Agenda item

The Democratic Services Manager introduced the report which provided feedback from Members and officers in developing the new approach for the budget consultation process.  Member consultation feedback was appended to the report, as was a proposed staged budget process flow chart. An amended form of words for insertion into section 16 of the Constitution was recommended in the report.

Following the consultation with Members, a set of requirements and responses/comments were outlined in the report which had been used to inform the proposed flow chart. The flow chart was also based on the 2018/19 approach but it was not prescriptive; the flow chart demonstrated a three stage process but dependent on circumstances, a two or four stage process could also be adopted.

The proposed wording for the Constitution was:

Based on good practice and the need for efficiency, the Council had developed a staged Budget Process, as illustrated in the flow chart.  This is not prescriptive; between two and four stages would be equally reasonable, depending on the circumstances in different years.  At each stage, there is four weeks available for consultation, both on an individual member basis and through one of the six Overview and Scrutiny Committees. Time is made available for individual Members and Overview and Scrutiny Committees to ask for additional information, up to and including a final deadline which will be set out at the start of the process.

At the end of the consultation, Cabinet will draw up firm proposals, having regard to the responses to the consultation.  Any report to Council will reflect comments made by consultees and the Cabinet’s response.  Overview and Scrutiny Committees may also prepare a response direct to Council for a non-executive decision, such as the Budget.  Throughout the process, up to the deadline which will be determined on an annual basis, the Council’s statutory officers will be available to guide and assist Members who wish to explore alternative proposals.

The Chief Executive explained that a lot of work had been undertaken on possible options to inform the flow chart.  He said the budget process for 2019/20 had already commenced with a report to Cabinet earlier that week on the projected budget gap.  Following the budget process the previous year, an early meeting with head teachers and Chairs of Governors had been arranged to take place the following week to consider budget scenarios.  Following an Income Generation Workshop where Members were challenging, work was now underway on options.  He referred to items such as Tracking Budget Efficiency and the Income Strategy which had already been placed on the forward work programme for Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee to track outcomes.

Councillor Dunbar commented on the efficiencies that had been achieved over recent years but emphasised the Council was now dependent on help from National Government and Welsh Government (WG).  He supported the recommendations in the report and welcomed the flow chart.  He said discussions with Group Leaders were essential so that they could report back to their respective groups.  Councillor Shotton concurred with those views and said the process the previous year enabled all Councillors to be part of the transparent process.

Councillor Carver said the process the previous year had worked well.  However, because the Council was dependent on the final settlement from WG close to the end of the budget process, he asked whether there would still be an opportunity to hold extra meetings if they were needed.  The Chief Executive said the provisional settlement, which was received in October, was reliable except for information on specific grants.  WG would be approached formally by May with the Council’s budget forecast.  It was possible to hold additional meetings if and when they were required.

The Democratic Services Manager commented on the contribution Councillor Peers had made to the budget process proposals and the gap analysis example he had provided which had been passed on to colleagues in Finance.  On the requirements, he asked members of the Committee to consider number 19 ‘We need to establish whether the use of call-in should be limited to non-Budget items, especially where a consultation item has already been to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee”.

Councillor Heesom said questions needed to be asked as to how the Council found itself in the position of setting a Council Tax rise as it did the previous year.  The proposed flow chart provided Members with the opportunity to participate in an informed manner; however he felt that at stage one the previous year a “curtain had been brought down” which resulted in Members not being able to revisit stage one options.  He also said that Members may have differing views and it was important to be able to compare levels of expenditure from one portfolio to another; he felt more focus was needed at stage 1 and base budgets. 

The Chief Executive challenged the comment on Council Tax – tax setting had been a decision of whole Council.  On the staged approach it was not the case that Members could not revisit stages or defer options to a later stage.  Stage one would provide a set of options for individual service portfolios.  Those particular proposals were then “locked down” only once agreed, so that implementation planning could begin at an early stage.  Each Overview and Scrutiny Committee received Risk Assessments for their related portfolios and were invited to agree options for their portfolio.  For 2019/20 options would be put forward at stage one and once those were agreed at County Council they would not be able to be revisited.  However, that did not mean that other options could not be considered; if options needed further consideration they could move into stage two of the budget.

Councillor Peers agreed that the flow chart illustrated the process including key significant dates.  He felt that requirements 3 and 24 conflicted with each other and on number 7, he concurred with Councillor Heesom that stage one did appear to close down when Members were trying to be helpful and find further efficiencies in an aim to close the budget gap.  He also commented on, and welcomed, numbers 18, 19 and 22.  On the proposed wording for the Constitution, he suggested that the words “or query proposals” be added after “additional information” in the first paragraph.  Whilst he would have liked to see the gap analysis referred to in the report, he welcomed that it had been forwarded to the Finance team.  On income and expenditure, he suggested a breakdown for each portfolio.  He felt that stage one on the flow chart would benefit from some narrative and a Gantt chart with timescales and dependencies.  The Chief Executive explained that numbers 3 and 24 were not the same; number 3 was information required by Members and advice on specifics before carrying out their own analysis.  Number 24 was about before a decision was being reached but the wording could be amended to be clearer.  These two inclusions needed to be clarified in the written form.  He reiterated that each stage did not result in closing down further options.  On breakdowns for each portfolio, he explained that this work was carried out as a strategic risk exercise.

Councillor Wisinger commented on the budget consultation events that had taken place over previous years which helped to convey the message to the public on the financial situation that the Council faced.  The Chief Executive explained that press and social media work contributed to those events and referred again to the early consultation that had commenced the previous week with the meeting with head teachers and Chairs of Governors.

Councillor Shotton concurred with the earlier remark from Councillor Carver on the importance of funding being made available to Council’s at the earliest opportunity.  The Chief Executive said better forecasting at WG would help the Council to forecast and suggested that a future report could be submitted to Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the number of late underspend allocations by WG that had occurred in 2017/18. 

Councillor Carver suggested that the meeting of Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee that was held in December, to which all Members were invited to, could be webcast which was supported.  Councillors Johnson and Perfect spoke about the popularity of Facebook live which could be explored as an additional tool to show meetings live via social media.

Councillor Heesom suggested that a further report be brought back to the next meeting of Constitution and Democratic Services Committee on requirement 19 “we need to establish whether the use of call-in should be limited to non-Budget items, especially where a consultation item has already been to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee” which was supported.  Councillor Peers suggested a pre call-in meeting could be added into the flow chart which would establish why the call-in had been requested and enable officers to consider whether all of the required information had been provided previously.  If it had been then a call-in would not be required.  He also suggested that the call-in deadline could be extended to enable the pre call-in meeting to be built into the timetable.  The Chief Executive reiterated that if something was not concluded at stage one, it could be set back into stage two of the process for further work and review rather than hold a call-in meeting.

It was also agreed that following the comments made at the meeting a revised version of the report would be made available at the County Council meeting the following week.

Councillor Banks commented on the public consultation events which he felt were not cost effective; he suggested that a “question time” event could be arranged.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That subject to a further report on call-ins, the staged budget process as outlined in the flow chart be approved for budget consultation purposes;

(b)       That a report be submitted to the next meeting of Constitution and Democratic Services Committee on the call-in process;

(c)        That the December meeting of the Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to which all Members are invited, be webcast;

(d)       That the words in requirement 24 be amended to read “Members must recognise the need to await professional officer advice/guidance before moving to a decision”;

(e)       That section 16 of the Constitution be amended to the suggested wording in the report, including the additional words “or query proposals” in the first paragraph after the words “additional information”; and

(f)        That the report be submitted to the County Council meeting on 1^st May 2018 for budget consultation purposes.