Transcript

Good evening, councillors, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to this evening's council meeting. My name is Councillor Robert Rigby, and I am the Lord Mayor of Westminster. Before we start the formal proceedings this evening, I would like to take a moment to remember former councillor Nicholas Evans, who sadly passed away in January. Nick was a Tatchbrook ward councillor from 2002 until 2014, and sat on a number of policy and scrutiny committees and the licensing committee in his time at the council. He was extremely committed to his ward and worked tirelessly for the local residents. His obituary read, a perfect gentleman, he is remembered with great affection, a sentiment I think we all echo. Prior to becoming a councillor, Nick was a member of the Armed Forces, serving in the Prince of Wales' own regiment of Yorkshire. Please can I ask members to now stand to join me in a minute's silence to remember former councillor Evans. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to remind all members that we are live streaming this meeting, and therefore microphones will be active when members are speaking, and the cameras will be broadcasting until the meeting closes. A list of all members who are present will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Agenda item one, appointment of a relief chair. As I may need to vacate the chair during the meeting, I propose that councillor Patricia McAllister be chosen to take the chair as necessary. May I please have a seconder for my motion? Seconder. Councillor Ormsby has seconded my motion that councillor McAllister chairs the meeting as necessary. Unless any member objects, the motion will have been deemed to have been agreed. If anyone has an objection, please say so now. Thank you, councillor McAllister. Please join me on the dais. Agenda item two. Minutes from the previous meeting. Unless any member wishes to raise a point of order relating to the accuracy of the minutes, I will consider that members are content that I have signed the minutes of the last meeting. Please state now if you wish to raise a point of order. Thank you. The minutes are agreed. Agenda item three. Declarations of interest. It is necessary to declare any interests in relation to the issues on which there will be a vote. These items are set out on the list of the speakers in the order paper. Members need to declare an interest in the item selected for debate if they are speaking in that debate. All members in attendance were asked to identify in advance of the meeting if they have an interest to declare. There is no need to declare an interest purely on account of being a council tax or business rates payer, nor a need for any member to declare an interest in the member's allowances item. If anyone has any other disclosable pecuniary interests, or any other significant interest to declare, please say so now. Thank you. We now move to agenda item four. The report of the cabinet is six parts with recommendations on each. I propose, as in the previous years, to allow one debate to encompass the budget and council tax item and the remainder of the cabinet report before we vote on these. In accordance with statutory requirements, I intend to call formally recorded votes on the opposition party amendment and the recommendations of the cabinet on the budget and council tax. With the agreement of both parties, the formally recorded votes will be undertaken by a show of hands. I will not ask the chief executive to call the names of each member of the council. The names of those voting for, against or abstaining will be recorded in the minutes. We shall then move to a vote on part two to six of the report of the cabinet. A list of all those councillors who have been nominated to speak were tabled on the order paper, sent to all earlier this week, and on your desks. This list also sets out the order in which the votes will be taken at the end of the debate. All speeches are up to five minutes, except for a few on the list that may be up to ten to twenty minutes. Can I ask members to keep to their allotted times as closely as possible? At 9.35, if the debate is still in progress, or at the end of the debate, if earlier, I will call the leader of the council to reply to the debate for up to ten minutes. The division bell will then be rung to signify that the budget votes are about to be taken by formally recorded vote. As the number of members on each group are closer in size since the last budget meeting, all members must ensure they are in the chamber in time for the vote. Once the division bell has finished ringing, no member will be allowed to enter the meeting until all the voting on the budget has concluded. So, I now call the leader of the council, Councillor Adam Hugg, to make the leader's speech. Thank you. Good evening, Lord Mayor, fellow councillors, officers and residents of Westminster. Before I begin my speech tonight, I want to take a moment to acknowledge a significant position in our Cabinet. This is the first time we're all here since this change, and I want to express my sincere thanks to Paul de Moldenburg for his leadership as Cabinet Member for City Management. Paul dedicated over four decades to public service here in Westminster, and his contributions in Cabinet have made a long-lasting and positive impact. His work changed the daily lives of Westminster's residents for the better, and we look forward to supporting him in what comes next. At the same time, I want to extend a warm welcome to Councillor Max Sullivan as he takes on the role of Cabinet Member for Streets. I have no doubt he will build on the work that Paul has done to keep Westminster clean and accessible for all. So today, we set out a Budget that is more than just numbers on a page, it is a blueprint for a fairer Westminster. A Budget that balances financial responsibility with bold ambition. A Budget that ensures every resident, no matter their background or circumstance, has the opportunity to prosper here. Where we are working to build a city where safety is not a privilege, but a promise kept for all. Where communities are not just supported, but empowered. And where opportunity isn't confined to the few, but extends to all. This is our vision. This is our commitment. And this is a future we are working to deliver. As we gather here to discuss our ambitions for this incredible city, we do so against a backdrop of significant challenges. Many residents continue to feel the effects of the cost of living crisis. National funding for local government remains constrained, and we face growing demands across our services. Yet despite these challenges, I am proud to say that Westminster is moving forward. We are delivering a fairer city for our residents, and this Budget ensures we will continue to do so in the year ahead. In the face of an increasingly challenging financial landscape, councils across the country have been forced to make difficult decisions over the last decades. Local authorities must find new ways to balance the books whilst protecting the services their residents rely on. And they must do so whilst remaining a credible, trusted institution, as evidenced here in Westminster by the Council's recent AA3 credit rating, which Moody's said reflected Westminster's economic strength, diversity, considerable financial strength and income-generating power, moderate debt levels, a low-risk debt structure, strong governance and prudent financial planning. At a time of insecurity and disruption, and ahead of the outcome of the government's three-year spending review, and the long-delayed revisions to local government finance finally being implemented, we are taking the decision today to propose a modest increase to council tax. For a Band D property, this will mean just 48p more a week, ensuring that Westminster continues to have the second lowest council tax rate in the country. The Westminster portion will rise by 2.2% for core council services and an additional 2% for adult social care. As I said, this will be the second lowest increase in the amount of council tax paid in London, and I think in likelihood all across the country. Westminster is raising its council tax by £16 less than neighbouring Kensington and Chelsea, and £78 less than Conservative Bexley. This increase is not a decision that we take lightly, but it is under the circumstances a responsible one. We have to continue to take action to meet the growing demand for homelessness support, with temporary accommodation alone now costing London councils across the piece, and eye-watering £90 million a month. In Westminster alone over the last year, we were forced to spend £66 million to respond to the crisis, though I am pleased to see in the papers before us today that we are bringing these costs down under control, through our expanded acquisitions programme and other measures to end the use of expensive nightly booked accommodation. Even with the effects of years of underfunding, we have worked hard to protect frontline services. This year alone, we have identified £30 million in efficiency savings and income generation, on top of the £350 million in savings Westminster has already had to make since 2010. I want to be clear, we remain committed to providing value for money and supporting those who need it most. Our council tax support scheme continues to offer 100% relief to those on lowest incomes, at a time when many schemes in London have had to close or be changed. Our £26 million cost of living fund is there to help residents with essentials when they need it most. Our £1 million continuation of the rent support fund means that council talents on modest incomes, who are not covered by housing benefit, will get help from the council with their rent. This is a budget that reflects our priorities, making responsible financial decisions, protecting our residents and investing in the future of our city. One of the hallmarks of this administration is our commitment to continuous improvement. I would say, unlike the previous administration, we try not to mark our own homework. We welcome external scrutiny because we believe that's how we deliver best for our residents. This is why the LGA corporate peer review was so important. These reviews provide an objective assessment about how we're performing, where we're doing well, and importantly, where we can still improve. We invited this challenge because we're committed to be a learning council, evolving to make Westminster the best council it can be. And the results of recent independent inspections are encouraging for Westminster. In children's services, we achieved an outstanding rating from Ofsted for the third time, one of only two councils nationwide to do so. So our officers are continuing their great specialist work while delivering the expansion of youth services and universal measures like free school meals. Our adult social care team received a good rating from the Care Quality Commission, reflecting the dedication and expertise of our staff in delivering high-quality care, the second highest in London. And in housing, the turnaround in performance as a result of the housing improvement program has been fully recognised by the housing regulator. The regulator was clear that our top grade was for the strength of our improvement, our strength of our plans, and the leadership of the work being done at the moment to turn the service around. Not that every problem had been solved. So despite receiving a C1, we know there is much more to do to meet the stands we want for all of our residents. But we are, for the first time in a long time, moving in the right direction. Across the board, these results are in no small thanks to the hard work of dedicated officers who make our city run day in, day out, implementing our policies and meeting the aspirations of our residents. So I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. And we will continue to challenge ourselves and the Council to ensure that Westminster is the best it can be, delivering for local people. Over the past year, we have made significant strides in delivering improved services, and, as we promised, building a fairer Westminster. Our approach has been simple. Focus on what matters most to our residents, take bold action where it is needed, and ensure that support reaches those most in need. So at a time when families are struggling, we have prioritised those measures to help with the cost of living. Since 2022, we have invested £26 million in targeted support, with an additional £1 million in this year's budget. Funding food vouchers, holiday activities, specialist advice centres to help with debt and other matters. And last summer, we went even further to make permanent our approach to free school meals, ensuring that every child aged 3 to 14 in Westminster receives a free lunch, and ensuring that none of them go hungry. And we are getting to grip with some of the biggest challenges facing local government today, housing. Our new housing allocation scheme ensures that those facing multiple priorities are prioritised, while our homelessness and rough sleeping strategy focuses on early prevention and early intervention, ensuring people get the support they need before they reach crisis point. And through the Westminster Housing Compact, we are bringing together key partners to work with us on tackling homelessness and improving conditions for renters. For too long, communities in Westminster have been underserved. We are changing that. By opening Trashham South, a new centre for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and Westminster's first accessible playground in Westbourne, we are making our city a more inclusive place for all. And soon, new community hubs at Ernest Harris House in Maida Vale, and on Rampane Street in Pimlico, will be bringing community activities and essential services closer to residents, making it easier to access the support that they need. Westminster is a city of culture, creativity and opportunity. We are investing in our creative industries to ensure that remains the case. The North Paddington Creative Enterprise Zone, for example, will support local artists and businesses to grow, making Westminster a hub for creative talent. So we are delighted that Kindred Studios will be returning to Westminster to run the workspace at 300 Harrow Road. And our long-term ambitions for Westminster include clean air, sustainable energy and active travel. And this focus means Westminster has been recognised as the top-rated local authority in the country for climate action. And this administration expanded our network of dockless e-bike bays to 360 locations, while increasing and reclaiming lots and lots of fines, tens of thousands, and installing almost 2,500 electric vehicle charging points, and investing in our green spaces, earning 27 green flag awards for our parks. This is the kind of city we're building, one that puts people first, supports communities, and leads the way in tackling the biggest challenges of our time. So, looking ahead, this budget focuses on issues that matter most well, isn't it? So, we know, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, you are not allowed to speak. Right, look, if you continue, I'll suspend the meeting. But you haven't debated it. Can you, can you, can you, can you stop, excuse me, can you stop speaking? You're allowed to stay in the chamber, but you cannot speak. And you bypass it. You will be removed. But you haven't debated it. Right, okay, right. Can we, can we, can we get the security in? No, no, no, no. Right, thank you, thank you for that. Excuse me, could you, could you, could you, could you quiet down please? Excuse me, to be, to be clear. Could you quiet down. This is not a meeting for petitions. Petitions do not come to full, full, budget full council. That is never the process for this council. I'll suspend the meeting. Okay, I'm, I'm suspending the meeting until this person has been removed. Thank you. B.A. system, Boeing and many more. Westminster Council is explicit. Goodbye. Goodbye. Let's get, chill, just chill. Okay, following that excitement, leader of the council, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you. And just to put on the record that as a full, as a budget full council, there is not an opportunity for deputations or, or external questions. But obviously those opportunities happen at, at future councils in response to, um, uh, compliance petitions and questions that is, that are approved by officers, not by members for, um, for this point. So, to be clear, uh, that is the process, uh, and, uh, the questions raised were, had obviously been also raised at a previous full council, and responded to by the chair of the pensions committee. Anyway, moving forward. This budget focuses on matters, uh, that are most important to our residents, tackling antisocial behaviour. And we know community safety is a top priority for the people of Westminster, and this budget delivers. Today, we hit a significant milestone. We officially installed the Westminster's 100th CCTV camera, and residents can now look forward to seeing this number doubled, and we'll be increasing the camera network to 200. For the first time, 40 new cameras will focus on Soho and Leicester Square, tackling some of the crime in some of the busiest areas of our city, um, which will help as part of our upcoming Westminster After Dark work. And these redeployable cameras are already securing prosecutions, and will continue to place them in areas where residents need them most. This week, a city inspector has been able to pin down a fly tipper that have been regularly dumping rubbish for several weeks, thanks to a recently installed camera. But safety isn't just about surveillance. We've committed to creating a dedicated team to combat antisocial behaviour across the city, featuring eight new additional city inspectors. We've also recruited additional officers to help crack down on noise nuisance and tackle illegal short-term lets. And the new multi-disciplinary street-based intervention team of city inspectors, outreach workers, and ASB caseworkers is already making a difference in Victoria. