1. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BILL BRADSHAW TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

Is the Cabinet member satisfied that the new traffic arrangements in Cowley Road are being strictly enforced and that they make adequate allowance for safe and passage of buses?

ANSWER

In the design for Cowley Road planners and engineers took very careful consideration of the needs for bus traffic. 

1. The road width at its narrowest point was discussed in detail with the two main bus operators; the road is functioning satisfactorily on this basis and we have had feedback from the operators that on this point they are reasonably happy.

2. The allocation and layout of parking/loading bays was considered with the aim of accommodating necessary activity and reduce the amount of conflict with flowing traffic.  The effect of this is under review, as it was set as a key objective of the scheme and surveys measuring bus journey time/delay are programmed for April and May. 

3. We have a temporary problem of enforcement at several locations because of mistakes made during the lining work completed in December/January.  We have been aware of this and Oxfordshire Highways are taking action to correct this.  Following a recent site visit, a detailed action plan is being drawn up. 

The bus companies are not happy with the situation because the lines are not in the correct positions and enforcement has been difficult. When will proper enforcement be possible?

Just to confirm that the work to burn off the lines that are in the wrong place is due to take place on 30 April. Once the new lines are in place, enforcement can take place.

2. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR SUSHILA DHALL TO COUNCILLOR ROGER BELSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

How many petitions (including the number of signatures), letters and postcards of opposition to the incineration of waste has the County Council received over the last 18 months?

ANSWER

We have received approximately 1000 signatures from the one petition, letters and postcards.

3. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHRIS WISE TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

What has been the total County Council expenditure on furthering the intention to build the cycle tracks between Wootton and Abingdon, and Cholsey and Wallingford, including the cost of officer time, consultants, public consultation and hall hire?

ANSWER

The briefs for the two cycle route schemes - Wootton to Abingdon and Cholsey to Wallingford, were issued to Babtie in January 2004.  Costs identified are:

Wootton to Abingdon.  The SAP reported expenditure from 2003/04 to cancellation in February 2006 has been £85,500, made up of £70,000 consultants’ costs and £15,500 consultation and officer time.  The construction cost of this scheme would have been £818,730. 

Cholsey to Wallingford:  The SAP reported expenditure from 2004/05 to cancellation in February 2006 has been £36,700, made up of £28,000 consultants’ costs and £8,700 consultation and officer time.  The cost of this scheme would have been £319,000. 

Unfortunately we do not have enough money to build all the schemes that we would like and just because we have spent money on design etc does not automatically mean we should spend very significant sums to complete a scheme which does not offer value for money in tackling high priority transport problems.

What is the total expenditure on the Wootton to Abingdon cycle scheme since the scheme was first proposed?

Since the response will require research, I will provide a written answer.

4. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BOB JOHNSTON TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

In the light of increasing traffic levels in Oxfordshire, what is his advice to Parish and Town Councils seeking to have speed limits amended at the current time? Could he further advise the same Councils as to how they might have a positive input when there is a more general review of all the County's speed limits, which we believe will take place in 2007?

ANSWER

Highways funding is allocated according to our Local Transport Plan as approved by government. This prioritises safety, accessibility, congestion, air quality, and improving street environments and accordingly all expenditure must go to achieving these aspirations. Speed limit amendments will need to be prioritised on this basis against all other demands on our funds and in practice is likely to depend on the latest 5-year injury-accident record.  The effects of a speed limit on all LTP priorities will need to be assessed.  Local councils should continue to put a request to their Area Engineer who will give it due consideration.

Although the Government has talked of the need to carry out a comprehensive review of speed limits there is as yet no firm information and we do not believe in practice there will be wide scale amendments, particularly given the comprehensive review carried out recently. If any limits are to be reviewed local councils will be consulted by County officers.

Can you confirm that it is no longer possible for parish, town and district councils to contribute towards the cost of changes to speed limits or other traffic calming measures because matched funding from the County has now been withdrawn from the budget?

