Agenda item

To consider the following notice of motion submitted by the Labour Group.

 

“That the decision made by full Council on 9^th September 2014 under agenda item 12 – Budget 2015/15 2016/17 – in particular the savings proposals relating to Welfare Rights in Appendix 1 be set aside.”

 

As Vice-Chair Councillor Gwyneth Kensler took the Chair for this item as Councillor Blakely had been a signatory on the Notice of Motion.

 

Councillor Colin Hughes having declared a prejudicial interest left the meeting at this juncture.

 

Councillor Jason Mclellan moved the Notice of Motion submitted by the Labour Group :-

 

“That the decision made by full Council on 9^th September 2014 under agenda item 12 – Budget 2015/15 2016/17 – in particular the savings proposals relating to Welfare Rights in Appendix 1 be set aside.”

 

Councillor McLellan confirmed that the motion was concerned with the setting aside proposals so far as they apply to the Welfare Rights Team (WRT) only.

 

Councillor McLellan informed Council that:

 

·        the WRT provided a vital service to residents of Denbighshire whom had for various reasons fallen on hard times. The WRT generated over £5 million of additional income to its clients and subsequently the local economy in the previous year. Furthermore hundreds of families have been brought out of poverty – particularly fuel poverty (defined as more than 10% of household income spent on energy costs) – as a result of advice received from the WRT.

·        A recent report produced by The Citizens advice Bureau (CAB), who work in partnership with the WRT, identified Denbighshire as the biggest debt hotspot in the UK. The CAB currently undertake all the debt advice. The expectation is that the CAB will take on all welfare advice if Denbighshire cease to provide the service by the WRT, leading to an increased risk of pressure on the CAB.

·        With reference to the information provided to Members in budget workshop meetings over the summer regarding the potential £200k savings in Welfare Rights. The option debated at the meeting was the potential outsourcing of the service. It later transpired that there were alternative options that could provide savings that were not presented at the meeting.

·        Consideration should be given to the risks that the cessation of the WRT service could incur, including the potential reduction in funding from Welsh Government’s Outcome Agreement - which is partially calculated on lifting people out of poverty. It was proposed that Council reconsider the Welfare Rights Team’s potential efficiency savings taking into account all the options available with a  view to agreeing and less risky delivery model.

Council Leader, Hugh Evans asked how the motion could be considered by Council given that it did not appear to follow the accepted protocol, whereby alternative funding methods should be proposed where decisions could not be agreed.

 

The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services (HL&DS) advised that the Council’s Constitution provides, under section 13.1 of the Standing Orders, that a motion can be moved to amend or rescind a previous decision if it is signed by at least 10 members. Furthermore the HL&DS clarified that the protocol for proposing amendments to budget recommendations should include alternative funding options (to increase its chance of favourable consideration by Council) but not having alternatives would not prevent Members proposing amendments.

 

Councillor McLellan conceded that although the protocol had been agreed by Council he had not voted for it and had raised concerns with the process at Corporate Governance.

 

There followed a discussion regarding the origins of the financial difficulties facing Local Authorities, cuts from their allocated funding and the requirements to become more efficient in their spending and service provision.

 

The protocol for budget proposal decision making was debated at length. Several members felt that plenty of opportunity was given to discuss the proposals, request more information or challenge decisions if they weren’t happy with the proposals put in front of them. Those Members agreed that as difficult as these decisions were they had to be made. It was felt that particularly where an alternative provider was available risk attributed to the proposed cut could be minimised.

 

Returning to the Motion Councillor McLellan - having sought advice from the HL&DS - proposed an amendment:

 

“That the decision made by full Council on 9^th September 2014 under agenda item 12 – Budget – insofar as it relates to savings proposals to Welfare Rights in appendix 1 be set aside. In respect of all other savings proposals set out in that appendix the decision taken on 9^th September 2014 is confirmed by Council.”

 

A recorded vote was requested and supported by the requisite 1/6^th of members present.

 

In favour of the motion  were Councillors:

 

Armstrong, I.W.; Blakely, B.; Chamberlain-Jones, J; Guy, C.L.; Jones, P.M.; Lloyd-Williams, G.; McLellan, J.M.; Mellor, B.; Mullen-James, W.M.; Murray, R.M.; Penlington, P.; Sandilands, G; Simmons, D; Tasker, W.N. and Williams, C.H.

 

 

 

Against the motion were Councillors:

 

Bartley, J.R.; Cowie, W.L.; Davies, J.M.; Davies, M.Ll; Davies, S.A.; Duffy, P.C.; Evans, H.H.; Evans, P.A.; Feeley, R.L.; Holland, M.L.; Hilditch-Roberts, H.; Hughes, T.R.; Irving, H.C.; Jones, E.A.; Jones, H.L; .Kensler, G.M; Owen, P.W.; Owens, D.; Parry, T.M.; Roberts, A.; Smith, B.A.; Smith, D.I.; Thompson-Hill, J.; Welch, J.S.; Williams, C.L.; Williams, E.W. and Williams, H.O.

 

RESOLVED that the motion as amended not be supported.