Agenda and minutes

Councillor Richard Allan Jones declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) by virtue that he was a member of the St Leger Board.

Councillor Jane Kidd declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Revenue Budget report by virtue that she worked for a Voluntary Sector Organisation (SYCIL).

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee held on 16th September and 10th December, 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

[A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Committee’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Committee’s work programme.]

Mr Ivan Stark made a statement raising his concern with regard to safeguarding and the effect the budget cuts have had in relation to Housing. The Chair, Councillor John Mounsey stated that Mr Stark was referring to the Council’s key outcomes highlighted at page 136-137 of the Housing Revenue Account report and pointed out that this was a key Mayoral priority albeit the pressures that had been placed on the budgets. He stated that the 1% reduction would have an effect on this but there was a need to recognise those pressures. Mr Stark was thanked for his statement.

The Committee considered a report which would assist members in agreeing its response to the Mayor’s draft budget proposals for 2016/17 and to enable the Mayor to take account of these when presenting the proposals to Council on 1st March, 2016. It was noted that in agreeing its response, Members would consider the views and comments expressed at the budget session held on 27th January, 2016. Members had received a copy of the Budget reports which were due to be considered by Cabinet on the 16th February, 2016.

It was reported that prior to receiving the Mayor’s budget proposals, the Committee had agreed that its focus would be reviewing the evidence base for the proposals and their alignment with Borough priorities. It was noted that this would assist in helping to focus on the outcomes and impact that the budget sought to achieve, how services would be delivered in the future and whether the Council was achieving value for money.

The three key areas for consideration were:-

1.         Do the proposals conflict with the Borough Strategy priorities in any           way?

2.         Is money being put into the areas that were originally proposed?; and

3.         What consultation had been undertaken and were the proposals    deliverable?

Since the report had been published, it was reported that there had been some changes following the Ministers Speech which were as follows:-

·         The final settlement had been issued although there was no change to the figures for the Revenue there were some changes happening nationally i.e. rural transition grant. It was highlighted that the Council did not have any investment in this scheme; and

·         The Public Health Grant would be reduced by £243,000. It was noted that this would be reflected in the final report for Council.

The Chair stated that each report would be taken in turn and Members would be afforded the opportunity to make comments and ask questions.

Members raised a number of questions and sought assurance and clarity on the following:-

Revenue Budget

·         Future year proposals now the Council were in the 3rd year of the 3 year Strategy. It was advised officers would be working with the Executive and had set a meeting for the 21 March to start looking at proposals for the future years.

·         Funding for DIAL and staff redundancies - It was pointed out that DIAL was not a grant but was a commissioned service. Members were advised that they had received a 6 month extension and were currently still out to tender on the current service. With regard to redundancies letter, this would be investigated and reported back.

·         The Governments  offer of a 4 year funding settlement - It was reported that this decision would fall within the Executive/Section 151 officer responsibility. It was advised that the Council would not be worse off if they were to take the offer. It was noted that the details would be checked before reporting back to Members.

·         Adult Social Care overspend and the proposed 2% levy for the service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee received a report requesting that Members consider revisions to the Call-In process and the Overview and Scrutiny Protocol to ensure that it remained robust and fit for purpose.

Members were advised that to promote good governance was essential that checks and balances exist within the decision making process to enable decision makers to be publicly held to account. It was also advised that the Constitution also encourages regular review of processes and procedures such as Call In to ensure they remain appropriate.

The proposed changes within the report take into account comments and views expressed over the last municipal year to strengthen current arrangement and ensure there was clarity and understanding of what was required from all parties involved in the process. The report also took into account of the number of Members able to trigger Call In following a reduction of elected Members from 63 to 55. The most significant changes were identified within the body of the report and summarised within the table attached at Appendix A. It was also noted that the proposed changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Protocol were also attached at Appendix B of the report.

It was noted that the changes regarding the change in the trigger for Call-In would need to be approved by Full Council.

Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions/raise comments.

The Committee welcomed the report and agreed that the trigger for Call-In needed to be revised. It was suggested that a simple flow-chart following the process for be produced for members guidance.

            RESOLVED that:-

(1)        the Committee recommend to Council the proposed amendment     to Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9(d):-

At any time the call-in period any 4 Members of the Council (provided that not all the Members are from the same Political Group), or any 5 Members of the Council from the same Political Group, may trigger a call in by satisfactorily completing and signing a form approved by the Council for this purpose and delivered to the Monitoring Officer within the required timescales. The Monitoring Officer would rile on the validity of the Call In; and

(2)        the proposed revisions to the Call In protocol and process     detailed at Appendix B to the report be agreed.