Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Wandsworth Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Agenda

December 11, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting
AI Generated

Summary

The Council voted to note a report about an increase to Councillor allowances for information and approved a motion celebrating the Council's success in supporting social workers. The Council also voted against motions to exempt or compensate charities for the rise in Employer National Insurance Contributions, and to condemn the Council for failing to take action to end the protest on Riverside Walk in Nine Elms. The Council voted to accept a Conservative amendment to a Labour motion on compassion at Christmas.

The impact of the rise in Employer National Insurance Contributions

Councillor Peter Graham moved a motion calling on the Council to support exempting or compensating charities for the rise in Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs). He noted that the Labour government had promised in its manifesto not to raise NICs but had done so in November. He quoted the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), stating the OBR had said the cost of the NICs increase would “mainly … be passed on to employees through lower real wages.”1 He said that the OBR had found that Labour’s Autumn Budget would “increase borrowing, reduce medium and long-term growth, reduce household incomes, increase inflation and mortgage rates, lower real wages and increase unemployment.” He noted that the OBR had only been able to identify “£9.4 billion in new spending pressures,” rather than the £22 billion claimed by the Labour Party.

Councillor Graham went on to say that the NICs rise would cost Wandsworth Council £3.4 million, adding that this was the equivalent of a 5% increase in Council Tax. He said that the Local Government Association (LGA) had said it was unclear how much of this cost would be covered by the government. Councillor Graham added that the rise would have a huge impact on social care providers, which would face a cost increase of £1.8 billion. He concluded by saying that he hoped the Council would vote to support the motion and “put borough before party.”

Councillor Critchard said that the OBR had neither confirmed nor denied Labour’s claims about a £22 billion “black hole” in the economy. She argued that the NICs rise was not a simple increase but was “more nuanced,” adding that many small businesses would not see an increase in their NICs and might even see a reduction. Councillor Critchard went on to say that all businesses exist to make profits and that the British Retail Consortium (BRC) had claimed that the NICs rise would “slow growth, reduce jobs and cause shop closures.” She said that there were “lots of new initiatives” in the government’s budget, such as extra funding for the NHS, schools and childcare, that would help to mitigate the impact of the NICs rise. She concluded by urging Councillors to vote against the motion.

Councillor Hedges said that the NICs rise would have a “devastating impact” on businesses and charities in Wandsworth. She said that many charities were already struggling and would be hit hard by the rise. She went on to say that charities rely on financial support from the council and that the Labour administration had previously promised to strengthen the voluntary sector. She concluded by asking the Council to support the motion.

Councillor Akinola said that the Conservatives were to blame for the £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances. She said that the Labour government was committed to “rebuilding a fairer and more resilient economy” and that the NICs rise would raise £25 billion annually, which would be a “vital contribution” to public services such as the NHS. She argued that Wandsworth was “uniquely positioned” to weather the impact of the NICs rise because it is a borough of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and that the increased employment allowance would mitigate the impact of the NICs rise for many small businesses. Councillor Akinola went on to say that the budget included several other measures designed to support workers and businesses, such as an increase in the minimum wage and adjustments to state benefits. She concluded by saying that the NICs rise represented a “balanced approach” that ensured that smaller businesses remained protected while contributing to the “collective good.”

Councillor Owens said that the Labour budget had “laid bare” the party’s “ideological opposition to business and job creation.” He said that the NICs rise, the reduction in the threshold for payments and cuts to business rate discounts sent an “unambiguous signal” that Labour did not value jobs. Councillor Owens went on to say that nurseries, charities and the social care sector would all be hit hard by the NICs rise. He added that social care providers in Wandsworth faced costs of over £1 billion due to the NICs rise and increased national living wage requirements. He concluded by saying that the Labour Party should “change course.”

Councillor Dickadam said that the aim of the Labour administration was to “redistribute resources and power” to help those who were unable to survive in a world dominated by “market forces.” He said that the Labour Party was committed to using all the powers at its disposal to alleviate the housing crisis. Councillor Dickadam went on to say that the Council had set rents in line with government guidance and that the large increase in rent arrears was due to the move to Universal Credit. He said that the Conservatives had missed an opportunity to borrow money at low interest rates to build housing and that borrowing to invest was a “responsible” thing to do. Councillor Dickadam concluded by saying that the Council was dedicated to making Wandsworth a “fairer, more equal borough” and that it was willing to be open to criticism.

The Council voted against the motion.

A protest on Riverside Walk in Nine Elms

Councillor Conner moved a motion condemning the Council for failing to take action to end a protest on Riverside Walk in Nine Elms. He said that the protest had been ongoing since 1 September 2024 and that residents had endured excessive noise, the defacement of public property and the erection of tents and fires in public spaces. He added that a key walkway into the borough had been blocked and that the sense of safety and security in the area had been undermined. Councillor Conner said that the Council had failed to act despite repeated calls for intervention and that this inaction had sent a “dangerous message” that “disruptive and intimidating protesters can act with impunity.” He called on the Council to apply for an injunction to end the protest and to set out a framework for managing protests in the borough in the future.