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our city day and night. This administration is making sure that they do. And through innovations like our AI-enhanced report-it tool, we're making residents, it easier for residents to communicate with us and tell us where there are problems in their local communities. And we'll continue with our digital inclusion push to ensure that no one is left behind in this digital world. So the housing crisis is one of the biggest challenges that we face, not just in Westminster, but across the country. Years of underinvestment in affordable and social housing have left councils struggling to meet demand. The government is finally taking steps in the right direction, like the Renters' Rights Bill. But we need real action to deliver the homes people need. Here in Westminster, we're stepping up. One in 50 Londoners now lives in temporary accommodation, a crisis that demands immediate action. Which is why we're committing a further $140 million to acquiring council-owned temporary accommodation over the next two years, reducing our reliance on expensive hotels and giving residents a more stable place to live while they wait for permanent council housing. No one should be sleeping rough on our streets. And we're investing an extra $1.2 million of our own funds to intensify our efforts to tackle rough sleeping in Westminster, ensuring vulnerable people get the support they need to move into safe and stable accommodation. And we're delighted to be supported by the government in this, with an additional over £1 million of their funding to help further strengthen this work on rough sleeping. As part of our work to rebuild trust with our residents, our Housing Improvement Program is delivering better services for tenants and leaseholders, with four new housing service centres providing face-to-face support across the city and continuing efforts to improve our housing repairs team. And we're thinking bigger. Our £10 million retrofit match funding programme will improve energy efficiency, lower bills and cut carbon emissions. Meanwhile, major regeneration projects at Ebury Bridge, Church Street, Westmead and 291 Harrow Road are going to be delivering the affordable, high-quality council homes for social rent that our residents deserve and key worker housing too. We're committed to driving up standards in the private rented sector through a citywide selective licensing scheme and a renters charter, which aims to empower tenants and support responsible landlords to help ensure that all privately rented homes meet high standards of safety and quality. Our vision is clear. A fairer, safer, more equitable private rented sector where every resident can feel secure and valued in their home. For too long, care workers have been treated as low-paid, low-value work. Wages have stagnated while the cost of living has soared. We've had a system where the people doing some of the hardest, most important jobs in our communities, looking after our elderly, the disabled, the most vulnerable, have barely afforded to look after themselves. So, following on from the increased support for home care workers last year, this is why we're investing 1.4 million into increasing personal care assistance pay. This means that direct payment recipients will receive a flat rate of £20 an hour, meaning a carer can expect to see an increase of almost £2 in their hourly earnings. Care work is skilled work. It's vital work and it should pay like this. This is about attracting people into an industry that's been undervalued for too long and helping keep them there. Furthermore, £1.2 million will go towards equalising the threshold of social care payments, enabling 460 residents under the age of 65 retain much more of their income before contributing to their care costs, reducing poverty, increasing quality of life for people with disabilities here in Westminster. This budget continues our local investment into mental health service, including the innovative TrimTalk scheme, which trains barbers to have conversations about mental health, creating safe spaces for young men to share their concerns. And we're boosting services that support our families, with a particular focus on those with special education needs and disabilities. Our voluntary community sector will receive continued support through grants, community fundraising capacity and fundraising to improve community assets. Westminster continues to be an economic powerhouse, generating £72 billion a year annually for the national economy. And we're going to continue to ensure this grows and is enjoyed by the whole community here in Westminster through initiatives like Westminster Anker Alliance, which brings together major employers to create local employment opportunities. And this administration has initiated Westminster's first ever nighttime strategy, long overdue in a city known for its nightlife, but also real challenges. So Westminster After Dark is designed to make sure all of our world-class cultural, entertainment and culinary experiences can truly be enjoyed by all. And we'll address the challenges that come from a bustling nighttime economy, including crime, antisocial behaviour and noise disturbances affecting our residents. From online engagement to stakeholder assemblies, we spoke to thousands of people to make sure this plan balances the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. And next week, we will launch the final draft strategy for public consultation. And we can help start to improve the nighttime economy and make sure it reflects the diverse needs and aspirations of everyone in Westminster. On climate leadership, we promise to be a net-zero council by 2020 and a net-zero city by 2040. This budget invests in climate adaptation and resilience, a plan to address extreme weather events and strengthen our community resilience. We're continuing our retrofit-first planning policy, expanding our sustainable transport infrastructure, and investing in greening and biodiversity through our Greening Westminster Fund. Our commitment to cleaner air isn't just a promise, it's a plan of action. We're expanding our school streets, building new cycle routes, transforming our waste collection fleet to 100% electric vehicles. We're ordering 50% of the way there, the first concrete step towards a sustainable city goal, and we have plans in this budget to deliver the rest. We're thinking ahead by redesigning our public spaces with sustainable drainage systems, protecting our flooding, and producing a more sustainable Westminster. So, that is a lot of action here. And I want to be very, very clear. The choice ahead of us is a Labour council that is being responsible and investing in our communities, versus a Conservative council that has not learned the lessons of why it is no longer in power, with no new ideas, but increasingly extreme at a national stage. So, I think the dividing lines are very clear, and I look forward to being able to commend this budget to the House. It's the House. I now call Councillor Paul Swaddle to speak. Thank you, Lord Mayor. This has been a challenging week for all of us as we watch events internationally overshadow domestic politics. There is more that unites us than divides us, and global security must prevail to keep us safe at home. And therefore, we offer every best wishes to the people of Ukraine following the barbaric invasion by Russia, and we hope that political leaders can unite and successfully secure a just and lasting peace. I'd like to thank the officers for their hard work that they've put in over the past few months, for the briefings and reviewing of our costed amendments. Last week, we had a by-election in Vincent Square, following the sad passing of Councillor Arundel. I'd like to thank the presiding officers for organising and running the election, and welcome our new councillor for Vincent Square, Martin Hayes. And happy birthday, Martin. What a way to celebrate. My colleagues and I look forward to seeing him have a positive impact for the residents of Vincent Square, working alongside councillors Harvey and Short. This is our third by-election victory since the Labour administration came into office, and it speaks clearly of the views of the residents of Labour's performance. Third. Third. Third. You can count. One, two, three. Not in their numbers. Not in their budget. This time last year, at the last full council budget meeting, the leader of the council declared to me, absolutely, you need to own the record of your government. Therefore, it is only fair that I hold him to the same standard. Ahead of the general election last year, Labour promised they would not raise taxes on working people. But instead, they imposed a £25 billion tax on working people by increasing national insurance. As they raised the burden to the highest level in our country's history. How is this a fairer Westminster? And beyond, and before the members opposite start saying allegations about shortfall in government finances, we were relying on the proceeds of growth to fund those commitments. And 2.5% of growth is worth £50 billion. But they've messed that up. And it's, and how is it going, and it was all going to plan. With unemployment at near record highs, sorry, unemployment at near record lows, the fastest growing economy in the G7, and real wages growing every month for 13 consecutive months. The previous government brought inflation down from 11% in October 22 to the target of 2% on Election Day. Since then, Labour have stalled the economy and crashed it into a ditch. According to the latest figures, the UK's GDP grew by 0.1% in the fourth quarter, following no growth in the prior. Let's spell out the implications of Labour's decision which impact upon the people of Westminster. The Director of Institute of Fiscal Studies said Labour increased to national insurance hits, and I quote, those employing lower paid workers harder. He went on to say, employer NI up by 1.2% to 15% and a threshold cut from 9,100 to 5,000 is a tough £25 billion tax rise. Proportionally hitting those, hitting harder those employing those low-weight paid workers. How is that a fair Westminster? I've met and spoken with business leaders across Westminster. One, based in the West End, told me how, as a result of the decisions made by the Labour government, they were being forced to cut staff hours by 20% and are looking to deploy and US for growth opportunities. It's not just consumer-orientated businesses that are affected. Unfortunately, ANCA Hanover, England's largest non-profit specialised housing and care provider, which runs Norton House on Arnaway Street here in Westminster, has been forced to raise its costs for residents, thanks to the Chancellor's tax rate. In a letter delivered to residents, ANCA said, The government's announced changes to employers NI means that from April we will have to pay employers national insurance on a larger proportion of each employee's salary and at a higher rate. This is a cost we have no choice but to pay, and would subsequently impact the amount you pay your service charges next year. This means that numerous elderly residents will be forking out around £300 extra each year to cover that national insurance increase. How is this a fairer Westminster? Westminster. Westminster Council must acknowledge reality and add an additional £2.4 million resulting from the national insurance pressures in the 26-27 onwards budget, to reflect the national government's failure to confirm that they will cover this shortfall. Elderly residents living here, in Westminster, have already lost their winter fuel payments, thanks to the savage cuts made by the Labour government. And I note that last year, City of London and Westminster Labour Party published a video interviewing vulnerable pensioners. I invite them to interview them again and ask them now, Are you better off under a Labour government? And how is fairer Westminster working for you? Meanwhile, here in Westminster City, the leader of the council has hardly done any better. Too much of his budget is focused on pet projects and releasing a multitude of self-congratulatory press releases and social media ads. He crows about the increase in the number of CCTV cameras, splashing 2 million in this budget. And while I welcome more CCTV cameras, it's clear that they do not deter mobile phone thieves, put off brazen shoplifters, nor arrest anyone. I asked the CCTV lead at Westminster this week about how many prosecutions CCTV had been responsible across Westminster over the past 12 months. Do you know how many? Do you know how many? No. None. None. I also note that in their recent bulletin, the Westminster council said, and I quote, We have a city-wide public space protection order for dog fouling, meaning failure to pick up after a dog can result in a fixed penalty fine or prosecution, and indicated that this would be policed by CCTV. I ask you, how many prosecutions for this offence were made through the use of CCTV? Can you guess? None. Tell us, Paul. Zero. The leader of the council is clearly barking up the wrong tree if he thinks CCTV is the silver bullet to cutting crime. As he knows, the mayor of London is responsible for overseeing the Metropolitan Police. And I urge the leader of the council to hold the mayor to account for crime, which has got out of control in Westminster, and push him to implement the Conservative GLA action plan to tackle crime. All this chimes with people's lived experiences. They feel they live in the wild Westminster, not a fairer Westminster, and the statistics back this up. In Westminster, in the city of London, the Westminster constituency, total crimes reached 90,000 last year, a 2.6% increase since 22. Bottom in the country. This is a wilder Westminster, not a fairer Westminster. Over the past three years, in the same area, there were 10,000 violent and sexual offences, 9,500 incidents of anti-social behaviour, 330 instances of possession of deadly weapon, 210 drug-related crimes, 3,200 robberies, and 4,000 public order offences, and over 1,000 bicycle thefts. There were also 6,200 instances of shoplifting, which is a near 40% increase since 22. More wild Westminster, not fairer Westminster. There is also an under-reporting factor, as in the poll commissioned by Assemblymember Neil Garrett, in his report on the capital's crime crisis, tackling London's theft epidemic, revealed that a quarter of those polled said they would probably not report their bike or phone stolen. The report concludes that the mayor should publish a theft reduction action plan, setting out the steps he will take and which the public can mark his actions and results against. He should furthermore stop scapegoating phone manufacturers and shop owners for the increase in crime, or putting the onus on them to solve it. I recently went on a walkabout with the police on St John's Wood High Street, listening to the police and the retailers' concerns, and have committed to using ward budget locally for simple, practical solutions to cut crime. However, individual councillors and the opposition can only do so much. Even though Councillor Pitt Ford single-handedly took on shoplifters when he was in Marks & Spencer's, it is incumbent on the leader of the council to get the mayor of London to do more. Considering the relationship between the mayor and the leader is already fractured over the Oxford Street fiasco, I feel it's slightly unlikely to happen. There's nothing in this budget which sets out how Westminster Council will recruit the £20 million invested in works for the original Oxford Street plan. But let me remind you how we got here. 2019, under our administration, the council plans for a district-wide approach to the investment required to address public realm, safety, transport and economic challenges faced by Oxford Street was brought forward. In 2022, the Labour administration decided to focus the council's funding on improvements required for Oxford Street, rather than the whole district. But that broadly was the same plan, and it had wide stakeholder support. Then in Autumn 2024, the mayor of London declared he intended to create a mayoral development corporation and to pedestrianise Oxford Street, despite how unpopular this is locally. The mayor believes this is going to be paid for by private investment, with no supporting details, which leaves businesses fearing it's going to be a raid through business taxes or cross-rail style levy. And the mayor also intends to raid neighbourhood community infrastructure levy, money that should be spent on local priorities, defunding these priorities to fund his own ill-thought-out vanity plan. How is this affair at Westminster? The leader of council has failed to forge a productive relationship with the mayor of London, who clearly does not take him or his administration seriously. We urge the councillors opposite to back our amendment to