Funding is still available. It has been centralised although the Local Area Offices have got some funding. All schemes, including schemes with funding from the parish, town or district councils, have to be measured against the priorities in the Local Transport Plan and prioritised accordingly.

5. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS TO COUNCILLOR LOUISE CHAPMAN, CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE & FAMILIES

The budget proposals for the £85,000 cut in administration costs of the Youth Service mean that jobs will be changed or removed. Was there any consultation with the staff before final decisions were taken and when will they be informed of how their jobs are affected?

ANSWER

The budget contained NO CUTS for the Youth Service. In fact, our Conservative budget increased funding for the service by £150,000 year on year. In addition, £600,000 has been committed over the next three years in the form of grants to help provide more youth facilities in line with the Council’s Children and Young People Plan. The £85,000 referred to in the question is part of the Council’s efficiency savings programme.

The Head of Service put forward a review and restructuring of administration support to provide a structure which would save money while allowing for better development. Consultation with staff took place before the final review recommendations were drawn up.  Employees are aware of how their jobs will be affected.

The new scheme is already operational in Oxford City and appears to be successful.

When will Parish Councils and young people know about offers of matched funding?

I have signed off the criteria. We intend to send the criteria and forms to all members of the Council by the end of the week ending 7 April.

6. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR ROZ SMITH TO COUNCILLOR LOUISE CHAPMAN, CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE & FAMILIES

Councillors recently received a beautifully produced Annual Report (2004/5) about Oxfordshire County Council’s Youth Service. The glossy folder contained 11 doubled sided A4 sized coloured cards with information about the service’s work and projects over the last year. Could the Cabinet portfolio holder for Children's Services please tell the Council meeting how much each folder and contents cost, how many were printed and to whom, apart from councillors, the folders were sent?

ANSWER

All youth services nationally produce annual reports. Most distribute these to all other youth services, Oxfordshire does not!

Oxfordshire Youth Service printed 150 copies of the 2004/2005 annual report, of which 74 went to County Councillors and a further 50 to youth work units for discussion/information with management committees, local partners including District Councils. A further 25 have been distributed to external funders, hopefully to receive further funding in 2005/2006. A small number were held centrally for other interested parties.

In addition, individual pages have been printed from the electronic copy or sent electronically when we have been asked specific questions about unit budgets etc. – this has been possible because of the format and has kept costs down.

Folders cost £359 – with a view to using the same folder for other information. Insert pages cost £597.

We are considering producing an electronic version only report for this year.

How are councillors to know that they should keep the folders for future use? What funds have been received from the 25 external funders in 2005/06? Do you consider the cost of printing and distribution to be good value for money?

I think it is very good value for money, particularly as the folders can be used in the future. The folders are not only for use by councillors but can be used for other information that the Youth Service is asked to provide. I have already asked the Head of the Youth Service about the level of funding received from external funders and I will let you have the information once I have received it. I think it was good value for money at less than £1,000. We receive much more money from external funders and the Government than this. If we do not go forward in this way, many projects will be in jeopardy.

7. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR TERRY JOSLIN TO COUNCILLOR KEITH MITCHELL, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Whilst acting as co-host with Bill Heine’s early morning programme on Radio Oxford on 20 February, you received an inquiry from a listener asking about the procedure for the submission of petitions.

You replied to the effect that you don’t take any notice of them, that anyone can sign them and that you much prefer individual approaches to the Cabinet.

Is this now the official view of the Cabinet? If so, how will you arrange for the people of Oxfordshire to know that their petitions are a waste of time and have no effect?

ANSWER

I am sorry that Councillor Joslin did not listen more carefully to my comments about petitions on the Heine morning news programme. Bill Heine sought my advice on the best way to campaign for an issue, particularly asking if petitions were effective. In my reply, I said that I knew how easy it was to secure signatures on a petition and that my personal view was that individual letters carried much more weight than an equivalent number of signatures on a petition. This remains my personal opinion. How other members of the Conservative Cabinet view the impact of petitions is a matter for them.

Councillor Joslin’s recollection of what I said that morning is a perversion of the truth and I hope he will apologise for his misreporting of my comments and withdraw his question.