Councillor Hogg said that the Council worked closely with the police to manage protests and that the police were taking the “right approach” to managing the protest in Nine Elms. He said that the community had fed back positively about the police’s response. Councillor Hogg went on to say that there was a “long tradition of protest” in Battersea, citing examples such as protests against the slave trade, animal testing and the Boer War. He said that Wandsworth Labour had a good record on community safety, pointing to the investment in CCTV and community safety officers. Councillor Hogg concluded by saying that he was proud that the UK was a country where people could “distrust authority” and “shout to us.”

The Council voted against the motion.

Compassion at Christmas

Councillor Hogg moved a motion calling on the Council to demonstrate “compassion” at Christmas. He said that the Council had implemented an “ambitious cost of living programme” to help those who are struggling financially. Councillor Hogg added that the Council remained proud to have the “lowest council tax in the country” and that it had exempted 10,000 households on the lowest incomes from paying any council tax. He said that the Council had agreed with “all party support” that those with second properties should pay double council tax. Councillor Hogg went on to say that the Council was being “proactive” in helping residents to access benefits and that its “Access for all” scheme gave free access to leisure facilities. He concluded by saying that he hoped the Council would vote unanimously for the motion.

Councillor Sutters moved a Conservative amendment to the motion. She said that although she welcomed the title of the motion, she felt that the Labour administration had “thrown shade” on the previous administration and sprinkled “fairy dust” on its own decisions. Councillor Sutters said that many of the matters listed in the motion were “legacy issues” that had their roots in the work of the previous administration. She went on to say that the Labour administration’s decisions about who and what to support appeared to rely heavily on the work of its various commissions, which were “ostensibly independent, but stuck to the gills with left-leaning individuals.” Councillor Sutters said that this had allowed the Labour administration to formulate policies that were “ambitious for some” rather than “ambitious for all.”

Councillor Sutters then outlined a number of issues that she felt the Labour administration needed to address:

  • Police deployment. She said that residents wanted to be able to rely on the police but that local teams were often “abstracted,” leaving areas uncovered. She asked the Labour administration to assure the Council that it was speaking to the Commissioner about this issue.
  • Pensioners not in receipt of pension credit. She said that many pensioners on a basic pension were struggling to make ends meet. She asked the Labour administration whether it could “do better” to help them.
  • Bradstow School. She said that Bradstow School was a “residential school of excellence” for children with severe autism and “fragile eggs.” She asked the Labour administration to find a way to keep the school open.
  • Ashburton Estate Applications. She said that the Labour administration had promised to be a “listening council” but that it had not listened to residents’ concerns about the Ashburton Estate Applications. She asked the Labour administration to respect the will of the residents.

Councillor Boswell said that she wanted to use her speech to celebrate the “kindness, fairness and compassion” of the Labour administration’s policies. She said that she had witnessed the “unkindness” of the Conservative administration’s policies when she was a councillor a decade ago, citing examples such as the closure of youth clubs, short-start centres and adventure playgrounds. Councillor Boswell went on to say that the Labour administration was launching a play strategy and a youth strategy that had “kindness woven into them.” She said that the Labour administration was committed to proactively seeking out those in need of services, rather than waiting for them to come to the Council. Councillor Boswell concluded by saying that she was horrified by the “unkindness” that had been shown in the chamber that evening.

Councillor Hamilton said that he wanted to start his speech on a “more optimistic note” but that he felt he should take issue with Councillor Boswell’s comments about the Conservative Party’s record on refugees. He said that the Conservative Party was “delighted” to hear of the example of “Yusuf” but that he could not let it be said that the Conservative Party was “uncaring.” Councillor Hamilton went on to say that the Conservative Party had implemented “one of the largest resettlement schemes for refugees coming from Ukraine.” He said that the Conservative Party was a party that “looks to the world and always welcomes refugees to our shores.”

Councillor Hamilton then went on to thank Councillor Ambache for his comments about working with the Conservative group on the Grants Committee. He said that he had “hugely welcomed” Councillor Ambache’s “consensual” approach.

Councillor Hamilton said that although much of what was included in the Labour motion sounded good, it was important to remember that many of the Labour administration’s supposed achievements were built on the “44 years of Conservative administration.” He said that it was the Conservative Party’s reserves that had allowed the Council to be generous in supporting those in need.

Councillor Hamilton then went on to criticise a number of the Labour administration’s policies:

  • Borrowing. He said that the Labour administration was proposing to borrow £668 million over the next 10 years, with interest payments of £606 million. He said that this would leave the Council with a “pile of debt” and that compassion needed to be for “tomorrow” as well as “today.”
  • Housing. He said that the Labour administration had raised housing rents by more than 15% over the last two years and that rent arrears had increased significantly. He said that the Labour Party’s focus on increasing rents and charges was not serving the needs of residents.
  • Local plan revisions. He said that the proposed revisions to the local plan would “restrict the ability of people to buy their own home.” He said that the Conservatives believed that people should be able to own their own home and that they had “transformed so many lives” with policies such as Right to Buy.

Councillor Hamilton concluded by saying that although he respected the spirit of the Labour motion, he urged the Labour administration to take a look at its policies and see if they were “really serving the aspirations of the people of Wandsworth.” He said that the greatest thing that the Council could do to demonstrate compassion was to give people the opportunity to own their own home and to have a “future properly” in the borough.

The Conservative amendment to the motion was not carried but the substantive motion was carried.

The meeting ended with the approval of a number of reports for decision.

  1. The OBR is the UK’s independent fiscal watchdog. It was set up in 2010 to provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. ↩

Attendees

Documents