bill the mayor for the works done on Oxford Street and recover wasted funds. We have also made a provision of quarter of a million pounds to fund a judicial review, if required, to force the mayor's hand over this ill-thought-out vanity project. If they fail to back these amendments, the conclusion is clear. Labour prefers to play party politics than prioritise residents. In fairness to the mayor of London, and I never thought I'd find myself saying that, I find we do agree on one thing. In an interview last week with ITV, he said that the Labour council had failed Oxford Street over the recent years. It seems he's right on this one. Looking beyond Oxford Street, in the 22 Labour manifesto, they promised to, and I quote, set up a financial review board of independent external experts to scrutinise the council's expenditure to help ensure council budgets are providing value for money. Alas, another broken promise by the Labour administration, who failed to set up this board to find cost savings. Perhaps it's understandable. It took Labour 58 years to win a majority in Westminster, but it only took them 10 months to increase their salaries by 45%. Having launched their fairer Westminster branding across the city, Westminster residents were soon asking, how is this a fairer Westminster? There are, unfortunately, various examples of the funds being wasted on wokery and pet projects in Westminster. In the council's so-called community priority budget, as part of a 1.2 million round three packages, their providers are in receipt of a share of funds that are boasting they're offering free yoga sessions. Now, I must declare, my wife loves yoga, so I may get in trouble for it, but I must ask, is this really a pressing priority for Westminster? When the Labour leader fails to lead by example at the top, this trickles down. Ward budgets are there to fund local projects for the benefit of communities, yet there have been instances where funds were instead passed on directly to individual residents. We do not believe ward budgets were intended to be used in this manner. This has sparked numerous complaints from residents about the transparency of process and favouritism about who receives funds. I have asked the Chief Executive Officer for an investigation into these incidents, but it is evident that even if they were within the letters of the rules, it has the possibility to do massive reputational damage to Westminster. Council, to Westminster Council, and residents are asking, how is this a fairer Westminster? We invite everybody to back our amendment to instruct officers to rework the rules on the use of ward budgets to prevent this in the future. Westerminster does not have to be run this way. We've offered several alternative amendments and urged the administration to support them. Labour's performance is down, but they're imposing a council tax increase of nearly 5% thanks in part due to the mayor's mismanagement of London. And we would propose that reducing the council tax increase to 3.99%, which would be one of the lowest in London. This can be done through the savings on temporary staff and efficiencies in current staffing. And despite assurances from the Labour-led council, dockless bikes continue to run riot and block our streets and pavements across the city. And while the council has announced new parking spaces for dockless bikes, it is clear this present scheme is not working. It's time to punish the companies who allow riders to park irresponsibly and take enforcement action. To support this initiative, we've made a provision for Westminster dockless bike enforcement team in our amendments, removing bikes and fining operators. I met recently with Lime, the largest operator, to make it clear that we would hold them to account, should we have the honour of being elected to run this council in a year's time. In the meantime, we hope the Labour administration listens to the people of Westminster and starts delivering on their priorities of residents by backing our amendment laid out tonight. Lord Mayor, I'd like to formally move the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I now call Councillor David Boothroy to speak. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am happy to agree with Councillor Swaddle in wishing victory to Ukraine, sadly not the rest of the speech. I rise to present the Budget and Financial Planning Report. And in doing so, thank all Cabinet colleagues and officers for their help in preparing together a balanced budget that improves services, makes progress towards fairer Westminster and keeps tax low. And in my team, I'd particularly like to thank everyone who's worked on it, but especially Gerald, Rickon and Lindsay. Thanks are also due to the members of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group and to Councillor Fisher as Chair for leading major changes to the Budget Scrutiny process over the past three years, which have been recognised as making it much better. This year's formal recommendations under the Local Government Act 2000 powers have helped Cabinet members develop their proposals. This is my third Budget, also my third different Shadow Finance spokesperson responding. So I welcome Councillor Mendoza to the role and I wish him well for however long or short he occupies the post. The problem is with changing around like that, it doesn't really help consistency. And when I was making the opposition Budget speeches, my consistent theme was to seek long-term sustainable finances for this city. In office, I have done so and in this Budget it has delivered value, efficiency and service improvements. This Budget's headlines are a massive increase in the Council's ability to address noise complaints, tackle antisocial behaviour and prevent crime, helping prevent families to become homeless and providing more help for people sleeping rough. We are able to meet the minimum income guarantee for people receiving social care. And finally, paying decent pay to home care assistance. We have been listening to many calls for CCTV. For instance, October 2023, Councillor Zotia Soka and Sargent called for CCTV across the St John's Wood area to reduce the incidence of crime and antisocial behaviour. In April last year, Councillor Cunningham called for CCTV on Queensway and Councillor Hayes, I welcome him, arrives here having stood for tackling crime by delivering more CCTV. But strangely, now that the Westminster Labour Administration is expanding the CCTV network, Councillor Swaddle is telling us that CCTV is doing no good. It's just a pet project of the leader apparently. Obviously, it is first in line for cuts if he has to make any. So is he saying, is he seriously saying that after listening to all those, he would have set up a CCTV network, a big CCTV network coming in the whole city, set up the monitoring of the cameras and then just closed it down because he had to make cuts. Who would be so stupid as to do something like that? It was you in 2016. Yes, well done. Instead, we are not going to waste any money. With this budget, we are going to continue our long term plan. Thank you. And this year's investments are on top of continuing all the big investments made in previous years. The free school meals for children aged 3 to 14, enhanced street cleaning, tackling the climate and ecological crisis and opening up community hubs. All of them investments that will deliver a fairer Westminster. We can make these investments because we have also delivered efficiency. This year, we have managed to find additional savings of 29 millions while preserving frontline services. Councillor Swaddle would definitely have attacked us for making any of these cuts if he thought they would have affected frontline services. Didn't mention it once. I should note that the local government funding system put in place by the previous government assumes a rise in council tax, but not the 45% rise predicted by Councillor Swaddle in his speech last year. The long term funding to deliver those improvements has been provided while also coping with increased costs for what the council is already doing, which is a major issue, especially in children's and adult social services. Contractors are normally expected to absorb increases like the changes to employers NI contributions, but where they can't, we have made a contingency to help contractors with NI costs. It's in the table paragraph 5.3 on page 17 of the report. And if you've read the report, you'll see it's maintained in subsequent years. The council's direct costs on the NI changes, including on the HRA, were met through a grant of 2.7 millions in this year, this coming year. In future years, it will be part of the local government financial settlement. The consultation document published in December specifically states labor costs will be included in the assessment, so it is therefore flatly untrue to say that we have not made any provision beyond next year. The best example of long term planning, one which has saved the council from crisis, is on temporary accommodation, which is oddly something about which the Conservatives have said almost exactly nothing. A service that typically cost around 15 millions a year, suddenly, and for no reason under the council's control, saw demand massively increasing, just as the usual way we met that demand dried up, such that the net cost went north of 65 millions. So it's a 50 millions hit to the budget. Westminster's labor leadership immediately took this issue seriously and came up with a bold plan to reduce costs. Find more homes for temporary tenants and ensure the system runs. Although TA is still causing us serious difficulty, we can maintain our fairer Westminster investments, and there are now signs that we have turned the corner on the TA crisis. That we have handled this 50 millions budget hit while improving services shows how resilient Labor Westminster's finances are, and it's been recognised. Tony Travers has pointed out that the credit rating awarded to this council is higher than some major national economies. It's better than Kuwait, Japan, and China. If you see President C, tell him. Our strong rating led directly to favourable treatment in financing a recent deal with A2 Dominion. Lower interest rates also help finance the capital budget. We have a hugely ambitious long-term capital programme to be proud of. And we can also be proud of the fact that the entire team has worked to deliver capital schemes and avoid unnecessary delays. The last year, Ebury Phase 1 has completed, and just yesterday, Westmead topped out. That record of delivery gives Westminster residents confidence that the forward strategy will also be delivered and make lasting improvements into the city. It includes further regeneration of our estates, including later phases of Ebury Bridge, starting at Church Street, and there will be more sites to come. We will be building more new social and intermediate housing to tackle the housing crisis. Other work in the capital strategy includes vital place shaping, helping North Paddington, decarbonising the council's buildings, saving on our energy bills, supporting our community hubs programme, and ensuring we can take advantage of new artificial intelligence technology. Removing Oxford Street from the capital budget does give us a dividend for improvements elsewhere in the city. Talking of Oxford Street, it has been suggested that we should set aside a legal fighting fund for a future judicial review against the Mayor of London. Well, we will obviously stand up for local communities, but that suggestion may be quite nostalgic. I remember when Ken Livingstone was Mayor, and this council was always going down the strand to waste hundreds of thousands on meritless judicial reviews against the Mayor. I mean, with due apologies to Councillor Fisher, dangling £250,000 in front of my learned friends on no identifiable case is unwise. It will make you the toast of the wig and pen club, trebles all round, as they say in private eye, it will do nothing for the communities around Oxford Street. Westminster Labour's careful service planning, finding savings and taking bold action on temporary accommodation crises means we have been able to maintain higher general fund balances than any other London borough. This budget uses only £1.5 million out of earmarked reserves for one-off spend, not £27.6 million as our neighbours in Kensington and Chelsea Conservatives have done. As a result, we can go confidently into the fair funding review. That confidence is also born from reading a frankly pathetic budget amendment which wastes money and pays for things already paid for and promises a token £10 per week tax cut through firing unidentified staff in what I assume will be some sort of Elon Musk doge type exercise. And I look around to see that Tory Hillingdon's Section 25 report doesn't sign off their budget as robust. Tory Croydon's Section 25 report says the Council is not financially sustainable. And every London Conservative Council charges at least twice what Labour Westminster does. Lord Mayor, instead of Tory chaos, Labour's budget ensures Westminster will be safer, better housed and better cared for and keeps council tax low for the long term. I now call upon Councillor Alan Mendoza to speak. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Lord Mayor. And of course, we also thank officers who helped with our research for this evening. Now, we gather tonight to consider a budget that Councillor Boothroyd is already claiming to be a blockbuster. But in reality, it's more like a disastrous West End production. There's plenty of spotlight and special effects from the administration. But when the curtain rises, it turns out to be all show and no substance. And unfortunately, the audience, our residents, are stuck paying the price of admission for this expensive flop of a performance. Let's pull back the velvet curtain and examine the facts. This Council's finances are in a perilous state. And it's entirely self-inflicted by Labour's mismanagement. They may try to dazzle us with optimistic slogans like fairer Westminster and glossy press releases. They love a glossy press release. But the numbers tell a far grimmer story. I'll start with a single number, 4.99. That is a percentage by which Labour plans to raise Westminster's council tax, 4.99%. In other words, they are hiking local people's taxes to the absolute maximum they can get away with. At a time when families are struggling with food and energy bills, this Council's answer is to take as much from residents as it possibly can. That doesn't sound like fairer Westminster to me. In stark contrast, we offer an alternative. We propose limiting the council tax increase to 3.99%. That difference, 1%, may sound small, but across our city, it amounts to hundreds and thousands of pounds that would stay in residents' wallets rather than the council's coffers. We think that matters. It's a difference between a council that sees our residents as partners and one that sees them as a piggy bank. How would we do it? By tightening the council's belt, not our residents. Our amendment sets out a package of efficiency savings and cost reductions to make that increase sufficient. We did what any responsible administration would do when money is tight. Find savings in-house before you reach into the public's pocket. Sadly, this budget lays bare a stark choice between short-term politics and long-term financial health. The Labour administration's plans are propped up by one-off fixes and optimistic assumptions, draining our reserves and leaving us exposed. Even their own reports warn that using reserves to plug funding gaps cannot be regarded as a sustainable long-term strategy. Yet that is exactly what we see in this budget. Millions of pounds are being pulled from Westminster's finite reserves to paper over deficits and fund their pet public realm projects with no credible plan to rebuild those funds. At the heart of our concern is the sheer lack of financial prudence on display. This year alone, they are drawing well over £15 million from reserves to prop up their spending. The implication is simple. The vault is being smashed open to fund ongoing expenses. Once that money is gone, it's gone. And there's no plan for what happens when the bills come due next year. Even one-off windfalls deriving from unusually high interest rates are immediately spent rather than saved as contingency. This approach leaves no margin for error if an economic shock or emergency hits. Equally alarming is the budget's optimism in the face of known cost increases. Take the impending national insurance rise from their friends in national government, for example. The administration has set aside only a token £1 million to cover the hike in NI-related costs, effectively betting that our contractors and partners won't pass on their higher wage bills. That's a gamble, not a plan. If those costs come in higher, as any prudent planner would at least consider, Labour has no back-up. Another glaring issue is the overinvestment in design consultation and feasibility studies at the expense of delivery. Time and again, this administration allocates large sums to consultants, glossy plans and endless vision documents. Yet we see far too shovels in the ground. In fact, a typical public realm project in Westminster now spends roughly 23% of its budget on feasibility and design work, nearly a quarter swallowed up before a single brick is laid. The highway scheme is even worse, approaching 30% on upfront planning. Now, of