HERTSMERE'S Labour leader called the council’s attempts to generate income on investments as a “disgusting record of failure” as the budget was passed at a full council meeting last night.

In a recorded vote, only two of the 30 councillors at the meeting opposed the budget. While Labour members, Councillors Ann Harrison and Ernie Butler voted against the proposals, Liberal Democrats Anita Gamble and Roger Kutchinsky abstained.

Hertsmere was the worst hit borough in the county when communities secretary Eric Pickles announced cuts to local government grants in December.

It will be losing £2 million over two years, equating to a 27.4 per cent reduction.

For 2011/2012, the council will receive £6.3m, a loss of £1.2m on the current level, followed by a £0.8m cut in the second year for 2012/2013, dropping central Government grants down to £5.5m.

Labour leader, Cllr Harrison, said: "We have apparently sought to maximise income generation opportunities, look at reducing some of our non-staff costs and reducing staff levels.

"Have we really sought to maximise our income generation? I don't think so. We have nearly £30 million of reserves, which are generating virtually nothing.

"We have ignored all suggestions from this side, and I understand from many officers, to invest in income-generating schemes. If this is maximising income I would like to see what would happen if you didn't really try.

"Actually I know just what we have now, a disgusting record of failure to use our residents money to support the council income and to support our community."

Cllr Harrison also highlighted her displeasure at the budget cut of 29 per cent to the housing department.

She added: "Six people are going from this department. Unbelievable. This department is going to be swamped with work. Homelessness, evictions, the gap between decreasing housing benefit and rising rent. The idea that this department can work with this level of cuts is ludicrous.

"We have a duty to our residents. Many of our most vulnerable residents need this service and I know that those left in these departments will do everything in their power to help the homeless and those threatened with homelessness.

"To expect them to cope with such a reduction in their numbers is unfair and unacceptable."

Liberal Democrat leader, Councillor Roger Kuchinsky, said the council had been harshly treated by the Government but more consultation with opposition leaders on the decisions taken for the budget would have been beneficial.

He said: "We are assured there will be no reduction in frontline services. I must say I am skeptical. If economies of this nature were possible why have they not already been achieved in previous years with their benefits being distributed to our long-suffering taxpayers.

"We're left to ponder is this budget actually an economic miracle or is it in fact a bit of a con trick.

"Sadly the administration decided not to convene a budget panel this year and this has deprived the opposition parties of the vital scrutiny role in the budget presentation process that they have enjoyed in recent years.

"There has been no real opportunity for us to gain the deep insight into these figures that we would need in order to criticise the individual budget proposals in detail."

Finance and property portfolio holder, Councillor John Graham, asked why concerns were not raised earlier by Cllr Harrison.

He said: "Why was Ann Harrison so quiet when we presented this budget to her at scrutiny? What was she doing at every personnel meeting she sat through? Was she asleep?

"Every year, the opposition try and take the budget and re-write it on the back of a fag packet at the last minute. Every year we deliver, and this year is no different, which is why I recommend this budget to the council."