The key headline of the budget speech is the 2.5% Council Tax rise, the lowest ever, along with the message that Central Government funding is decreasing dramatically. This can only mean one thing, huge cuts to public services.

At first glance, things don’t look too bad but the apparently modest cuts disguise additional pressures over the next four years including inflation, a pensions shortfall and demographic changes. Increasing numbers of primary school children means more classes, requiring significant capital expenditure and more dramatic cuts elsewhere.

There are also big hits to planned capital programmes. The capital budget will be reduced from £145m to £85m by 2013/14. Therefore many planned “non essential” programmes are under threat. New school accommodation would be “essential” for example as there is a legal requirement to provide the places needed, whereas library refurbishments and local highways improvements such as crossings are likely to be scrapped.

Here are highlights of some of the more significant cuts over the next four years, although no areas escape unscathed

• 40% reduction in bus subsidies
• Reduction in transport for children Special Educational Needs
• Cuts to Youth Services including frontline youth workers and pregnancy advisory services
• 50% cut in the road repairs budget, and a big reduction in local budgets for local safety schemes etc
• Pay freeze for council staff
• Cuts in climate change budget

Surrey is not unique of course and all Local Authorities are under pressure to cut spending but I think that SCC has gone further than it needs to for three reasons:

• Assumptions of reduction in central government funding are “worst case” and may not materialise. Not all similar councils have made the same assumptions and some cuts may prove to be unnecessary (but I wouldn’t expect planned cuts to be re-instated if so!)
• Surrey has been judged to have high unit costs and needs to make better use of its resources. It needs to reduce its reliance on agency staff and consultants which cost over £24m last year
• Council Tax could have been raised. Although 2.5% is a good headline, it is worth considering that a 1% Council tax rise provides around £5.3m in extra revenue budget for the Council. To put this into perspective, this amount would fund approximately £50m of capital expenditure.

The Conservative leadership blames Gordon Brown for all of this, but David Cameron is promising even greater cuts in public spending!

The Environment Select Committee have finally considered the 10:10 motion I raised back in October and made their recommendations to Full Council yesterday.

Signing up to 10:10 would be a commitment by the Council to reduce its own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010

When I raised the motion, just 16 councils had signed up to 10:10 but over 100 have since followed suit including Mole Valley and Reigate and Banstead.

In spite of the best efforts of Will Forster, our Environment Spokesperson who sits on the committee, the recommendation was that the Council should not sign up to the campaign as it “would detract resources from achieving the targets within the sustainable Surrey Climate Change Strategy.

Considering one of the stated aims of this strategy is to “increase the profile and show leadership on climate change activities”, 10:10 would be an ideal vehicle to help promote the Council’s work in this area, rather than detract from it in any way. 10:10 councils can use the 10:10 brand to help promote their environmental policies and are recognised as being among the most proactive organisations in reducing emissions.

Surrey County Council is going to have to face up to its responsibilities soon. The Carbon Reductions Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme becomes effective in April 2010 which will require Local Authorities to measure and reduce their emissions. There will be rewards for those who succeed, with penalties for bad performance and failure to report. In the budget which was under discussion today, there is an allowance for the maximum penalty to be imposed indicating that the leadership expect Surrey to be among the lower performing Councils.

At the moment I don’t think SCC have sufficient data to report their emissions and I suspect this is one of the real reasons that they don’t want to have anything to do with 10:10.

Some unexpected good news was announced in Full Council today by Cabinet Member for Transport, Ian Lake, regarding the status of the school special bus services which were about to be axed.

Because of concerns expressed by Lib Dem Councillors, local head teachers and parents, these services have been given a temporary reprieve until September 2011 to allow more time for consultation.

I am pleased to see the leadership have taken our comments on board and although this doesn’t mean services will not be cut next year, the review should now include the expensive contract coach services that are provided for certain faith schools and should allow for a much more inclusive approach to any restructuring.

I am afraid this reprieve does not apply to the standard bus services, but I did ask for assurance that the extra expense incurred to keep the school specials running for another year would not mean any deeper cuts for the standard services.

Decisions on these services were to be made at Cabinet on 2nd March but have now been deferred until 2nd June. The Transport Committee meets on 25th May to decide on recommendations to Cabinet. Although I am not a member of the committee I will attend and let you know what proposals are put forward.

Been desperate to attend County Hall for meetings of the Full Council but just couldn’t find the time? Probably not, but Full Council meetings are now being filmed and webcast so you can watch whenever you like from the comfort of your own home.

The first to be filmed was the meeting on 15th December 2009, the next will be the Budget meeting on Feb 9th 2010.

