the Conservatives to apologise for it. She also noted that the Chair of the Committee which carried out the review, Sir Michael Marmot, was clear on the cause which was Austerity. She stated that there was much that needed to be done to undo the damage caused the country and its residents since 2010.

Councillor Theo Dennison applauded the comment of Councillor Dunne when she stated that she wished to do her best. He then stated that he was not surprised that the Conservative Group had again failed to produce an alternative budget. He also stated that Councillor Curran had been kind in identifying only the £5.4 million spent on an external consultant by the Conservative-Independent Administration of 2006-2010 as there were plenty of other examples of wasted money from that era. He listed the re-carpeting of the old Civic Centre and the Civic Suite lavatory refurbishment programme costing £2 million. By contrast, the current Labour Administration had developed a new Civic Centre which had been built at no additional cost to residents. Furthermore 912 homes had already been delivered for residents as part of the Council's council house building programme. He also considered that the Council's Labour Administrations had been more effective than the Conservative Governments of recent years. He noted that in March 2019, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond MP, had set

38

aside £27 billion to help address the costs of Brexit, all of which had gone within six months after his removal from office. He then went on to deplore the size of the increasing Government deficit and noted that the country currently had the highest level of debt it had ever had in its history. The Office of Budget Responsibility had already forecast that the country would be overspent in every one of the next five years with an expected overspend of £13.5 billion in the year of the next election. He concluded by stating that the Labour Administration in the Council did the best it could and did it well, whereas the Conservative Opposition did nothing.

Councillor Tom Bruce stated that he had been looking at previous minutes recording the debates on the budget considered by the Council in past years. He was particularly taken by the reference in the past by Councillor McGregor to Liam Byrne, then outgoing Labour Government Treasury to the Secretary in 2010 to his successor about there being no money left. Councillor Bruce observed that Mr Byrne had been contrite and apologised. However, the world was still waiting for an apology from David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, and George Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who came into power at that time. Similarly, no apology for overspending had been forthcoming from Teresa May, the last Prime Minister or Philip Hammond. Austerity caused real pain to people in the country and was simply “an ideology”. It forced local authorities everywhere to stop meeting the needs of their residents. He noted that Councillor Dunne had stated that the Labour Administration had done well and that Councillor Todd had congratulated staff in the Council for their good work. He considered them both to be right to do so. He concluded by stating that he had assumed that if the Labour Administration had accepted the Conservative amendments, the Conservatives would have agreed the substantive budget as amended. However it was now clear to him that this was not going to be the case and so the debate on those amendments had been a waste of time. He was proud of the proposed budget before Members and commended it.

Councillor Vickram Grewal echoed the comments of Councillor Atterton in hoping for a Labour Government, and added he wished to see one at the next general election in 2024. However, he also hoped that the Mayoral Election of May 2020 would see a Labour candidate returned for the South West London constituency on the Greater London Assembly. He stated that he had been a Scrutiny Member for two years and he had always been satisfied that the Cabinet attended meetings when requested and responded to questions when asked. He had been impressed by the way they listened and implemented ideas presented to them. He noted that former Prime Minister Teresa May had once spoken of addressing burning injustices in British society but had not done so. He questioned why the Conservative Group on the Council was not also talking about this issue. He then noted that Councillor Curran had thanked staff across the Council and he was pleased to associate with that sentiment.

Councillor Ron Mushiso expressed the view that the Cabinet should be showing humility. He recalled how it had stated in 2018 that it wished to look at ways to find savings in Council Departments – but in looking at the budget before Members today it was clear that these savings had not been found and there had in fact been overspends, particularly in waste and recycling. He also questioned why £2 million was being set aside to address potholes when there was insufficient money for Adult Social Care. On the issue of life expectancy, he acknowledged that the finding that rates of life

39

expectancy had stalled in the United Kingdom had been well advertised but it was appropriate to note that this was also the case in Portugal and Hungary where there had been no Austerity. He concluded by stating that he had been hoping to hear from Councillor Rajawat about processes and methods to find future savings and cuts that could be achieved to help create a budget that was not increasing the taxation demands on residents.

