Conservatives recently uncovered a hidden programme of cuts, planned by Labour’s Greenwich Council. In a document marked confidential, leaked to the Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury, Labour discusses its plans for £26.8m of cuts following the next set of Council elections
 
The leaked document called ‘Future Financial Strategy 2011/12 to 2014/15 Potential Work Streams’ was presented to a Labour Group Meeting on behalf of the Labour Leader of the Council .
The briefing makes clear that the programme of cuts is ‘being pursued by officers’ and states “Current best estimates are that a four year freeze to Council budgets would require a reduction in revenue budgets of £26.m over the four year period of the next administration.” 
 
Areas which are identified as having potential to produce cuts or extra revenue are:-
 

• Reducing still further the separate Neighbourhood Offices
• Reducing funding to the voluntary sector (stated as “As a minimum this is likely to require cash limited and possibly reduced budgets.”)
• Stopping some Council services
• Within social services reviewing the eligibility criteria (to make less people eligible for care) and restricted access to services (“examine options to reduce demand and volume”)
• Raising charges to leaseholders
• Raising council charges still further.

 
After the 2006 Council Elections, the Labour Cabinet announced a programme of £24.7m of cuts (through service reductions and fee increases) which they had not advertised prior to the elections. In their 2009/10 budget, the Labour Cabinet chose to freeze fee increases.
 
Conservative Group Leader and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich at the next elections Cllr Spencer Drury said “The Labour Party has clearly got a hidden programme of cuts already in place – just as it did in 2006. They are taking voters for granted and refusing to be honest about their plans. 
 
“It seems that the old, the vulnerable and other users of Council services will be affected once again  if Labour wins. To add to that Labour are planning to cut whole areas of services, potentially including the VOCU police unit which has worked so hard to reduce crime in the Woolwich and Thamesmead areas.
 
“After 40 years in power this is a complacent, tired and dishonest Labour-run council and it is time for a change.”

 
Spencer Drury, Greenwich Councillor & Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich, this week issued a stark warning that Gordon Brown’s changes to housing benefit rules are harming the most vulnerable tenants and reducing the availability of affordable accommodation.
 
Last year, Labour Ministers introduced a new ‘Local Housing Allowance’, with housing benefit being direct to the tenant rather than to the landlord. But vulnerable tenants often struggle to manage their finances and spend their rent money on other things. Homeless charity, Crisis, has warned that this can result in rent arrears and eventually homelessness.
 
Landlords who were previously happy to take on tenants on housing benefit have suffered from non-payment of rent. Many landlords now routinely refuse to let to Local Housing Allowance claimants. According to the National Landlords Association, half of all landlords are reluctant to lend to tenants on Local Housing Allowance.
 
13,486 people in Greenwich are on local housing waiting lists, and a sizeable proportion of them are on housing benefit. Housing waiting lists have risen by 75% per cent under this Labour Council since 1997 – reflecting the shortage of affordable accommodation.
 
Conservatives have pledged to change Labour’s failed policy. Tenants will be able to choose whether to have their housing allowance paid direct to their landlord. This will increase the availability of quality low-cost housing.
 
Spencer said:
 
“Labour’s new housing benefit rules are failing the most vulnerable in our society. Landlords are put off from renting to those on benefit, slashing the availability of decent places to live. Some tenants struggle to manage their finances, using up their benefit money by rent pay day. They get into arrears and trouble as a result.
 
“Tenants should have greater choice, and be free to specify that their housing benefit should go direct to the landlord. This will help those most in need.”
 

 
CONSERVATIVES today accused Labour of being in “chaos” after rushing through another decision concerning the troubled Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme during an emergency Cabinet Committee meeting
 
The ‘last minute’ meeting did not have a proper agenda but Labour councillors rubber stamped a report which had been published less than an hour before. 
 
This report outlined how the private firms involved feared the council’s decision making process for BSF (as outlined in a report back in April) was insufficient. The firms demanded further clarification of the situation (see 2.2 of Monday’s report)
 
Conservatives are also concerned that the report attempted to hide the true cost of the scheme by making this information ‘confidential’. But in the April report to cabinet, it was made clear that Labour’s serious delay in the BSF scheme had cost Greenwich taxpayers more than £27 Million. This included around £6 million to be paid to the contractors because of the delay. This £6 million was ‘in lieu of profits they would have made from the PFI deal over 25years’ (item 12.5 Cabinet Report 14th April)
 
Leader of the Opposition Cllr Spencer Drury said
 
“This report may be the latest example of Labour’s incompetence.   This is a complicated mess which Labour are all to willing to use to hide the fact that the people of Greenwich have had to wait longer for their new schools than anyone else in the country. Meanwhile the cabinet’s mismanagement has left private firms so concerned that they insist on further clarification.
 
“I am disappointed but not surprised that Labour is trying to hide the true costs of this project. You won’t see Labour’s propaganda paper, Greenwich Time, boasting how millions of pounds are being wasted paying firms even if they do absolutely nothing.
 
“Labour clearly seems out of its depth. Its incompetence means Greenwich children are being taught in decaying schools while their parents are taxed more heavily for the privilege. It is simply a disgrace.”

Small print of Government documents forecasts power cuts by 2017
 
Councillor Spencer Drury, Leader of Greenwich Conservatives and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich, this week warned that homes and businesses across Greenwich could be facing power cuts within years. For the first time since the three-day week of the 1970s, consumers will be told to prepare for blackouts, since the supply of electricity will fail to meet demand at peak times.

 
Over the next few years many power stations will reach the end of their lives, or have to shut because of EU law. But the Government has failed to ensure that replacements are available in time. The small print of Whitehall documents reveal that Ministers have pencilled in power cuts of 3,000 Megawatt hours per year by 2017. This is the equivalent of 670,000 people being without electricity for a day – in other words an area the size of Greenwich, Lewisham and Bexley.
 
In practice the blackouts are most likely to strike at peak times – in the early evening during the winter months – hitting many more people for shorter periods when the need for electricity is greatest. The expected gap of 3,000 Megawatt hours could even mean a simultaneous hour-long power cut for 16 million people simultaneously on a winter evening.
 
Spencer said:
“I am extremely concerned that homes and businesses in Greenwich will face blackouts because the Labour Government put its head in the sand about energy policy for a decade. Ministers have been forced to admit they expect the lights to go out for the first time since the three-day week of the 1970s.
 
“Conservatives will act quickly to tackle Labour’s energy crisis. We will increase generating capacity, improve energy efficiency by insulating people’s homes, adopt the latest green technology and make Britain’s energy policy a matter of national security.”