If you want to see a specific item there is a handy index feature so you can jump to the part of the meeting you are interested in.

Some good news for residents fed up with lights that never get fixed.

Reigate and Banstead will have all streetlights replaced in the first phase of the PFI. Work should start in March 2010 and take a year to complete.

The new system should allow repairs to be addressed much more quickly. Under the contract, Skanska will have to repair equipment faults within 6 days and will be subject to strict penalties for non performance.

Not so good for Mole Valley though; they don’t get their new system until 2015!

I am afraid my computer had a serious breakdown over the holiday period so I have not been able to update my blog but I will report back on the highlights of December’s full council meeting very soon!

Looking forward to an exciting 2010.

The last 4 years have seen a pilot scheme of 20mph zones in operation outside 4 schools in the borough which have been enforceable under a temporary TRO (Traffic Regulation Order)

A recommendation was brought before the Local Committee this week to make these zones permanent which would require an application for a new TRO which would cost about £2000.

Although the restrictions have had limited effect, the recommendation was that reverting these zones to 30mph would send the wrong message to drivers, would be unpopular with parents, and there would be a higher cost associated with removing the 20mph signage.

However, I was surprised to see that there was a lot of antagonism towards these 20mph limits and only 4 members of the committee, myself included, were in favour of making the restrictions permanent.

The majority took the view that there was no urgency in making a decision, in spite of the fact that doing nothing means that cars can now legally travel at 60mph in these zones as there is no TRO in place to enforce any limit at all.

I will continue to campaign for 20mph limits outside all schools, with traffic calming measures where signage alone does not deter speeding.

Want to know if your road will be resurfaced in the near future? Highways have provided me with lists of roads prioritised for “Major Maintenance” and ”Surface Treatment” in 2010.

I have been told that if the budget remains unchanged next year, roads ranked up to number 52 on the “Major Maintenance” list and 129 on the “Surface Treatment” list should be addressed.

In Reigate Central Division, the placings are as follows. You can see that there may be major work on 2 roads, and surface treatment on none!

Major Maintenance

12 - Linkfield Street
34 - St Marys Road
90 - Sandpit Road
109 - Evesham Road
116 - Whitepost Hill
129 - Chart Lane
141 - Park Lane East
293 - Blanford Road
307 - Hornbeam Road
470 - Howard Road
554 - Blackborough/Lesbourne

Outside Reigate Central but of interest locally it looks like Daneshill (3), Carlton Road (16) and possibly Earlsbrook Road (64) and Birkheads Road (69) could be fixed!

Surface Treatment

154 - Reigate Road (Flanchford Road to Buckland)
181 - Park Lane

Reigate and Banstead bus routes will be among the first to be reduced or axed completely under a phased review of bus services currently being conducted by Surrey County Council.

Our bus services are operated privately, but most are subsidised by the Council. Although the official line is that “residents have asked SCC to review the service as they are concerned about the level of empty buses travelling around Surrey”, it is clear from examining the proposals that “review” means “cuts” and this is simply a cost cutting exercise.

Key changes of concern for Reigate residents will be on the following routes:

• Service 324 which runs between Redhill and Horley via Reigate, Woodhatch and Sidlow is to be cut completely
• Service 430 to be withdrawn from Meadvale and South Park and diverted between Redhill and Woodhatch via South Park
• Service 435 to be withdrawn between Whitebushes and Reigate

Our public transport infrastructure is already insufficent and the limited service we do have is a lifeline for many people who no access to any other form of transport. These cuts will only make things worse, and will encourage more traffic onto our already congested roads.

More details are available on the SCC Website and you can comment on the proposals directly to the Council. The consultation period ends in January and proposals will be submitted to Cabinet in March 2010 for planned implementation in September 2010.

I would also be grateful if you could provide me any feedback directly so that I can better understand the impact these changes will have, and to include in my own response to the consultation.

Ever wondered why the broken streetlight you reported months ago is still broken?

Well, Surrey County Council have finally come clean on the ‘minimal repair program’ that they have been operating for some time now and have issued guidance regarding their handling of streetlight repairs.

It’s all down to the streetlighting PFI which comes into operation next year. This is a huge capital project which will replace 80% of the street lights in Surrey over a 5 year period.

Pending replacement, only faults classified as ‘high priority’ will be fixed.

These include damaged/uprooted bollards, damaged regulatory signs and streetlighting columns. Lantern replacements and leaning lamp posts are not being fixed unless in high crime areas or potential accident blackspots.

My advice is to continue reporting any problems to me or the Council directly and as always I will be working on your behalf to do what I can.

I will of course keep you posted on details of the replacement scheme as I know more.