course, planning is important, but these ratios are excessive. They indicate an administration more interested in chasing headlines and ticking ideological boxes than on ensuring value for money. Similarly, we hear much of the investment in CCTV and boasting about doubling the number of cameras on our streets. Now, nobody is complaining about more cameras. But doubling the cameras without a commensurate increase, listen, in operators or analytical support, means most of the time those new cameras won't be watched in real time. Labour's approach to CCTV is heavy on hardware, light on actual enforcement. A more balanced approach would be to invest in the human intelligence and analytical software needed to make use of the cameras effectively. I couldn't agree more with that. True community safety isn't achieved by announcements of more cameras. It's achieved by aligning tools with appropriate manpower and strategy. Now, one of the most striking U-turns from Labour since taking office is their stance on parking revenue. In opposition, they were quick to slam us for being too reliant on parking fees and fines. They promised residents a fairer approach. Fast forward today and look at their budget. Parking income now makes up about 10% of Westminster's total council income. It is galling to hear lectures about fairness from a leadership that is pocketing roughly a tenth of all its revenue from parking fees, permits and penalty charges. Let's be clear, parking management and fines are sometimes necessary tools for traffic control and air quality. But the difference is one of honesty and balance. We were always upfront about the need for this income to fund services and work to ensure charges were fair and proportionate. Labour pretended to be all above that until they needed the money. They have quite literally parked their previous principles and are cashing in on the very residents they've pledged to protect from high parking costs. Now, listening to Labour propaganda, you'd also believe they've launched a grand programme of new housing in Westminster. But when you peel back the spin, their claims on housing delivery are at best an embellishment, at worst a misrepresentation. The truth is that not a single major new housing scheme in their budget was initiated solely by this administration. They are riding on the coattails of plans set in motions by others, often by us. We need actual leadership on housing, leadership that will increase supply, not just repackage existing numbers. Claiming credit for a private developer's project or minor tweaks in tenure is not the bold action a housing crisis demands. Westerners as residents struggling with high rates and housing shortings deserve truth and results, not inflated claims. And if you want a clear indicator of managerial inefficiency in the budget, look no further than an explosion in spending on agency staff and temporary contractors. Under the previous administration, a concerted effort was made to reduce the council dependency on costly agency workers. And it was working. The annual spend and temporary agency staff was brought down from a high of £23.7 million in 2020-21 during the pandemic, to about £15.7 million by 2022-23, a reduction of over £8 million. It meant more stability in our services and better value for money for our residents. Now, shockingly, Labour is reversing that progress at lightning speed. The forecast for agency staff spending in 24-25 has skyrocketed to £24.4 million and a more than 50% jump in just two years. To put this in context, they plan to spend as much on temporary staff next year as we spend on some entire council departments. This isn't a subtle shift. It's a dramatic lurch in the wrong direction. All those efficiencies we worked for have been wiped out, returning to a hire-by-temp mentality that is both expensive and disruptive. Why does this matter beyond the number on a spreadsheet? Because relying excessively on agency staff is a red flag for deeper issues. It suggests ad hoc short-term thinking, plugging gaps reactively rather than planning ahead. If Labour had maintained our trajectory, those millions could have been redirected to priority services or kept in reserve to avoid raising taxes. So what is the alternative? Our amendment tonight reflects the principles that Westminster enjoyed for decades under past administrations. You'll all remember those days when Westminster consistently had the lowest council tax in the country and still delivered high-quality services. Our streets were clean, our finances stable, our reserves healthy. We achieved this by prioritising value for money and cutting waste. You know, it's funny you mention the mound. That's all you can say for 60 years of Conservative rule. The mound, that's it. We didn't raise taxes unless absolutely necessary. And when we invested in services, we made sure those investments delivered results. Labour has shown us what they stand for. Tax more. Spend more. And hope for the best. And if a party ally like the Mayor threatens our amenities, they respond with weakness rather than strength. Westminster residents deserve better than this. So tonight, we have a clear choice. Accept a budget that maximises the pain for our residents or choose a better way. A rejection of maximum tax and minimum backbone. A restoration of common sense and accountability back into Westminster's governance. As the voters of Vincent Square reminded us last week, we can bring the curtain down on this show before the damage is irreversible. Supporting our amendment tonight, which I hereby formally second, would be a good start. Thank you. I now call on Councillor Jeff Barraclough. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I bow to Councillor Mandoza's great knowledge of foreign affairs, but maybe budgets aren't quite his thing. Would you like to hear what Councillor Mandoza said about the Liz Trust budget in 2022? Yes, please. Yes, please. He tweeted, Kwasi Kwartang has just delivered the best and boldest chastest speech of my adult lifetime. Simply brilliant, he says, as the economy crashed around him. So let's come back next year and see what happens. Look, I'm going to talk about the Fair Economy Plan, and I'm delighted our robust management of the Council's finances means we can continue to invest in keeping the West End humming as an engine of economic growth for London and the UK, in supporting small businesses, especially in the context of our local high streets. Most importantly, ensuring our residents have the confidence, skills and connections they need to get the great jobs on their doorstep. Lord Mayor, we should stop talking the country down. Central London is back. Footfall and spending is strong. Demand for quality offices off the scale. Theatres are full. New brands opening every day. And I'm pleased this Council has played its part in London's recovery. We cracked down on the candy stores, invested in the Meanwhile Programme to activate vacant units, and worked hard with the Business Improvement Districts, including the Oxford Street Programme with NWAC. Look, we don't think pedestrianisation is the right solution. Even if we did, we don't think an MDC is the right way of delivering it. We are not the decision-makers here. The Mayor is in charge, as ordained by Parliament under Eric Pickle's Localism Act of 2011. And the public expect us to act like grown-ups. We got stuck into the negotiations, did not flounce out, sometimes quite robust negotiations. You don't want to see the leader when he's angry. Really scary when the leader gets angry. You think he's a mild-mannered chap, but when he gets going. We haven't got everything we wanted. Nobody ever does. But we've made genuine progress in safeguarding our residents and businesses, notably in Fitzrovia and Soho. And because the Mayor is now paying for Oxford Street, this returns £70 million to our capital budget. You might call it the Oxford Street dividend. Extra money for public realm schemes at Warwick Avenue and Paddington Green, including a new accessible children's playground. Extra money for flood prevention, including sustainable urban drainage to slow the flow of water into the sewers. You can see the first ones at Shepherd Market and Maida Hill. Extra money for CCTV. Now, Councillor Swaddle thinks these don't deter crime. Maybe that's why the Conservatives turned them off in 2016. We don't agree, nor do our residents. I'm proud we've brought them back. And extra money for Regent Street by working with the Crown Estates on plans to rejuvenate a shopping street even more iconic than Oxford Street. So, turning to small businesses, we're backing our traders with affordable workspace. Church Street Triangle is open. Harrow Road and Lyssen Archers follow later this year linked to the North Paddington Creative Enterprise Zone, anchored by Hans Zimmer's new music production studios in Maida Hill. It's almost like it was joined up. And we're backing our traders with shopfront improvement grants. You can see the scaffolding up on 11 stores on Harrow Road today, more to come on Edgeware Road and Prairie Street. And we're backing our traders with training in visual merchandising and business resilience too. Better shops improve the health of the high street, stimulate extra investment from the private sector, and give our residents a better service. And in this budget, we're backing Paddington and Bayswater with new public art and place plans for Prairie Street and Queensway as part of our £10 million high street funds. We're learning all the time. I want to get the model right before going big. But look out for a major expansion of these initiatives to the rest of the city in next year's budget. As our businesses thrive and grow, we need to make sure our residents are landing the good jobs created. It's vital because we still have parts of the city where 70% of people in work earn less than the London living wage. When work is no longer a route out of poverty, we need to take action. That's why we set up Westminster's first Education Employment and Skills Board to bring together employers, training providers, and funders to plan strategically for the future. That's why we're focusing our adult education service on teaching that leads to jobs, such as the new GreenLive Learning Lab that trains retrofit assessors. That's why we hosted a job fair for IKEA at City Hall, where they made 150 job offers to local residents to work at their new store at Oxford Circus or at the London Living Wage. Lord Mayor, a thriving West End delivering economic growth for the nation, dynamic high streets delivering great services for local people, skills and training for our residents delivering good jobs and satisfying careers. That is a fairer Westminster. That is a Labour Westminster. I now call on Max Sullivan, Councillor Max Sullivan. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to the officers, too many to name, who have helped put tonight's budget together for the areas of highways, parking, public realm, city inspectors. All the areas that, until quite recently, Councillor Paul de Muldenburg was responsible for, and I think it would not be possible to overstate Paul's enthusiasm, energy drive, commitment to public service, but I think the greatest compliment that I could possibly pay to Paul is to steal his motto, which is, we get things done. So, to the budget. This is a budget that protects our bin collections, around one million of those each week. This is a budget that protects street sweeping. 1,250 kilometres are cleaned every day. This is a budget that protects jet washing of our high streets, which happens four times a year now. It happens once per year under the Conservative Administration. This is a budget, very woke, I would say. This is a budget that protects our rapid response times to graffiti cleaning. We clean offensive graffiti within 12 hours and all else within three days. And it's a budget that will continue to transform our streets to be more accessible and offer more transport choice, including safer walking, safer cycling and more reliable public transport. This budget will see more of our waste fleet converted to small and large zero emission vehicles. This budget will help us to deliver 15 new school streets, making drop off and pick up safer for children in Westminster. This budget will enable a new last mile delivery hub by foot and cycle, which will reduce van traffic in the West End and beyond. And this budget will see us complete the delivery of 12 kilometres of new or upgraded cycle lanes across the city. This budget will continue our rollout of cycle hangars, which by the end of this month will provide 1,800 secure parking spaces for residents. This budget will help us to deliver more protected bus lanes, accessible pavements, zebra and green man crossings. And this budget, yes, Councillor Mendoza, is possible in part because of parking charges. And I note absolutely no amendment on that note from you tonight, despite a great amount of being exercised about it tonight and in previous meetings. But there is one thing that this budget deliberately does not do. This budget is not going to pay for the problem that badly parked e-bikes can cause on our pavements because we are making the operators pay. The Tory budget amendment would have this council spend public money to aid private profit. They propose to throw away a quarter of a million to do what we have the operators under contract to do at no cost to the public. And I don't deny that things could get better, but under the Conservative Administration, where they had no plans, no bays, no enforcement whatsoever, we now have Lime and Forest removing over 30,000 bikes per month for us at no cost to the taxpayer. They have also refunded every penny we have spent installing bays across Westminster. So I think it would be an extreme show of weakness tonight to vote for an amendment which says, actually Lime and Forest, never mind, we are going to do this job for you instead of you doing it for us. In May, it will be three years since residents elected the first day of our labour administration in Westminster City Council. And whether they voted for the three bayswater councillors, residents on the Westminster end of Westbourne Park Road ward in my ward pay half the council tax of their RBKC neighbours. The Westminster resident also has their bins collected more often. For all that we have to do to still improve council services, and I recognise that there is still plenty of work to do, this administration has promised a fair Westminster with low council tax and improved council services. We keep our promises, we get things done. I now call on Councillor Ed Pitt-Ford. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. May I start by congratulating Councillor Barraclough for saving the life of a man in my ward on Thursday by administering CPR whilst I found a defibrillator. Due to the councillor's quick actions, the paramedics were able to restart the man's heart. The incident shows that when it really matters, we can work together, cross-party, to achieve incredible outcomes. So in the spirit of collaboration, I'd like to highlight some areas where we could be doing better for the people we serve. We had a rather embarrassing residence meeting regarding the new heating for over 3000 homes. It was embarrassing because the work done to date was easily picked apart by the residents in the room. The consultants, whom this administration has spent £700,000 on, equivalent to a 1% rise in council tax, have done a substandard job. Their original work assumed a power price 60% higher than the energy price cap. They could not answer why they had said that installing individual electric boilers had a very high construction risk, whilst installing a heat network across Westminster had a very low construction risk. They could not answer why they had said shipping heat batteries down the Thames, having been charged from burning waste, was well future-proofed, whilst electric boilers were not. £700,000, and they hadn't asked for the cost of a grid upgrade. Grid upgrade costs cannot be easily estimated. Only the grid hold the data of what is attached or attaching to them. Costs could be nothing – £5 million, £50 million, £100 million – the consultants didn't ask them. The report they have written is therefore not sufficient for the officers to base a recommendation on, or for the Cabinet to base a decision on in their upcoming meeting. And so, at this point in the commercial world, we would fire the consultants and make a claim for costs given the extreme waste of resources. But what are we doing? What made me laugh out loud in a meeting? We're hiring them again to try and make their own incomprehensible work more easy to understand, and as a so-called independent surveyor to tell us if the current system, that recently birthed sending someone to hospital covered in burns is safe. No doubt they'll say it is. Moving on to climate change. In 2019, this council declared an emergency and set targets to be a net-zero carbon council by 2030. This, I hope, is a part we all agree on, that that is a worthy aim. We're currently not going to hit that target. We're heading for about a 50% reduction. We haven't costed a 100% reduction, so we don't know what to ask the government for or the private sector to help fund. The papers we have outline the work that is being done, but we need to zoom out a little and see the costs that are coming. By not dealing with this, future budgets are at huge risk. Sadly, a million or two won't solve this. We're talking hundreds of millions. It is very clear we will need to borrow money, so we need to work out how much and start fundraising. Climate is no longer a footnote to the budget. It is going to make funding temporary accommodation feel as easy as funding the increase in cabinet member allowances. And finally, I want to mention e-bikes. Westminster is in a very strong position when it comes to negotiating contracts with e-bike providers. Take Lime as an example. In 2024, they made over half a billion pounds gross profit. And as we saw last summer, their revenues are growing rapidly. Imagine if they tried to operate in London without Westminster. Their business model simply wouldn't work. I note that the papers described the current situation as cost neutral. However, when that includes £100,000 of grant money from TfL, then it may be cost neutral to the council, but it's not cost neutral to the taxpayer, as Councillor Sullivan would have you believe. We should make sure that the operator companies are paying for proper enforcement, which includes enforcement against themselves and not just their road customers. For example, enforcement against operators stacking bikes in resident parking bays. We should also make sure that we are getting a fair share of the profit, considering that we provide the land on which they operate. That way, there will be some benefit to the residents of Westminster when we have to sacrifice valuable street space to this mode of transport. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Councillor Matt Noble, the floor is yours. Thank you, Lord Mayor. As the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Renters, I've been doing everything within my power to make Westminster a better, more affordable place to live. And I'm pleased to say that the drive to change the dial for all tenants and build a fairer Westminster is reflected in tonight's excellent budget. This budget lays the foundations for the work we are doing to support private renters and the next phase of our ambitious regeneration plans. And I'd like to thank Councillor Mendoza for reminding me of the state of the regeneration program that we inherited back in May 2022. It was in the very first days in the job back then that we undertook a review of every single regeneration and infill program to ensure the council was delivering as many truly affordable homes as possible. And it wasn't. And more than minor tweaks were needed to fix this. Take, for example, the Ebury Bridge Scheme, where the previous administration had planned for just 41 new social homes at a time when – can we talk later? I'm trying to give a speech right now. So, where the previous administration had planned for 41 new social homes at a time when social housing waiting lists were soaring. And by reviewing the project – We've got it on camera. That's a Freudian smash. By reviewing the project and taking funding from the mayor of London after a ballot, which the last administration turned down, we're now set to deliver 172 new homes to social rent at Ebury. Councillor Mendoza, that's hardly repackaging. In addition to the returning social rent tenants, that's 172 families who can come off the housing waiting list and move into genuinely affordable homes in central London. And now we can see the fruits of our labour with the opening of Ebury Phase 1 at the end of last year, the single largest delivery of new council housing in South Westminster for 50 years. I think you might have missed the numbers that I was just giving you back then. We changed 41 new social rent homes to 172 and you're packing yourselves on the back about that. We also recently opened – we also – are you on the – I don't think you're down to talk tonight Rachel, I'm sorry. We also recently opened a new fully affordable development at Luxborough Street, where we took the proportion of social rent homes from 0% to 50%. And at Darwin House Phase 2, we're delivering 10 new social rent units that weren't part of the previous administration's plans, on top of the 33 affordable supported homes that we opened last month. Over these three schemes, we've delivered 273 new homes in the last year, 163 for social rent, and 100 for key workers paying a London living rent. And with enabling works at Ebury Phase 2 and Church Street Site A underway, and more in the pipeline, we'd be opening many more council homes that wouldn't have existed under our predecessors. But it's not enough just to build more council homes, they have to be homes that people want to live in, and homes that make our communities better places, homes that are fit for the future. And when I visited Ebury last month to meet some of the families who've returned to their new homes, they couldn't wait to tell me about the quality of the flats and the facilities. One family who are leaseholders, we've heard it before, thank you. One family who are leaseholders told me how important the new community facilities and play spaces would be for them. Another long-term council tenant who lives with a disability, was singing the praises of the accessibility features in their new home. And everyone I spoke to was impressed with the high energy efficiency and low carbon features of the flats. From ground source heat pumps to rain and grey water recycling. By planning well-designed, sustainable homes with good community facilities, we've been able to achieve strong support at our regeneration ballots and bring our residents with us for a journey. Ballots which you've turned down. When it comes to supporting private renters, the budget is allocating £180,000 to the selective licensing scheme that we're working towards implementing later this year. It's a scheme that will protect private renters from poor housing conditions, safety standards and management failures we sadly know arrive across some parts of the sector. As well as cracking down on bad landlords, we'll soon launch our private renters charter to equip tenants with the facts, advice and support they need to enforce their existing rights. And we're lobbying the government for the strongest possible protections through its much needed renters reform bill, ending section 21, no fault evictions. In the constant battle to make all this happen, we must remember the human impact of our work. When I meet a private renter who's been revenge evicted for daring to ask for a repair, or when I meet tenants returning to high quality social homes in the heart of London, or when I meet a family who's finally been able to get a council home because of our tenure changes to regeneration projects, that's when the difference we're making hits home. That's the fair of Westminster we're building together, and this budget is another important step on the way. Thank you. Can I call on Councillor Lisa Begum. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I'm proud to be speaking to you just one week after Westminster Council's housing services were awarded the highest possible rating by the Social Housing Regulator. The first thing to say is that of course more needs to be done to improve our housing services. Westminster Council is my landlord, and I know firsthand that we don't get everything right all the time. But being the first London Council to achieve a C1 rating is evidence of the undeniable progress this administration has made since we came to power in 2022. As the regulator themselves said, the Council now learns lessons when problems come up and puts in place plans to prevent them happening again, including by tackling their root causes. This is an important achievement which shows what can happen when you listen to and work with residents to improve things. And as this budget shows, we're doing that across the board. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the inspection process and worked hard to make this result possible, from our brilliant housing officers to the leadership team led by Sarah Warman. Tonight, I want to explain a bit about both how we achieve this and how we're building on it. What makes me most proud about the inspection result is that the regulator credited its high rating to many of the initiatives we put in place through our housing improvement program. Their inspection judgment praises our repairs improvement plan, singling out our new multidisciplinary customer advocacy team, which supports vulnerable people with complex cases. They point out that our complaints improvement plan has led to better tenant satisfaction, and I quote, a clear reduction in a previous backlog of complaints and quicker response times. They highlight the meaningful opportunities we now give residents to make their voices heard and the service enhancements we've been able to make by being responsive to this feedback, including around the fairer, more transparent housing allocation scheme, which I have launched this month. This has only been possible because we set up the residence panel, a new residence forum, task and finish groups, the housing compact with other social providers, all to improve Westminster's housing. It's only been possible because we brought these services closer to our communities by reopening housing service centres in Queen's Park, Pimlico, Bayswater and now Soho. The truth is that none of this progress would have been possible under the last administration. I can reassure everyone listening, our work to improve our housing services doesn't stop there. This budget includes additional investment for safety works in our council homes, and we are extending the £1 million rent support fund for another year. We're continuing to work closely with residents to find the best possible solutions to problems, whether that's by setting up a new leaseholders task and finish group, or by consulting meaningfully on options for major works like the PDHU. And finally, we'll soon be launching our homelessness and rough sleeping strategy. The strategy has been developed in partnership with those who have lived experience, and it puts a much needed emphasis on prevention and early intervention. It's a strategy that builds on the work we have already done to provide housing and support to all those facing homelessness through more beds, improved services and better prevention. It's a strategy supported by our temporary accommodation acquisitions, which get a £140 million boost in this budget to provide good quality homes to those in need. It's a strategy backed by this budget's extra funding for helping rough sleepers off the street and nearly £1 million to support the ongoing work of our Changing Futures team. That's our plan to keep transforming how we support Westminster residents with housing. Achieving the highest possible social housing inspection rating doesn't mean everything is fine. It doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more to do. What it means is that our plan is working. Amidst huge financial pressure on councils, amidst an unprecedented housing crisis in London, and amidst a difficult economic situation for our country, we are delivering big improvements to Westminster's housing services and ensuring that everyone can have a roof over their head. And by continuing to put the voices and needs of residents first, we will build on this progress and build a fairer Westminster, where a safe, secure, well-maintained home is a right, not a privilege. Thank you. Councillor Lorraine Dean, thank you. Hang on, hang on. Councillor, Councillor Begham, Councillor Begham, thank you. Councillor Dean, shh, shh, shh, shh. We have the courtesy, Councillor Begham, of listening to you, so please. Let's have the courtesy of listening to Councillor Dean. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. First and foremost, I would like to congratulate our fantastic Adult Social Care and Public Health Officer Team on their very good recent CQC inspection result. We are very fortunate to have such a knowledgeable, dedicated and caring team, and I thank you all on behalf of the Conservative Group. In January 2023 and March 24, I spoke in this chamber how this Labour Administration has failed our adults with learning disabilities. In April 2022, the Conservative Administration had found a suitable building to house a new state-of-the-art facility for community access Westminster's day care services. Architectural plans were produced for a building in Lylestone Street, providing a large sensory room, three multimedia rooms for extended use of communication aids such as eye gaze, two accessible kitchens to teach life skills, and a large physiotherapy room with ceiling hoists and room for specialised treatments. In last year's budget, the only mention of this long-delayed plan was that there was a feasibility study to consolidate the services onto one site, possibly Droop Street. In the December 24 Budget Scrutiny Task Group papers, it says the scheme is no longer required, and there is a 4.3 million reduction in the provision of the scheme. I cannot find any mention of a new day care centre in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the provision at Droop Street, where the service will continue, is not fit for purpose. There is poor accessibility upstairs for wheelchair users and those that are less mobile. There are cracks in the walls and the building is being monitored for subsidence. It gets very hot in the summer as only a few rooms have air conditioning, yet during the winter the heating regularly fails. The garden area is often used overnight by intruders and sometimes needles are found. The kitchen is inaccessible to many service users. The building is in the far north-west of Westminster, on the border with Brent. This makes for an inappropriately long journey for vulnerable residents from areas in the south of the borough, such as Pimlico. Meanwhile, community hubs have been allocated a budget of 10 million over the years 24 to 27. These hubs are just a duplication of many of the services that we already provide. We have world-renowned family hubs and the new Queen's Park family hub will at long last be built in 26-27. Long overdue, but very welcome nonetheless. We also have children's centres, community centres such as the Beethoven and Abbey Centre, youth clubs, 12 well-used libraries and 7 sports centres. Why can't we divert this wasted money into a much needed day care centre for adults with learning disabilities? In Appendix 4, a list of new savings, there is at reference 111, a review of spot contracting and enhancing in-house day provisions for adults with learning disabilities. Adult social care have said they can save £100,000 per year by bringing back six service users in-house to Droop Street lists and growth provision. £1.7 million is spent per year on outside commissioned day care services. If Labour had followed through with my vision of a state-of-the-art facility, they could have brought 60 service users back in-house saving £1 million per year. But no, let's waste money instead on an untested duplication of services in the Community Hub scheme. As I've said before, Labour like to talk the talk about a fairer Westminster, but yet again, they are not being fair to our adults with learning disabilities. You don't get things done. Thank you, Lord Mayor. First of all, it's such an enormous pleasure for Councillor Shorten-Fry to welcome Councillor Martin Hayes. If anyone is embedded in South Westminster, it's him. Now, I do want to congratulate every officer and everyone who was involved in securing our city's social housing C1 status. But under the old audit commission, and in comparative data elsewhere afterwards, we always did better as Westminster, whether you were running it or we were running it. But I agree, it's not good enough. All of London housing has to do better. It's no good us making Facebook-curated speeches when the residents out there think rather differently. Now, you may celebrate C1, but let's look at C1. C1 is basic. It's a basic pass. And we have to be honest about that. There are no extraordinaries given, no exceptions, no goods. It's a pass. Now, I have to go on and also mention all these things that the last speaker at once said we didn't do. So, they didn't review any of the contracts we were going to three or four months in. Opportunity wasted. And I want to look particularly at their involvement of residents. We carried out the most extensive consultation of local residents. 1,700 responded, highest known, to get them involved in a scheme almost like the National Trust. Tenant and leaseholder ownership and control of our estate. What do they do? Drop it. And what you've got is an absolute shadow of resident participation and involvement. What you've got is helpful. You need to do so much better. But, you know, we need to stop talking about us councillors. Few of us, Councillor Begum is one of those who doesn't, actually who live in Westminster Social Housing. And do you know? Do you know? Well, indeed. But, but, what we need to talk about is those residents out there at the moment. And over the last week or three, I've had calls to meet even more than usual. They're very clear. We might define residents by groups such as leaseholders, tenants, absent leaseholders with tenants. They have two groups of residents. Group one. The majority, and it's right that it should be, are those for whom being in social housing is incidental. It's a green tick. It works. And mostly in Westminster, it does. But for 20 or 30%, it does not. And they're the ones for whom there are just two sorts of residents. The others for whom it's okay, and we for whom it is not. So, some things that I've picked up in the last week or three. 