By way of explanation, I do not believe that my recollection was a perversion of the truth as I quickly grabbed a sheet of paper to write down what I thought I had heard. Are we going to continue to accept petitions in the normal way or do we now tell people to submit their views individually in writing?

The Council’s Constitution provides for the receipt of petitions and this will continue. Members taking decisions will place weight on the petitions presented according to their views, the contents and so on. My personal advice to anyone who asks me is that a letter written individually carries much more weight than a petition with several thousand names on it. We all know that when you go to the door people will sign something, providing it is not a cheque, to get rid of you.

8. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JANET GODDEN TO COUNCILLOR DON SEALE, CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES

The category 3 reprioritisations in annex 4 of the budget papers for 14 February 2006 are defined as service reductions. They include the following changes to front-line services:

Older People (annex 4, page 3) £k

- reduce contribution to pooled budget:

complete withdrawal of 5 intermediate care beds -155

- reduce long term spot placements by 24 in a year -331

- reduce respite bed numbers by 1 -24

- reduce spot purchasing from Order of St John

from 19 beds to 5 by 31st March 2006 -189

- care management: reduce care managers by 2 FTE -158

- care management: replace 4 qualified SW/OT

posts with unqualified staff -20

- home support: more effective gatekeeping -104

Learning Disabilities (annex 4, page 4)

- more effective gatekeeping -100

Physical Disabilities (annex 4, page 5)

- reduce pooled budget: reduce placements by 2 -50

- reduce number of new home support placements

by 2 per month -150

The impact statements in annex 5 of the papers explain the risks to frail or dependent people of increased waiting times or the lack of a timely response; also the increased stress and demands on carers. In what ways are these service reductions not cuts? Where is the choice for users of these services and their carers?

ANSWER

There will, as notified in the 2006/7 budget which was agreed by Council on 14 February 2006, be reconfigurations of some services. This will enable us to introduce new efficient services which provide value for money and an improved service to those who need our help.

The choice for carers and users of services comes with the new things we are doing and able to fund, with 2 new homes for older people opened and a new nursing home in Oxford soon to join them together with recently secured funding for 40 very sheltered houses on the same site. We have revamped the work done in two of our day centres and in cooperation with the NHS Mental Health Trust are hoping to improve the type of day care for older people in Witney. We have improved the effective use of intermediate care in the independent sector and through our improved tendering processes for home support we have secured eleven good private providers who will be able to deliver better quality home support at an affordable price. Finally we have introduced an electronic time management system into all our home care services which guarantees the user and the County Council get what is being paid for.

This adds up to real choice for vulnerable people and their carers at a price we can afford.

Does the Cabinet now regret saying that there were no cuts in real terms in its budget?

No we do not regret it. You will recall that, in November 2001, the Liberal Democrats who were then members of the Executive fully supported cuts of £6m to the Social & Health Care budget. I find it puzzling that they confess such concern about relatively minor reconfigurations of service in order to improve others when only four years ago they were happy to support real cuts in services. Adult services receive almost £2m more in this financial year with a total spend of £75.5m and £1m has also been set aside in an emergency fund to fund likely pressures on Social Care arising from NHS cuts this coming year. There have been exaggerated claims and allegations of hardship for vulnerable people and their carers made in the media by Liberal Democrats and by Councillor L Sanders which could create unwarranted fears.

9. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS TO COUNCILLOR LOUISE CHAPMAN, CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE & FAMILIES

Among the ‘reprioritisations’ shown in the budget papers were the following service reductions:

Children’s Services Central staffing – reorganising services to

reduce posts and not filling vacancies -£104,000

Special Educational Needs – not filling vacancies -£33,000

Social Inclusion – reorganising services to reduce posts, further

increasing the threshold for access to home tuition and not filling vacancies -£121,000

SEN & Social Inclusion – a number of cuts split across service areas, including

In what way are these service reductions not cuts? Where is the choice offered to the users of these services?

ANSWER

By providing services more efficiently and cost effectively.