I have just returned from a busy week in Bournemouth packed with policy debates and a whole host of fringe events and training courses.

Although the party seems to be well on the way to having a coherent and well received set of policies for the 2010 manifesto, there is some concern amongst members that the party leadership is unilaterally declaring policy on the hoof without proper consultation with the Federal Policy Committee.

It is not often that the sainted Vince Cable comes in for criticism but his unexpected announcement of the “mansion tax” raised a few eyebrows and many MPs seemed to be caught out on the detail in subsequent interviews.

The imposition of 0.5% tax on property values over £1m is a form of property Super Tax rather than the genuinely progressive land tax which I would have hoped for. The principle is right, but the policy needs to be developed.

The photo below does not unfortunately show us chatting about policy.

I am happier with plans to lift the low paid out of the income tax regime altogether funded by closing loopholes for the rich, taxing capital gains as income, eliminating higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and by the “green tax switch”.

Other distinctive policies approved by conference include the scrapping of ID cards, a zero carbon Britain by 2050, no like for like replacement of Trident, a renewed commitment to Proportional Representation and a fully elected House of Lords.

I confess to not being a huge fan of Nick Clegg when he was elected leader 2 years ago but I thought he gave an excellent and inspiring closing speech. It is clear he has come a long way.

However it’s a shame he didn’t get much coverage in the press, barely a footnote on the evening news. As always the Lib Dems have to fight to get coverage and on the closing day of conference, the BBC seemed more interested in Prince William’s desire to find something useful to do with his time. 

The Lib Dems are the only party who now have a clear and distinctive set of policies for their manifesto, it’s just a shame more people won’t get to hear them.

You can see Nick’s speech in full here. Many of the other speeches can be found on You Tube.

I attended a very interesting seminar entitled “Gypsy and Traveller Awareness” yesterday, intended to educate Councillors on the history and culture of these much maligned and misunderstood minorities.

It looked at how Gypsies and Travellers are affected by National and Council policies, at the difficulties they have gaining acceptance by the settled community and in accessing the services that the rest of us take for granted such as education and law enforcement.

One recent policy change that had a particular impact was that related to a ban on cold-calling which had a huge impact on the ability of Gypsies to earn a living in the traditional way. While the community was happy to adapt, a lack of consultation and communication meant that a lot of Gypsies were found to be breaking the law having not been informed of the changes.

Some of the myths surrounding Gypsies were also addressed, for example there is a perception of an increase in criminal behaviour when Gypsies move into an area which the crime statistics do not support.

Equally interesting was the reaction by certain Members who seemed to use the session to spout their less than liberal invective against the Community with a great deal of not so subtle tut-tutting about “Political Correctness gone mad”.

However I was pleasantly surprised by the enlightened views of some Conservatives who seemed embarassed by the offensive behaviour of their less progressive colleagues and even apologised to the Lib Dems present after the meeting!

I am camping in Cornwall so I won’t be posting for a few days….but please come back in the second week of September when Council reconvenes after the August break to get the latest news, views and gossip!

I am also looking forward to the national Lib Dem Conference in Bournemouth from 19th - 23rd September which I am sure will generate lots of exciting news around new policy proposals.

You can use the “Where am I?” link to find out exactly what I will be up to for the next few months. Let me know if there are any meetings or events that you would like to know more about.

I welcome the latest report from Compass advocating a Land Value Tax.

Although income in Britain is clearly unevenly distributed, it is at least taxed more or less progressively.

Property wealth is distributed much more unevenly, with 50% of all property in the hands of 5% of the population who own over six times as much as the next 5%.

Our current system of council tax is regressive with a cap on the amount payable on a single property whatever its value, with attractive rebates available for economically unproductive second home ownership.

As well as being fairer, a progressive land tax would encourage more efficient use of land and would discourage property speculation. It is also hard to avoid as land ownership can be easily established and there is no possibility for owners to exploit tax havens by moving property offshore

Replacing Council Tax and Stamp Duty with a combination of a Local Income Tax and a national Land Value Tax would go a long way to address these imbalances and help to restore some sanity to our highly speculative property market.

One of the criticisms levelled at the Council by interim Chief Executive Michael Frater was of bullying carried out by both Members and Officers.

In an interview with the Surrey Mirror reported today, our new leader Dr Andrew Povey asserted the widely discredited myth that “It is a delicate balancing act between being a tough manager and a bully”.

Bullying is nothing to do with tough management, it is bad management. Bullies are deeply insecure people, lacking management skills who bully to hide their own shortcomings.

How can the Council hope to eliminate bullying if our leader cannot tell the difference?