PENSIONERS living in Surrey are subsidising working people elsewhere in the country, the Conservative administration on Surrey County Council has complained. Councillors vented their anger as they settled on a 4.4 per cent increase in the county council's share of the council tax in the coming year, in line with current inflation levels as measured by the retail price index. The council received an increase in government grant of just 0.4 per cent. The average person in Surrey receives £153 under the government's grant formula, while England's average is £426 and in Manchester it is £719. The Conservatives have been keen to stress how the situation would have been far worse, but for far-reaching reorganisation under the business delivery review, which entailed swingeing job cuts but saved £30 million. Leader of the council Nick Skellett said: "If we had not made efficiency savings, council tax bills would in theory have had to go up by a further 10 per cent, but obviously in real terms this would have meant services cuts to keep tax down." He further commented: "Despite the cynical manipulation of the local government funding system by this government, there is more money in this budget for families, libraries and voluntary organisations." In a statement issued after Tuesday's budget meeting, the council pointed out that it continues to face increasing demand for services, while at the same time the amount of money from government is decreasing. The number of people aged over 85 is increasing by 800 people every year. However, independent research shows that the government has taken more than £100 million from Surrey - £100 for every person in the county. In setting the budget, the county council also agreed a number of investments in services: • Increased investment of £19.8m in services for older people and younger vulnerable adults with physical, sensory and learning disabilities. This provides an extra 1,000 people with care including helping up to 700 people live independently in their homes. • An additional £10 million invested in children's care • An increase in highways maintenance in line with inflation • An extra £18 million capital investment in our roads • An increase of five per cent for passenger transport which should mean there are no significant reductions in bus services • Extra investment in libraries • An inflation increase for arts centres • An inflation increase in grants for voluntary and community groups. Said Mr Skellett: "By setting the rate at inflation we can continue to serve the most vulnerable people in the county, continue to improve the condition of our roads, improve the quality of life for everyone in Surrey and, at the same time, restrict council tax rises as much as possible". However, the leader warned that the council will need to continue to improve efficiency to meet continued budget pressures into 2008. The council has identified further savings of £13.3 million in the next financial year but Liberal Democrats have taken the administration to task over "unspecified service cuts that will emerge when we see the detail in a few months' time". The opposition group on the council claimed that residents were being badly let down by an ill-conceived budget, lacking in long-term investment and wasting taxpayers' money. Lib Dem councillors accepted the proposed council tax rate rise of 4.4 per cent, saying increases need to be kept as low as possible to help Surrey residents including pensioners on fixed incomes. But group leader Hazel Watson said: "This budget is bad news for Surrey residents. It is cutting support for disabled people and for older people living at home. "It reduces investment in the maintenance of Surrey's roads and school buildings that will end up costing Surrey taxpayers more money in the long run." The Lib Dems highlighted a number of areas where they believed efficiency savings could be introduced. One was that Surrey County Council spends up to twice as much on agency staff than directly employed staff carrying out the same job – in 2005/06 it spent £16 million on agency staff. Said Hazel Watson: "A reduction could be achieved through appropriate recruitment and retention policies, as well as key worker housing schemes. "The council could also save money on cutting its reliance on consultants – it is using 52 of them in this financial year, worth £3.2 million. This needs urgent review." "The council plans to spend less this year on the roads than it did last year and that is not acceptable," added the Lib Dems' transportation and highways spokesman, John Doran.