Is not filling vacancies, which by their very nature are unplanned, actually efficient or cost effective?

Can I just remind the Council that there have been increases in funding for Children’s Services and the Youth Service. Some services faced efficiency savings last year but service standards have been maintained throughout that time for example, Special Needs tribunals have been reduced from 41 in 2003/04 to 21 in 2004/05, school attendance has improved and is now in the top quartile of performance nationally and the achievement of looked after children has improved significantly.

10. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BOB JOHNSTON TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

The budget papers list the following service reductions:

Transport Planning – not supporting increased costs for subsidised

bus services, which is against an administration pledge to

stand up for rural bus services Annex 4, page 7 -276

Transport Planning – inability to support the Rural Bus

Challenge taxibus without Government grant Annex 4, page 7 -94

Transport Planning – not supporting withdrawn commercial

services Annex 4, page 7 -347

Highways management – revised priorities for highway

maintenance will result in reduced levels of highway

maintenance Annex 4, page 7 -1005

In what way are these service reductions not cuts? Where is the choice offered to the users of these services?

ANSWER

There is a £1.74M overall increase in the Transport net budget from 2005/06 to 2006/07 which is an above inflation increase. Decisions about direction of spend and re-prioritisation are in line with the commitments given in the Conservative election manifesto and while there are some pressures identified, these will be managed within budget. A good example of this is the recent award of tender contracts for public transport in Oxford, where we achieved improved services for lower cost.

This Conservative Administration will continue to deliver "Low Taxes, Real Choice, Value for Money" options for residents of Oxfordshire.

How were the figures in the answer derived?

The actual increase in the budget is £1.174m and not £1.74m.

11. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE TO COUNCILLOR ROGER BELSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The budget papers list the following service reductions:

ANSWER

On point (1), the Company Information Database (CID) was established fourteen years ago to provide both internal and external customers with information about companies in Oxfordshire. The majority of customers to date have been external and have bought mailing lists from the CID on an ad hoc basis. Most of the effort therefore has been in this area. There are plenty of other providers of this information and our own library service's business information point has the FAME database which is free. By closing the CID the two staff have been redeployed to strategically important projects which are bringing in more income via funding than the CID.

The CID was rarely used as an evidence base or statistical measure of Oxfordshire's economy, it did not have enough information and no trends could be formed to help with policymaking. We now use both partner agencies (such as Business Links and Learning and Skills Council) and national statistics for policy decisions and have seen no decrease in quality of information.

The FAME system is a commercial system and although does not have the same accuracy as CID - for marketing and general trends it is acceptable. It is free for those in the library to use as the library has borne the cost of the licence. Therefore it is better value for money for people to go to the library to use it and avoids duplication both within the Council and with other public sector agencies. FAME is relatively new, having been implemented just last year. There are trained librarians on hand to help also.

On point (2), the County Council provides a number of waste minimisation initiatives designed to encourage people to reduce the waste they produce and then to recycle and compost as much as they can. Whilst the effect of these initiatives can be difficult to measure the annual increase of waste in Oxfordshire has consistently been below the national average and now the County produces the least amount of waste per person of any county council.

The County Council is working with the waste partnership in Oxfordshire to develop a new Joint Waste Management Strategy and it is hoped that this will involve the continuation of our successful initiatives and even more efficient and effective campaigns. The savings proposed do not take effect until 2008/9 and will be reviewed this autumn in light of the new Strategy and adjusted accordingly.

On point (3), a budget pressure of £29k was identified in connection with the increasing backlog of applications for Definitive Map modification orders. It was not possible to meet this pressure, but there has been no reduction in the level of resources allocated to this area of work. The backlog of applications is a cause for concern and ways to improve the position short term are being sought, whilst the budget pressure will be considered again for next year.

On point (4), none of the above are either service reductions or cuts but rather pragmatic decisions based on value for money.

The budget papers list the following service reductions

(1) Property – recharge one post to prudential schemes Annex 2, page 3 -30

(2) Democratic Initiatives budget Annex 4, page 10 -38

In what way are these service reductions not cuts? Where is the choice offered to the users of these services?