Councillor Pritam Grewal commented on Councillor Todd's observations about the change in performance monitoring considered at Cabinet meetings by observing that Conservative Members frequently came to those meetings and therefore knew that the situation was better than it had been in the past. Historically, performance was monitored on a using a RAG [red, amber, green] classification system and the Cabinet had concentrated mostly at those which were identified as red, as in not met. Under the new process the Cabinet now looked at all the monitoring, whatever the category and was able therefore to look at things holistically which was more effective. It also looked at each issue in detail in conjunction with an action plan. He then addressed the issue raised by Councillor Mushiso about the stalling rates of life expectancy which had being the focus of the report by Sir Michael Marmot. Sir Michael had found that life expectancy had stalled in the United Kingdom for the first time in 120 years and directly stated that this was due to Austerity and the link between deprivation and health.

Councillor Gabriella Giles light heartedly observe that the average attention span in the year 2000 was believed to have been 12 seconds where is it now appeared to have decreased as it was clear that many Members had not followed or understood the debate. She questioned why there had been so many references to Sir Michael Marmot’s report in a debate on a local government budget. She accepted that the actions of any national government affected local government but it was clearly the duty of the Council to take responsibility for managing its own budget. There had been much talk about plans but very little detail on costings. She argued that money should be ringfenced for the plans to ensure that they were actioned. She then addressed the issue of consultants and asked how many had been employed to contribute to the Administration's Climate Emergency Plan and for its bid to become Borough of Culture. Furthermore, the budget debate so far had shown a lack of accountability by the Cabinet, although she respected the work done by officers. She took exception to the statement that discussion on the proposed amendments was a waste of time as insulting. The proposed amendments represented genuine concerns about the budget and it was right that they were considered in a public forum; it was essential that Councillors of all political parties had a chance to scrutinise and debate the proposed budget and how it was to be delivered.

Councillor Guy Lambert stated that the assertion by Councillor Mushiso that they were budgetary overspends in Waste and Recycling was not true; the Council would be within budget in this area at the end of the financial year. There had been some small use of consultants, but this had been funded from out of the Council which was something that the London Borough of Hounslow was very good at doing. He was pleased to be able to state that the Council’s recycling rate was increasing albeit slowly. All such improvements helped save the Council money and as such he could not see anything for which an apology was needed. He was also confident that the Council would see more progress and improvements in the next couple of months in these

40

areas. He hoped to see environmental champions for every ward and the Council would support them to help make all parts of the borough area better and nicer places to live. He considered the debate that had occurred so far to have been a “shocking missed opportunity” by the Conservatives who had shown that they could “not be bothered” with the details of the budget as they had provided no specifics, merely “a blanket of complaints”.

Councillor Ajmer Grewal expressed her pride that the Council’s budget also set out its ongoing commitment to the London Living Wage. This was just part of a wider pride she felt for the workings of the Council in trying to improve the lives of residents in Hounslow. She also considered that the Conservative Group should have put forward its own alternative budget if it was dissatisfied with the one being offered by the Labour Administration.

There being no further comments the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat at to sum up the debate, which he did with the following comments:

Since 2010, successive Labour Administrations in Hounslow had successfully coped with budgetary cuts from the Government, although this has in turn had reduced services.

This situation was unlikely to change following the election of a new Conservative Government in December 2019.

The Council situation would also be worse as a result of the implementation of the fair funding review which worked against all London Councils.

He was satisfied that whether or not the Conservative Group submitted alternative budgets, it would be the Labour Administration that did the hard work and did it successfully in order to look after vulnerable people which was always its primary focus.

He commended the budget to Members. The Mayor then put the recommendations in the report to Members and it was RESOLVED – That the following recommendations made by the Cabinet at its meeting on 11th February be agreed: a) Agree the General Fund revenue budget for the 2020/21 financial year as detailed in the

Cabinet report and itemised in Appendix A thereof, resulting in a 3.99% increase in the Council’s element of the Council Tax;

b) Agree the fees and charges schedule in Appendix B of the report; c) Agree the Housing Revenue Account budget for the 2020/21 financial year as detailed in

paragraphs 6.6 to 6.14 of the report; d) Agree the capital programme for 2020/21 to 2023/24 as detailed in paragraphs 7.1 to

7.12 of the report;

41

e) Agree the Capital Strategy in Appendix C of the report; f) Agree the Treasury Management Annual Strategy, Annual Investment Strategy,

Statement on Minimum Revenue Provision and Prudential and Treasury Indicators as detailed in paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4 of the report and in Appendix D thereof;

g) Agree to authorise the Executive Director of Finance and Resources to:

(i) Use short-term (temporary) borrowings. (ii) Use cash held in internal funds to offset the need to borrow externally. (iii) Use long-term borrowings subject to interest rates at the time of offer:

(a) to take long-term loans, as required, from the Public Works Loan Board, and / or Municipal Bonds Agency, if appropriate

(b) to take long-term loans from the money markets using any of the loan instruments available to the Council as deemed most appropriate at the time of borrowing.

