Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Finance and Assets, which provides an update on the process to deliver the revenue budget for 2015/16. (copy enclosed).

A report, and confidential Appendix, by the Head of Finance and Assets (HFA), which provided an update on the process to deliver the revenue budget for 2015/16, had been circulated previously.

The HFA introduced the report which provided an update on the process to deliver the revenue budget for 2015/16, which had moved into its second phase since the last update.  Appendix 1 provided the illustration of the budget process, and a table of key events in the process had been included in the report

The first round of budget workshops had concluded on the 22^nd September.  The workshops had been well attended with wide ranging debate and numerous questions being asked.  Members had been requested to express views as to whether saving proposals should be ‘adopted’, developed’, or ‘deferred’.  In addition, Members had been taken through each service’s budget and invited to comment on each one.  Proposals which Members indicated they would be content to adopt were taken to County Council for approval on 9^th September.  The proposals taken to Council as Phase 1 savings totalled £3.7m for 15/16 and £870k for 16/17.

The Council’s budget strategy had identified a budget gap of up to £18m over two years.  This was primarily driven by indications that the Council’s funding settlement would be cut by 4.5%.  The Draft Local Government Settlement had been published on the 8^th October, and the settlement had indicated that the cash reduction to the budget would be 3.7% which equated to £5.3m.  With cost pressures the Council had to fund the budget gap for 2015/16 was now approximately £8.2m and estimated to be approximately £8.8m in 2016/17.  The CA highlighted potential pressures which could arise as a result of adjustments, both in and out, which related to specific grant funding, particular reference was made to the impact surrounding the Regional Collaboration Fund for Social Care programme.  At the request of the Chair, the CA agreed to provide details of the implications on the budget in respect of the grant funding pressures.

The second phase of the budget process had almost been completed.  Members had identified proposals totalling £3.2m for 2015/16 and £1.8m for 2016/17 which would seek approval in December.  If all the proposals taken to the final October workshop were recommended for approval then the totals would be £4.0m for 2015/16 and £2.1m for 2016/17 from Phase 2.

Phase 2 proposals would be presented to Cabinet and then to Council for approval in December.  Phase 3 would consider final proposals to balance the 2015/16 budget, including options for Council Tax and any use of reserves.  These issues would be discussed at the Member Workshop in December before final approval in February.  Phase 3 of the process would also continue to develop savings options for 2016/17.  Details of the consultation process adopted in respect of the budget cuts had been summarised in the report.

The Chair referred to the remit of the Committee to examine the budget setting process which he felt had been open and transparent; however he had been made aware of issues raised with regards to the Welfare Advice Services Review.  He highlighted the implications for services users and the wider community, the risks identified in the July budget workshop regarding redundancies, and the Corporate Priority to improve the local economy.

Reference had been made to the review undertaken by various Groups, including third sector organisations.  The Chair questioned the reason for only one of the models considered under the review having been presented to Members for deliberation.  The CA outlined the process utilised and adopted for the consideration of options, and agreed to provide Members of the Committee with a copy of the Welfare Advice Services Review report.  Members agreed that a review of the process utilised regarding the Welfare Advice Services Review be undertaken by the Committee, together with, the proposals pertaining to Rights of Way which had been highlighted by Councillor G.M. Kensler. 

Mr P. Whitham felt that as the remit of the Committee included reviewing risks, and there would be an inherent risk emanating from the budget setting process, the opportunity could be taken to ensure that the process was robust and the information provided to Members to make decisions was appropriate. 

The CA provided details of the risks arising from the implementation of decisions taken with regard to the budget setting process and cuts for 2015-16 and 2016-17.  He confirmed that a mechanism was in place to revisit identified cuts, which included monthly reports to Cabinet, and this provided the opportunity to identify any non-achievement.

In reply to a request from Councillor G.M. Kensler, the CA agreed that a list of services scrutinised by the budget workshops, including dates, could be provided.  He also explained that charges for green waste collection could be included in within the council tax bills of residents wishing to utilise the service.

The HLHDS outlined the purpose of the Freedoms & Flexibilities process, to challenge services regarding the way in which they delivered services, and to then present options to Members to assist with the budget decision making process.  Members had also been provided with full information on service budgets in order that they could seek additional information or suggest alternative measures.  He referred to the Budget Protocol which had been agreed by Council on the 4^th November, 2014 which provided Members with the opportunity to examine alternative suggestions.

The Chair explained that he and Members of the Committee had concerns regarding some of the elements of the budget process in terms of the provision of information on various models of provision coming from freedoms and flexibilities.  Members of the Committee agreed with the following suggestion submitted by the HLHDS that:-

In order to test and seek assurance on the transparency of the budget process the Committee seek further information on alternative options considered during the view of Welfare Rights, as a representative example.  Members also agreed that the Rights of Way proposal be included. 

At the request of the Chair, the CA agreed that information in respect of grants be provided.

RESOLVED – that Corporate Governance Committee:-

(a)            receives and notes the contents of the report.

(b)            seeks further information on alternative options considered during the view of Welfare Rights and Rights of way, as representative examples.

(c)            requests that the CA provides details of the implications on the budget    in respect of the grant funding pressures, and

(d)            agrees that a list of services scrutinised by the budget workshops, including dates, could be provided. 

     (RW to Action)