ANSWER

On Point (1), the recharge of one property post to Prudential schemes is simply a way of allocating the additional staff costs for management of the Prudential programme to the budget which has been provided for it.  The Prudential funding programme for repairs and maintenance is an additional programme of repairs and maintenance approved by the Cabinet.  The alternative to charging staff costs for management of the programme to the Prudential funding would have been to reduce the funding available for the normal repair and maintenance budget.

On Point (2), this budget funded activities designed to encourage the public to participate in the democratic process and work of the Council.  The Council’s contribution to the cost of the South Oxfordshire Area Forums was met from it and following from the Council’s decision on 10 January 2006 to withdraw from the formal participation in these, this funding is no longer needed.

The Council in February have also put £150k in the Medium Term Financial Plan every year over the life of the plan to meet the Council’s elections and associated costs.  This will include the activities funded in the last financial year from the Democratic Initiatives Budget in so far as they relate to encouraging public participation in elections and providing extra statutory information to candidates about the Council and the role of County Councillors.  There will be no reduction in the coming year for the other activities funded from the Democratic Initiatives budget last year, the cost of these will be met from other budgets managed by the Chief Executive’s Office.

Therefore, in both cases there will be no service reductions and any choice that previously existed, remains.  The Conservative Group’s budget proposals approved by the Council on 14 February when judged overall is a growth budget of 2.1% in real terms and reduced the rate of increase in Council Tax to 4.375% in contrast to the Liberal Democrat Group whose budget proposals contained a Council Tax increase of 4.94% compared with a 4.5% increase for 2005/06.

Councillor Shouler has said that these items which were listed as Code 3 (Service Reduction) in the budget were nevertheless not service reductions. At the beginning of the last paragraph of his answer, he says there will be no service reductions. Can you give some guidance on when services listed in the budget as service reductions are not actually service reductions?

I will provide a written answer to be circulated to all members of the Council.

13. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR ALTAF-KHAN TO COUNCILLOR JELF, CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY

The budget papers list the following service reductions:

In what way are these service reductions not cuts? Where is the choice offered to the users of these services?

ANSWER

On point (1), the query by Councillor Altaf-Khan relates to the budget papers for 2006/07 which show a reduction in front line staff by 0.5fte which comes from the requirement to find efficiencies for next year’s budget which were split on a pro rata basis across all directorates. Following the Star Chamber, Fire & Rescue were removed from the necessity to find their proportion of the efficiency savings (£78,000). However, Youth Offending was not. This was therefore included within the necessity to review the entire service as a consequence of the previous year’s overspend. The 0.5 fte has therefore been included in the review and was a part of the redeployment/redundancy action taken. Strictly speaking the 0.5 fte in question was redeployed and therefore not an overall cut. However, it was a reduction in terms of resources to YOT. Clearly, however, a 0.5 fte can be covered from elsewhere in the service and we can continue to provide the same range of activities to our clients which include:

- Intensive supervision and surveillance of young people who have offended

- Parenting programme for adults

- Support programme to younger siblings of offenders

- Restorative justice and reparation, ie. repairing damage done

- Bail support

- Mental health assessments

- Diversionary activities for children including sports etc.

On point (2), more than 90% of the Trading Standards budget relates to staffing costs and as a result it is very difficult to meet the targets for year on year efficiency savings without affecting staffing levels. The required contribution to the County Council’s financial efficiencies for 2006/07 took the Service to the point whereby a reduction of staff (and hence consumer protection and consumer education activity) was the only way to balance the budget. However, in February this year Cabinet agreed to fund the shortfall in the Trading Standards budget to the amount of £73,000 from 1 April 2006 to avoid these reductions and to maintain levels of consumer protection across the County. I have agreed with the Head of Trading Standards to consider possible changes to the organisation of the Service during the new financial year so as to protect it from future financial pressures, therefore Councillor Altaf-Khan is misguided in thinking that the entry in Annex 4 relating to Trading Standards is either a cut or Service reduction because it is neither.

14. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS TO COUNCILLOR ROGER BELSON, CABINET MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The 10th Anniversary of Real Nappy Week is 24th – 30th April 2006.

In 2004 the County decided to end its innovative Real Nappy voucher scheme in favour of an education only approach. The portfolio holder in position at that time claimed this would be a more effective way of increasing the uptake of real nappies and therefore decreasing County landfill tonnage and cost.

How have the figures for the uptake of real nappies changed in the last three years?

Has the loss of the voucher scheme affected those in poverty who – without the voucher scheme – are deterred from the higher upfront cost of real nappies?

ANSWER

The Real Nappy Awareness Campaign has been running for just over one year:

This is compared to the Cash Contribution Scheme that ran for 2 years (April 2002 - April 2004), and only had 386 claims over the two year period.

Making Real Nappies available to 'those in poverty' is something that the County's local Real Nappy Distributors are looking into. Some agencies are, for example, looking into loaning nappies or providing a credit scheme.

Other initiatives that the County Council has supported or funded include:

15. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS TO COUNCILLOR DON SEALE, CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES

The extra day's closure of the Records Office means that people researching their family trees are having to be turned away. This is a clear cut in the service being offered. Does the cabinet member agree that the description of the Conservative budget as a "no cuts" budget is therefore inaccurate? Can he find any real choice for those wanting to use the Records Office in this decision?

ANSWER

The answer to the first question is "no" I do not agree that the description of the Conservative budget as a "no cuts" budget is inaccurate because the service to which Councillor Fooks refers, that is the Record Office, is being retained.

Tuesday opening was not popular with the general public and the rate of use was small compared to other days. Indeed it is open on Saturdays, which is a valuable feature of the service which is seldom available elsewhere. Therefore those who wish to use the Record Office have ample opportunities to do so and at times which are convenient to them when they are not at work and their children are not at school. This represents real choice.

Is reducing the opening days at St. Luke’s from 5 to 4 offering more choice?

The Record Office provides generous access to those who wish to use its superb facilities. Cultural Services has received an increase in spending compared to the year that has just ended of £617,000. Councillor Fooks alleges in her question that people have been turned away because of the new opening hours. We have no evidence of people being turned away and neither I suspect has Councillor Fooks, especially as the revised opening hours have not yet come into force.

16. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOHN SANDERS TO COUNCILLOR KEITH MITCHELL, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

In your letter to the Abingdon Herald (23 February) you state that the council tax rate in the County Council budget "has been achieved without cuts to services". What is your definition of a "cut"?

ANSWER

My definition of a "cut" in terms of the County Council budget would be where the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation, implying a real terms cut in spending power. Given that the County Council budget has grown by 2.1% on top of pay and price inflation, there can be no question of budget cuts. Of course, difficult decisions will be made within budget lines, increasing some areas and reducing others in line with our perception of priorities but, overall, the County Council has seen a healthy increase, over and above provision for inflation while also setting the lowest council tax increase of any shire county in the South East.

Does Councillor Mitchell’s definition of a cut apply to the budgets for particular service areas or only to the budget for the whole Council. In other words if the budget for a particular service area had increased by less than the rate of inflation would he accept that there had been a cut and should this definition not be adjusted to take account of the demographic changes affecting for example the older people’s service?

The County Council’s budget has increased by 2.1% in addition to provision for pay and price inflation. There are not cuts in the budget. However, if you seriously believe that this Council can continue to maintain every single line of every single budget without ever reducing it in order to move funds elsewhere then I think you would be presiding over a museum of Council services rather than one that could respond dynamically to the changes in the demography of service needs. We have presided over a budget that to some of our supporters is considered to be overly generous in that it has increases in real terms. Within these increases, we have taken decisions about where there should be more money and where there should be less money – that is the nature of leadership. We will continue to run the Council in this way and I believe the tax payers will be grateful for that approach but will nevertheless challenge us until we get down the Council tax increase year by year to the rate of inflation itself.

Return to TOP