(iv) Invest temporary surplus cash within the constraints of normal cash flow considerations with approved counterparties.

(v) Maintain the approved counterparty list, making additions and deletions, and reviewing counterparty limits as necessary.

(vi) Review and appoint external cash fund managers if appropriate, subject to specific conditions for investment.

(vii) Invest the earmarked PFI funds for periods of over two years in organisations that meet the Council’s credit criteria.

(viii) Review and implement all prudent debt management functions which are required to produce advantages to the Council’s long-term interest rate liabilities. This may include reviews of asset lives within the Minimum Revenue Provision policy.

(ix) Subject to available rental levels, to finance appropriate expenditure through leasing arrangements.

(x) Operate the loan facilities made available for the implementation of the Property 360 Investment Plan.

h) Agree the Annual Procurement Plan in Appendix E of the report. That the following further recommendations also be agreed: i) Note that the increase in the Council’s element of the Council Tax consists of an Adult

Social Care precept of 2% and a general increase of 1.99%; j) Note that at its meeting on 21 January 2020, Cabinet calculated the Council Tax Base for

2020/21 for the whole Council area as 86,251.9 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)];

k) Agree the Council Tax Requirement arising from Cabinet’s proposed budget for 2020/21

at £109,966,860 [Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act];

42

l) Agree that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2020/21 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

(i) £620,374,730 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for

its total expenditure in accordance with the items set out in Section 31A (2) of the Act;

(ii) £510,407,870 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for

its total income in accordance with the items set out in Section 31A (3) of the Act;

(iii) £109,966,860 being the amount by which the aggregate (l)(i) above exceeds the aggregate at (l)(ii) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A (4) of the Act as its Council Tax Requirement for the year (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act);

(iv) £1,274.95 being the amount at (l)(iii) above (Item R), all divided by Item T at (j)

above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year;

m) Note that for the year 2020/21 the Mayor of London has issued a Greater London

Authority (GLA) draft consolidated budget setting out his proposed precept on the Council Tax in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the table in recommendation (n) below;

n) Agree that the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government

Finance Act 1992, hereby calculates the aggregate amounts shown in the table below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2020/21 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings;

Valuation Band A B C D

Banding Factor 6/9 7/9 8/9 9/9

Hounslow Council Tax (£)

849.97 991.63 1,133.29 1,274.95

GLA Precept (£) 221.38 258.28 295.17 332.07

Total Council Tax (£) 1,071.35 1,249.91 1,428.46 1,607.02

Valuation Band E F G H

Banding Factor 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9

Hounslow Council Tax (£)

1,558.27 1,841.59 2,124.92 2,549.90

GLA Precept (£) 405.86 479.66 553.45 664.14

Total Council Tax (£) 1,964.13 2,321.25 2,678.37 3,214.04

o) Determine that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2020/21 is not excessive in

accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992;

43

p) Agree that the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme is unchanged from that

operating in 2019/20 and offers up to 100% relief for working age residents who qualify for support.

This was a named vote, and Members voted as follows: In favour of the recommendations: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Tom Bruce, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Vickram Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Kamaljit Kaur, Hanif Khan, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Balraj Sarai, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith, Sohan Sumra, and Mohammed Umair. Against the recommendations: Councillors Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Gerald McGregor, Ron Mushiso, Kuldeep Tak and John Todd There were no abstentions. This was therefore a majority decision. The Mayor thanked all Members for their contributions. 6. Calendar of Formal Committee Dates 2020/21 Members considered a report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council. It was proposed by Councillor John Todd, seconded by Councillor Joanna Biddolph and unanimously RESOLVED - That the schedule of formal committee and Council meeting dates for the municipal year 2020/21 as detailed in the appendix to this report be agreed. ACTION: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All

44

7. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. There being no nominations, it was RESOLVED – That the report be noted. TO NOTE: All 8. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any) Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services It was RESOLVED – That the information be noted. TO NOTE: All 9. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent There were no such items. 10. Date of Next Meeting Members noted that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled for Tuesday 31st March 2020 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber, Sixth Floor, Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road. [Subsequently, this meeting was cancelled due to the covid-19 coronavirus global pandemic] The meeting ended at 10.20pm MAYOR

45