50 plus 48 pounds so-called fire safety light bulbs. Massively inflated prices. Leaseholders and tenants are paying for it. A small thing, thus as a council, not for the residents of that block. The antisocial tenants who never get moved, who carry on abusing their neighbours, never move, wrecking havoc. Many of them need help as well, and they're not getting it. A repair left incomplete. A massive piece of stripped metal hanging loosely from the bottom of a window. Seriously dangerous, unchecked and unresolved. And then the usual, the persistent leak, never fixed, multiple times visited, and never dealt with systematically. These aren't minor inconveniences. These are serious failings. The additional money going into repairs, of course, is welcome. But the residents need more than just a budget line. They need value for money, and they need quality for money, and they need respect. It's their housing revenue money, not the council's, that's being spent. And they ask, are repairs being completed on time? Are they of an acceptable standard? Are problems being diagnosed properly? And the answer too often is no. When they get a service charge, and this is perhaps something that annoys me most of all, service charge bill as leaseholders, how on earth do they get advice, and how on earth do they actually diagnose what it really means? The residence advocate scheme that we set up was meant to be a fierce agent for the leaseholders. Now, it's actually effectively an agent for the council and the construction companies. I do praise the work done for the vulnerable. It is actually, it really is praiseworthy and tremendous. But, you know, three years into this administration, we still lack an effective customer relations management system. It is still the case that a president rings up, and they've got 20 years of history with a council. Those 20 years may be, there's just an elderly resident getting old who wants to chat. They might more probably be someone with serious problems. It might be someone who is a nuisance to their neighbours. But without that string of data, we don't know what's going on. Work is constantly repeated. I first was told that system would happen five years ago, and it needs to be there. When it comes to antisocial behaviour, as I've mentioned, one of the biggest bug bears going. And also, the lack of detailed performance data for audit and performance, as the Conservative members have told me, it means you can't scrutinise what is actually happening. So, Lord Mayor, for many residents enduring difficult, unresolved issues on our estates, this budget presents a Potemkin reality, a Facebook reality. It's not what really is happening. It's disconnected from their day-to-day experiences. Residents expect value for money. They expect quality services. And most importantly, importantly, not numbers in a budget. They want answers, and they want respect all the time, every day. And we're a long way from that yet. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you, Lord Mayor. When I spoke in this chamber of last year, there was a new cabinet member in our city, with a very talented artist, James Lambert, designing artwork to go across all eight of our toilets. We had around 100 people attend the opening. It was very well received. And so, I'd like to extend the invitation to everyone in this chamber tonight to our opening Parliament Street in the summer, if you can get space for the hottest ticket in town. Lord Mayor, when we were elected almost three years ago, our residents told us they wanted us to take bold, decisive action on the climate and ecological crises. In the past year, that's exactly what we've done. Last year, I spoke about the Council's investment of almost half a million pounds into the ecological emergency team at the Council. And since then, the team have been pressing on, publishing the first ever Greening and Biodiversity Strategy. And just a fortnight ago, I hosted the inaugural meeting of the Greening and Biodiversity Stakeholder Group, with members including the Royal Parks, neighbouring councils, Buckingham Palace and the London Wildlife Trust, as we know that we cannot achieve our target alone. And I look forward to working with this dedicated group to achieve our common goal of protecting and enhancing our city's delicate urban ecosystems. We've also supported over 30 grassroot projects through the £350,000 investment from our Greening Westminster Fund, putting a huge range of projects across all of our wards, from gardens to green walls, community workshops to wormeries. And I'm delighted to report that our Sustainable City Charter is now at almost 100 signatories, after 37 more organisations signed last year, with current members including Lancet, the Portland Estates, Somerset House and the Royal Opera House, to name just a few. And incredibly, this partnership work has seen the early adopters of the Charter report a huge 19% drop in their average energy usage in their first year of joining, showing that our efforts and our investments to promote the Charter and collaboration with non-Council stakeholders are really paying off. Lord Mayor, whilst I'm still incredibly proud of our progress to date, it remains true that there is lots of work to be done to see us reach our crucial goals, becoming a net-zero council by 2030 and a net-zero city by 2040. Decarbonising our buildings and reducing energy bills remain a top priority of mine. Decarbonising. I said anti-carbonising. Sorry for my accent. It's hard to understand over there, guys. And that's why we're investing £700,000 into expanding our clean energy capabilities, getting proactively ahead of emerging government regulations and ensuring we have the skill set and the staff to get us to net-zero and look at the exact projects that we need and the investment that we require. And there will be more greening as well, with applications open for the next round of our Greening Westminster Fund, £500,000. Please get your applications in now. The fund has just opened. I'd like to also turn at the end to an area of my portfolio that I'm incredibly proud of. Culture. Last year, we introduced the first local cultural education partnership to connect our school children and teachers, the opportunities that we have in our city. And our investment via our cultural community grants continues to grow, most notably with English National Opera bringing culture to our care homes over the coming month. Lord Mayor, I remain incredibly proud of our progress towards tackling these emergencies, to making our culture more accessible and inclusive, and of course, to opening all of our refurbished public toilets. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Lord Mayor, when we were elected, it was on a promise to make our city fairer, to empower our communities to have a say in how the council works for them, and to give local people the resources they need to solve problems and create opportunities in their own areas. I'm proud to be here tonight to tell you how we're keeping that promise across the community's portfolio. Over the past year, we've been working hard to change how residents interact with the council, and to champion those voices who haven't always been heard. Last year, we invested over £1.5 million in the community priorities programme. This is a participatory budgeting programme, and all of the projects that we funded aim at tackling health and wellbeing. Councillor SWADDL doesn't like this programme, but we love it. I'm glad to be here tonight to tell you how we're keeping that promise across the community's portfolio. Over the past year, we've been working hard to change how residents interact with the council, and to champion those voices who haven't always been heard. Last year, we invested over £1.5 million in the community priorities programme. And all of the projects that we funded aim at tackling health and wellbeing. Councillor SWADDL doesn't like this programme, but we like it. We like it because it's funding youth clubs. We like it because it's funding activities for older people in their communities. We like it because it's funding one activity called the Elderly African Caribbean Health Project. We like it because it's funding music therapy for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We've also kicked off our community hubs programme with mini hubs in Victoria and Charing Cross. I'm really pleased that hundreds of residents have taken part in social activities and benefited from drop-in services, drop-in advice services, and also been new visitors to our libraries. To tackle deep-rooted disadvantage in the north of the city, we've invested over £10 million in the North Paddington programme. I could use more time to talk about the programme, but a couple of highlights are our work to tackle anti-social behaviour by improving our estates in the area, installing new lighting, carrying out environmental visual audits, and refreshing gardens and bringing community gardening projects to our estates. We're increasing council presence. We have embedded community development officers in each of the wards, and we have a new office in Fernhead Road. We're providing jobs and work experience for local people through the digital dash programme and through careers fairs, which are on people's doorsteps. And we're connecting residents to our fantastic adult education offer. As Councillor Bowerclough said, we're backing local businesses, and the shopfront improvement scheme is already underway. A modern city needs modern means of communicating, so we're using technology to transform the council's reported service. With generative AI and chatbots, I'm pleased that we're making it easier than ever for residents to tell us when they spot an issue in the city. And our data is showing that it's working already. The reporting time on reported has more than halved since our new platform has launched, and 21,000 new residents have used the platform since launching, which is double the amount that we're using it before. So, Lord Mayor, I'm really proud that this budget will enable further growth in our communities. In a few weeks, we'll open a community hub in Ernest Terrace House on Algon Avenue, and that will be followed by another community hub in Pimlico next year. These will be inclusive spaces where residents can come together for coffee mornings, cultural activities, community health activities, and perhaps most importantly, to access council support services face-to-face in their communities. The community hub's programme has been shaped by conversation, consultation, and co-production with residents. And during our community conversation last summer, residents told us that they want to see more activities and events in the south of the city. And that's why we're investing £100,000 into a Pimlico round of the community priorities programme. Lord Mayor, in our leisure portfolio, I'm really proud to say that we are making improvements across our leisure facilities. We have completed a £3 million investment programme in the Port Chester Leisure Centre, addressing long-standing repairs. This morning, Councillor Butler Salasas and I were at the launch of the Paddington Rec Forest School Extension, which over 3,000 students from across 11 Westminster schools have already used this year. We have a new studio at Queen Mother Sports Centre, modernised gym equipment at the Moberly, and a programme of active streets for this summer. Our administration believes in the power of communities, and everything we've done over the past year, and everything we will do next year, is in pursuit with Fair Westminster. Councillor Caroline Sargent, thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I'd also like to welcome my new colleague, Councillor Hayes, and congratulate him on his recent win in Vincent Square. During the campaign, we heard time and time again on the doorstep about crime and antisocial behaviour. People don't feel safe in Westminster, so I want to focus on some of the investments that have been announced, like the £2 million investment in CCTV and the planned investment in antisocial behaviour measures as outlined in budget papers. I know they're very proud of them, but there's not a huge amount of detail, so we're expecting the Cabinet member will spell out exactly how it will be spent. We understand that £500,000 was originally proposed from Section 106 funding, and this will now come from other sources. Again, more detail, please. And we do broadly welcome this CCTV programme, but we must continue to query how effective and sustainable this administration's CTV project is. What metrics are they using to measure it? Are they measuring it? We know the police don't have access to it. It's not clear to the extent to which council teams are actually using it and taking enforcement action on the data and information from the feeds. It's not integrated. We've got many schemes in Westminster. We've got the school streets programme, they're on housing estates, and this public realm project, but they're monitored separately. And as we heard from Councillor Swaddle, it hasn't resulted in any prosecutions. So we should all question whether CCTV is offering value for money for all of Westminster and also why decision was made to expand the project when there are some major logistical concerns. And I and some of our colleagues have the opportunity to visit the control centre in Hammersmith and Fulham last week. It was very interesting, and I thank all the staff for accommodating us. But it turns out that there are currently only two operators assigned to monitor the existing 100 feeds from the Westminster cameras, each working a 12-hour shift. And the operators tell us there are surprisingly few requests for footage from the police and from the neighbourhood teams. On average, maybe 300 requests a month, which means they're reviewing maybe 10 feeds a day. That's in addition to proactive monitoring, and that's in total not per camera. Some wards alone probably have 300 reportable incidents in a month or in a week. So why aren't there more footage requests? There are some good features. They're training in AI to spot illegal parking. There's an image capture feature to help the operator quickly retrieve relevant footage of the incident. But the reality is that under the current setup, they likely do not have the capacity for any additional units or operators to monitor them. The control room will need to physically expand to accommodate the additional infrastructure. We heard this is estimated around 1.2 million, and this would be split between the three boroughs, but no plans have been agreed yet. And they need additional staff, maybe six to eight operators to cover the 200 feeds 24-7, but they still haven't been able to recruit enough people with the skill set, with the SIA training, and the availability to manage the existing 100. Of course, ASB is a huge problem, and we do want measures to tackle noise and problem rough sleeping. Let's be clear, the number of rough sleepers on the streets of Westminster has increased by 40% in the past year alone under this administration. So that leaves a lot more than the eight new city inspectors I think they said they recruited to be truly effective. As with CCTV, these investments are going nowhere if they don't have the people in place. Lots of cameras without operators to monitor them or police and teams to use the footage are going to be pretty useless. Lord Mayor, taxpayers, our residents, all those actually paying for this, need to know these measures will be effective in detecting crime and antisocial behaviour, that they will lead to enforcement action and prosecutions, and ultimately improve public safety. Anything less is not value for money, and it's not fair to Westminster. Thank you. I'd like to call Councillor Tim Mitchell. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Much of the officer team of the Environment and Communities Executive Directorate work on Westminster streets day and night throughout 365 days of the year. They work hard to maintain our streets, keep them clean, and make sure that they are safe for our residents, workers, and many visitors. I thank them on behalf of my colleagues for all the hard work they do. My councillor colleagues, councillor Caroline Sargent and councillor Ed Pitt-Ford, have spoken this evening about other aspects of the Director's work, but I'll be concentrating on the proposals for waste collection services and highways. In total, the Executive Directorate is anticipating to have a net expenditure of just under £60 million in the next financial year, and has been asked to make savings of a total of nearly £8 million, which is the highest of any of the Council's Executive Directorate. As my colleague councillor Alan Mendoza has said, over £5 million of these so-called savings is an anticipated hike in parking income. This budget paper highlights the largest pressure on the Executive Directorate's budget will not be next year, but in 26-27, when there's an anticipated additional £2.54 million in the gate fees for the combined heat and power plants. This reflects the environmental impact of burning Westminster's waste, though some of us think that the environmental impact of safely burning our waste and turning into electricity is far better than our waste going to landfill. This anticipated additional 2.5 million costs is partially balanced by the above-inflation increases in commercial waste income of £800,000 in 25-26 and a further £800,000 in the following financial year. Whilst other waste disposal businesses will probably also need to increase their charges because of increased environmental fees, there is a danger that businesses will balk at above-inflation increases and take their customers elsewhere. And therefore, where will the savings actually be? So the pessimists amongst us will say that also a downturn in the economy could mean a further fall in our commercial waste income. This means that the Department could be asked to find further savings in the next two financial years or perhaps the magic money tree, in other words, the Council's general fund reserve, will be shaken again. Lord Mayor, as I said in the budget debate last year, Westminster has a proud record of keeping its streets clean. However, last year Labour cut weekend winter street cleaners and the West End had a cut of eight street sweepers in the busy summer months. These cuts put Westminster's street cleaning gold standard at risk and instead there are few proposals this year to improve the streets. I do welcome the capital expenditure in one more graffiti cleaning vehicle, but we all know that there is a considerable problem with graffiti across the city, not helped by TfL and the Mayor of London not pulling his finger out and cleaning under the West Way alongside our major transport infrastructure. Lord Mayor, this budget initially had a proposal to increase the cost of the residents' bulky waste collection services for an extra £5 above inflation to bring only a modest extra £30,000 in the following year. This would have meant a 20% increase which is way above the current 3% inflation rate. Thankfully, this administration saw sense and unheeded the advice of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group for which I thank Councillor Fisher for his work in chairing that group. And instead this proposal was withdrawn, which is a great relief because we all know the consequences of people not signing up for bulky waste collection services and instead dumping their old sofas and chairs on the street. Lord Mayor, the last item I wanted to highlight was the potential saving in the next financial year of £250,000 by switching to Mastic to repair our pavements. This could mean an ugly patchwork of materials instead of a consistent finish across our streets. This downgrade would not be welcome. Lord Mayor, these proposals are ill thought out and will damage Westminster's reputation for clean, safe and smart streets. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I now call on Councillor Aisha Less? Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor, I'm proud to be here tonight to present this year's Budget and I'm proud that the safety of our residents is at the heart of this Budget. We're not the council that leaves residents to fend for themselves. We're not the council that makes pointless cuts to crucial infrastructure. We're the council that puts residents first. I've listened to people say time and again how much crime and antisocial behaviour blights their lives. We've heard powerful stories right here in this room at previous council meetings. And I'm pleased that colleagues across the chamber agree with me it is time to put a stop to this. That's why our administration has made a real investment in tackling antisocial behaviour. Lord Mayor, tonight we're agreeing a package to tackle antisocial behaviour and rough sleeping worth £1.25 million as well as £2 million for the capital investment in CCTV cameras. We'll be investing in our noise enforcement team cracking down on antisocial noise that can cause great suffering in residential areas. And we're recruiting eight new city inspectors who will be positioned across Westminster. They'll be completely focused on proactive enforcement against ASB working closely with the police and other partners. Lord Mayor, we're investing in our CCTV service. Over the past year we've got a hundred new cameras up and running. And we'll be rolling out new cameras soon including across the West End, the most significant investment in security in that area in a decade. The footage from council cameras is already leading to arrests. Police recently requested live CCTV coverage following reports of a group fighting close to Edgeway Road. After scanning the location, the team in the live monitoring centre spotted a group of around 20 to 30 people about to start a fight. They informed the police who arrived swiftly and dispersed the group. And after a member of the public was threatened by a man with a knife, the live team were able to locate him through a council camera, leading to his arrest for carrying a weapon. Our cameras are making a difference across the borough, both in stopping live incidents as they occur and in supplying vital evidence to the police. Lord Mayor, the opposition have accused us of funding pet projects, but tackling crime and making residents feel safer is not a pet project to us. It's a key priority. We are doing what is within our powers to bring offenders to justice by supporting prosecutions. This is a deliberate targeted approach to tackling crime backed up with tangible investment. That's what makes a fairer Westminster. Lord Mayor, I also want to highlight the incredible achievement of our children's services. For the third inspection in a row, they have been judged as outstanding, which is brilliant. Thanks to the dedication of our social work staff, young people in Westminster are thriving. Our budget reflects our commitment to continuing investment in frontline services. And I'm pleased that the new government has increased our children's social care grant, given us an extra £1 million. We're not complacent. We always know that there's more to do. But we're confident that we're investing in the right services targeted at the right people at the right time. Lord Mayor, this year we've also invested £4 million in services for children with special educational needs. We expanded College Park School into Pimlico, providing inclusive education for children with complex learning difficulties and autism. And on the same site, we opened a new Tresham Centre for families in the south of the borough. The original Tresham Centre in my own ward of Church Street is also looking absolutely fantastic after a refresh. I visited during the October half term and chatted with families who were loving the new facilities. I particularly liked the inclusive soft play area, which has a harness rails, making it accessible for all children. Centres like Tresham are so important to give hard-working families a break and to provide young people with SEND opportunities to have fun and learn new skills in an inclusive environment. I'm delighted that our administration is bucking the trend of councils around the country and invested in these services. Lord Mayor, there's plenty more to read about in our budget and about how we are stepping up enforcement, protecting frontline services and investing in families. But what I'll leave you with this is tackling ASB and crime has never been a pet project for this administration. It's been a key focus from the start, and I'm pleased that it remains a core part of our budget, ensuring residents feel safe in what makes a fairer Westminster. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Butler-Thlassis. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I want to start with a shout-out to our Chief Whip, Councillor Ormsby. I did say to her if maybe some of her favourite people could go at the top of the agenda. I did add up number 17 speaker, so that serves me right for having asked a favour. So, just to say, this has been a great year for adult social care with a good result in CQC. We've seen what the effect has been of the £1.50 pay rise to care workers, which has led to a reduction in staff turnover and in client complaints. And, of course, as the London living wage will go up in April, their wages will go up again, but they will remain £1.50 over and above the London living wage. But, at the same time, of course, there has been a lot of additional pressures in adult social care. There's been a considerable increase in the number of clients. We've seen a 2.7% increase in just one year. And, also, there's been an increase in the complexity of those needs for many reasons, including the ageing population, but also the effects of COVID and the delays of treatment in the NHS. And, this is one of the reasons why the increase in council tax is essential, because we do need to continue funding adult social care services properly. Now, the adult social care department is an incredibly efficient department, where every possible saving that can be made without impacting service users has been made. The use of agency staff is very low. Every contract has been looked at thoroughly to maximise efficiencies. Every activity that can be charged back to the NHS is done so, which is not easy. At the same time, care packages are reviewed to ensure that the money that is being spent is done so in the best possible way to meet needs. I'm particularly pleased with the budget this year, because while adult social care has been asked to make savings, there has also been recognition of the considerable pressures the department faces, with £4.4 million given to adult social care to deal with those pressures. But, I'm also very delighted with the new investments that we are making. That is £1.2 million to raise the minimum income guarantee for all adult social care users to £272.69 per week. What this means is that 147 users will pay less for their care and 315 users will no longer pay for their care at all. This will particularly affect people aged under 65, for whom the threshold was always much lower than for people over 65. The group that will be mostly affected will be adults with learning disabilities, who as a result of this will not have to pay for their care. And I think that this will have a big effect on their wellbeing and their ability to live happy lives. The other investment that we are making is another £1.45 million to increase the rate paid for direct payments to service users. This means that service users that use direct payments to pay for their care will now be able to pay a much more competitive wage, as there will be a similar increase to what we did last year of £1.50 to what people will be able to pay for their care. That means that many more people will be able to choose who cares for them and will be able to make choices and live more independently as a result. None of these investments would have happened under Conservative administration. These are exactly what the opposition call paid projects. You had a long time. You never did that stuff. Now, just for some of the points that the opposition have raised. Number one, yoga. Now, the hashtag 2035 started under the Conservative administration, but it did nothing under the Conservative administration. The Conservatives don't understand health inequalities. They don't understand that lack of physical activity is one of the most important reasons of why people die younger. Yeah. Yeah. Oh. So, community priorities program, it has been set by local people about what people would like to see. And yoga is very popular, you'll find. Lorraine, your colleagues have not been honest with you. The Listen Grove development was dead way before we came into power. It was absolutely dead. It was never going to happen. Very much hope to improve those services, but those plans that were there were never going to happen. And it's something that your colleagues have not been honest with you about. And just as... Councillor Butler, thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. I call on Councillor Tim Barnes. The Lord Mayor, please, before I start Oxford Street to Soho, look down Borough Street, look in Fitzrovia, look in Mayfair. He tried to say that it's all right because the flagship stores, they're all back, they're all coming in. Tell that to Microsoft, who closed their store as soon as they heard that their friend Sadiq Khan was going to pedestrianise Oxford Street. He said, amongst other things, that the residents of Fitzrovia and Soho were so pleased to see them. Tell that to the residents who re-elected me last September. It is, from one end to the other, a series of alternative facts. But before I go any further with making a joke out of Geoff, because he did a good enough job of that himself, I'd like to turn instead to Councillor Aisha Less. Aisha is, in my view, a very committed public servant. And as I'm shadowing her brief, I would like to say only that I think that she does her best with children's services. Her instincts have always been to serve the public good, and I see that every time we have a committee meeting. But she is being trumped, and hasn't that word been used with many derivations this evening? She's been trumped by the factional forces within that reigning Labour group. Factional forces that are so obvious in the way that they have allocated spending to pet projects, to keep sensible projects and sensible spending off the budget this evening. In fact, it isn't since the Elizabethan Court that gave rise to the city of Western Mercer itself that we've seen such divisions. Because the sad truth is that while the Labour Council talk a good game on taking care of children and our young people, they are failing to prioritise them in their actions. They are failing those most at risk of the types of devastating harm in early life that will mark them and their communities for decades to come. They are failing the hard-working staff in our children's services. They are failing in their duties as legal guardians of all of Westminster's children. We can see this lack of concern in the budget. We can see it in their lack of regard for marking the successes our services chalked up. It has been brilliant to hear Councillor Haag and Councillor Les congratulate our children's services on the outstanding results from Ofsted. I did that in the last Council meeting. They had multiple opportunities to do that last time. They failed and failed and failed again, such as the disregard for that service. There is no point at which that was done last time round. Trust me, when I was in Councillor Lesley's shoes and we had opportunities to celebrate Ofsted results with Councillor Aitken and Councillor Robothorn, were absolutely insistent that we did that at the earliest opportunity. Councillor Hugg, much more keen to hold those things under a bushel. But I am not in all seriousness going to go through a line-by-line budget of the children's services budget this evening because there is a much more fundamental problem with the way that this budget has been presented. It is not about the individual issues and the here and there cuts and death by a thousand cuts and little bits of trimmings that we might make. It is about the fundamental principle of how much money is being allocated to this most critical of services. As Councillor Butler Thalassis said a moment ago, all sorts of efficiencies have been put through in order to make children's services and adult services you reference as efficient as possible. We recognise that there is a great deal of truth in that. Sadly, the priority that this factional system has put together means that £10 million is being spent on community hubs, money that £10 million would have covered the shortfall of £5 million that we are going to see in the children's services budget in this year. £3 million of pressure, £2 million of current overspend, £1 million of cuts and proposed savings that I would term as aggressive, and at least £5 million is the underfunding that this labour council, this disgraceful labour council, is putting forward to children's services this evening. And I am ashamed of the fact that we handed you a service that was regarded as the gold standard in the UK and instead of driving it forward, you are driving it off a cliff. It is one of those things that Councillor Sullivan said earlier. He said this council gets things done. Well in some places that is true. Because lining your own pockets, done. Messing up this children's services, done. There are absolutely a load of things that you have done and every one of them is a disgrace that would only make Donald Trump proud. Taking the money, taking money from those who least deserve it and giving it to your own pet projects. This budget is a disgrace. Thank you. Well that was lively. Okay. Councillor Paul Fisher. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. I would like just briefly to start actually with Councillor Swaddle's comment and Councillor Boothroyd as well on the question of Ukraine. Last year, in January 2024, I had the privilege of visiting municipal representatives in the city of Lviv. It was a few days after they had suffered the largest, longest range ballistic missile attack in history. Not in the history of Ukraine. In history. And I met Rostislav Dobosh. And I met Mikola Ishek. And I met Alexa Wozniak. And I have to say, I think all of us at this time remember the deep burden that's being faced by the Ukrainian people and local politicians in fighting the invasion that's been going on for 11 years. I'd like to convey those warm words back to the gentlemen after tonight's meeting and I'm sure I have everyone's support in that. And it's not just a question of national or international politics because if we're serious about facing the security threat in Europe in the months and years to come, that will require massive budgetary recalibration in Whitehall in order to achieve it. And it will have an impact if we're serious about the security threat in Europe on local government budgets. And that's why tonight I want to talk a little bit about the uncertainties that face us. And why I think so far as possible in the climate we're in now, the budget that we're presenting today puts us on a robust footing. I want to start, if I may, by thanking everyone who participated in the BSDG this year. As always, I thought it was really productive and I think there were lots of good points that were raised and also taken on board by cabinet members. I'm pleased that this is the second time that cabinet members have successively come to these meetings and defended their policy positions. And I'd like to thank all cabinet members for participating in that process. I'd like to thank Gerald, Rickon and Claire for their help. It's not an easy process, although the meetings are relatively short and sharp. There's a lot of preparation that goes in before. And in particular, the greater level of detail and information that officers gave us this year, I think, was very helpful. And we'll be pushing again and again for that process to be improved. I think it would be hard for anyone to say, and I hope that everyone agrees this on a cross-party basis, that that process hadn't been improved over the past three years. And I'm keen to keep improving it for the benefit of members and also for the benefit of residents here in Westminster. Now, I want to talk a bit about the uncertainties and also what I want to call the sensible core in the political parties that we see in the UK today and particularly in local government today. As for the uncertainties, we are still in an uncertain moment, a moment where we are having to tackle one of the biggest rises in the demand for temporary accommodation we have seen for years, if not decades. And I'm pleased to see that Councillor Begum and Sarah Warman and others have acted to ensure that those very high cost inefficient forms of temporary accommodation that we were using before have now been reduced pretty much to nil. So we're ensuring that in meeting the demands of increased temporary accommodation demand, we are doing so efficiently for the people of Westminster. But we have other Rumsfeldian known and unknown unknowns on the horizon. One of them, which has been mentioned in the report, is the prospect of cyber attack on the local government. That is a threat that exists at a national and a local level. We know that members, and I won't name names, in this council have been sanctioned by Iran and Russia. I'm sure they hold that as a medal of honour, and rightly so. But we are at threat of cyber attack in the future and phishing attempts. And we must have a reserve in line to deal with the remedial costs that have result from any future attack, in my humble opinion. But we also have the other unknown unknowns on the horizon, and I've discussed one of them just now. Local government funding was always going to be a concern, and I mentioned this before the Cabinet only a few weeks ago. That is a greater concern now, given the events of the past two weeks. And I think all of us, internally, should be acknowledging the sacrifice that will have to be made in the future, if we agree that national government has to take action, putting more money, weapons and boots into Ukraine. So I finish with this. I think this Budget is robust, and I'm glad we're all in agreement that tax increases our necessity, unfortunately, this year. And I'd say that the order of the day is prudent. It must be the watchword of the future. And I commit the Budget to you all tonight and to vote in favour of it. Thank you. Thank you. I now call upon Councillor Adam Hugg to reply to the debate. Thank you. Is it 10 minutes? Yeah, there we go. That's what we thought. Hopefully it won't take the whole time. Tonight you've heard a real contrast between a Labour administration clear on its purpose, ambitious but pragmatic in its approach, and an increasingly extreme Conservative Party, with no new ideas of their own, propelled forward only by a sense of entitlement to power, and a desire simply to tear down what we have been trying to build. Turning to some of the points raised by the opposition tonight. They've had a lot to say about CCTV tonight, simultaneously both belittling it and demanding more of it. I appreciate it's a sore point for them given their side loves to talk tough but actually cut provision. They cut the previous council CCTV scheme after years of underinvestment, and they cut the number of city inspectors. Something this administration has been reversing. Our CCTV network isn't just about deterrence, although it is beginning to have that effect. It is an important tool that is bearing fruit to help police prosecute criminals. There's a lot of cases going through the courts. I'm sorry that we're having to deal with the court's backlog left by the previous government, but there are a number of cases awaiting in the queue for prosecution. There are also a lot of cautions and fines and other orders that have been helped deliver through the evidence of these cameras, and their use is rising month on month as the police and other services get used to a service being there that hasn't been there for the previous ten years. They are all extremely grateful for this investment. We know our communities are extremely grateful for this investment, which is why I'm delighted that we are able to expand that programme, recruiting another officer at the hub to monitor the CCTV, but to make sure that it is delivering for local people. And we know that we are doing all that we can within our powers as a council through this investment, not just in CCTV, but in more city inspectors, in the new SBIT team, and including more support for our noise officers and those tackling short-term lets. There's a lot that's already there, and there will be more announcements in the weeks ahead on what we are going to do more on antisocial behaviour as a result of this budget. Now, it was really interesting, obviously, to hear Councillor Harvey claim credit for the council's regulated result, both in print and this. And obviously, he indefinitely noted the Audit Commission did use to rank City West Homes as amongst the best housing providers in the country over a decade ago, before, of course, the Audit Commission closed in 2015. There were virtually no stats in between. That was the joy of the Pickles era approach to local government. There was no accountability, obviously, until the creation of the regulator in this case. We are very clear about what happened, and our residents are very clear about what happened. There were a series of blunders post-2015 in policy and culture, from initially installing a chief executive of an airport to try and run the service, closing estate offices, reducing the number of housing offices, locking Westminster into a ten-year supplier contract that we're still currently trying to deal with at the moment. They failed to get the basics right, and we were clearly on course for a C3 or worse. As an administration, we inherited a council that had a poor understanding of the condition of our housing stock, that was behind on the delivery of its fire safety, and had weakened structures for listening to residents, involving them in decision-making. The regulator was very clear that our top grade was for the strength of the improvement and the leadership being shown by this council today, officers and members, not that every problem had been solved, because we know there is a long way to go to meet the needs of our residents. And obviously, we have been putting additional resource into our housing service, both through the HRA and in terms of the team supporting our work on homelessness and rough sleeping through temporary posts. And I'm delighted that those numbers are beginning to come down as the work of improvement is beginning to bear through. Our chief finance director and all executive directors will be taking action over the coming years to ensure that those temporary increases in tax in those areas comes back down to the levels that we all expect for our city. What we do know is that the large chunk of the Tories' amendment involves a very vague but slightly menacing suggestion of staff cuts, not only in the tax base in terms of trying to identify... Well, ultimately, in order to save that amount of money from the budget, that's about the overall money saved, not just replacing those with new members of staff. And we costed it. Yes, and ultimately, because what this means is a significantly higher proportion of savings if you're, you know, in manpower because you're ultimately transferring them onto permanent contracts. And we will continue to do that. But just be clear, there is no clarity about where the cuts will fall in the services, both on the temporary and permanent side. We know, obviously, there are a number of Trump fans in the side opposite from their social media. So, is the plan for Councillor Mendoza or perhaps Councillor Cunningham to take a leaf out of the Trump administration's book and try and run their own doge initiative inside the council? Is that going to be the plan, Leila? Are you planning on running a sort of doge initiative to go round the council to try and root out waste? Sorry, Councillor Huggins. What do you think, Leila? Is that your job? Or is that Councillor Mendoza's job? Very, very clearly, we sense there might be some interest in that on their side. But we are very clear that we have a pragmatic approach to making savings. They've delivered 30 million in this budget without cutting frontline services. And we've not actually heard anything on that side about real cuts to services that they are worried about. But we recognise, as a number of people have said, the financial situation facing the council is really, really tough. I would also like to draw attention to the discussion about community hubs. Let's be clear, there's no amendment tonight on this, but obviously a number of members have got very hot under the collar about this. To be clear, that is capital funding provided when you decided not to open a library. What we are doing is investing that into a series of initiatives that our communities have called for. That's reinvigorating parts of our existing libraries at Charing Cross and in Victoria. I can remember for many years, under both Councillor Barnes and his predecessors, there were all sorts of plans about reinvigorating empty spaces in our library and doing more with it. They didn't actually do it. This is actually doing it. In terms, obviously, we will be very interested to tell the residents of Pimlico at the next election that you are planning to cut the planned opening of the new Pimlico community hub that we are opening in the old library site. Which we know that residents called for from the Pimlico community conversations as part of the Pimlico program. We are clear. Opportunities for the voluntary sector, opportunities for local people and bringing services closer to residents is what they have called for and it is what this council is going to deliver with that capital funding. But I think the simple facts as we have heard about the scale of our temporary accommodation pressures do mean that we are proposing the budget unamended and taking on board this small rise in council tax. And we are not going to play political games over what is a £5 per person annual saving at a time when we are very clear to central government ahead of those negotiations on the finances that we are going to use every penny to tackle the deep city inequality in our city because we know the real challenges that our city faces. But once we know the outcome of that financial settlement we will of course look at what opportunities are available to us on council tax, on future investment but now is not the time whilst those pressures are there to make that deviation from our approach. In this difficult time the Labour Council is continuing to bring together both efficiency and compassion to deliver for local people. Doubling the amount of CCTV, more city inspectors, more noise, short let officers, more noise and short let officers, more noise and short let officers, more help with cost of living with council rents, lifting hundreds of disabled people out of social care costs, helping hundreds of personal assistants to get a fair day's pay, investing in tackling rough sleeping and homelessness. And that's how we're working to build a fairer Westminster for our residents. So we mustn't let this extremely extreme conservative party tear down the progress we've made. This is the choice before us tonight and I commend the budget to the chamber. Okay, so we now vote on the opposition party amendments, shh shh shh shh shh shh shh shh shh shh. We now vote on the Opposition Party Amendment and Business and Financial Planning 2025 to 2026 and to 2027 to 2028, which is part one of the report of the Cabinet. As mentioned at the start of the debate, these will be recorded votes by a show of hands. Therefore, before I call the first vote, the division bell will now be rung. Following this ringing, no member will be allowed to return to the chamber until after all the votes have been completed. Thank you. The first recorded vote by a show of hands is on the Opposition Party Amendment to the Budget and the Council Tax, moved by Councillor Swaddle and seconded by Councillor Mendoza. This is set out on the order paper. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? There is clearly a majority against the amendment. I therefore declare the amendment to be lost. The names of those voting for, against, or abstaining will be recorded in the minutes. We now move to the recorded vote on the original recommendations in part one of the report of the Cabinet, Business and Financial Planning 2025-2026 to 2027 to 2028. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? Those abstaining? There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendations to be agreed. The names of those voting for, against, or abstaining will be recorded in the minutes. We now vote by a show of hands on the recommendations in part two of the report of the Cabinet, titled Capital Strategy 2025-2026 to 2029-2030. Forecast position for 2024-2025 and future years forecast to 2038-2039. Those in favour? Those in favour? Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? Those abstaining? There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendations agreed. The next vote, by a show of hands, is on the recommendations in part three of the report of the Cabinet, titled Housing Revenue Account Business Plan. We now vote by a show of hands on the recommendations in part four of the report of the Cabinet, titled Integrated Investment Framework. 2025-2025-2026. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? No. There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendations agreed. The next vote, by a show of hands, is on the recommendations in part five of the report of the Cabinet, titled Treasury Management Statement 2025-2026 to 2029-2030. Those in favour? Those against? Those against? Those abstaining? Those abstaining? There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendations agreed. Our final vote. Our final vote on this agenda item is on the recommendation in part six of the report of the Cabinet, titled Pay Policy 2025-2026. Those in favour? Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? Those abstaining? There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. There is clearly a majority in favour of the recommendations. I therefore declare the recommendation agreed. This is the end of the voting on the report of the Cabinet. Thank you. Agenda item five, six and seven. These are reports from the General Purposes Committee, which we will vote on in turn. The first vote is on the recommendations in the report, titled Members Allowances Scheme 2025-2026. The recommendations are deemed to have been moved and seconded. By a show of hands, can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendations agreed. The second vote in the recommendation in the report, titled Audit and Performance Committee Terms of Reference Amendments. The recommendation is deemed to have been moved and seconded. By a show of hands, can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendation agreed. The final vote in this section is on the recommendations in the report titled Procurement Code Update and Introduction of Procurement Act 2023. The recommendations are deemed to have been moved and seconded. By a show of hands, can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendations agreed. We will now move to the final vote of the evening, which is on the recommendation of the report listed under Agenda Item 8 and entitled Dispensation of Absence. The recommendation is deemed to have been moved and seconded. By a show of hands, can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendation agreed. That concludes this evening's council meeting. Can I say thank you to all those who spoke and kept within their allotted time? Also, just a health and safety warning. There was a little bit of an accident in the front here with a glass, so please be careful if you're passing the minorities' tables. On that note, I would say thank you and good night. Thank you! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, David.