Agenda item

Gloucestershire Health O&S Committee 14^th October summary included – 18^th November to follow – update from Councillor Bamford

Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee 28^th November – update from Councillor Orme – to follow.

Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel 25^th November– update from Councillor Atherstone – to follow.

The report from the Member on the Police and Crime Panel was noted for information.

Councillor Bamford attended the meeting and presented the report regarding HOSC as published. He then took the opportunity to respond to Member questions.

The Chair concluded the item by advising Members that any further questions for HOSC should be directed to Democratic Services, who would arrange for them to be facilitated.

Councillor Bamford was then asked to address the committee in his capacity as Chair of Budget Scrutiny Working Group, which had considered the budget proposals as part of the consultation.  He highlighted that this represented only initial feedback as key savings are fundamental to the budget. It had not been possible for the Working Group to review these fully as only a draft had been provided. This meant it had not been possible for members to fully scrutinise the budget proposals.

Councillor Bamford also emphasised that the timing of the government settlement makes it very difficult for full scrutiny activities to take place and for the Budget Scrutiny Working Group to fulfil their duty. He added however, that the timeframe of the final budget report is being reviewed to see if it is possible for the Working Group to meet again prior to the Council meeting on 27 February. If that is not possible Members will be able to share their feedback directly to that Council meeting.

He reported however, that there had been a very productive and positive discussion with the Chief Executive and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Assets which highlighted areas of concern to ensure decisions will be considered with these in mind. The importance of assessing deliverability of plans was also stressed.

The group was confident that leadership are committed to delivering the corporate priorities for residents and continuing to deliver excellent services as we move into Local Government Review. General balances, savings, borrowing and capital receipts will all need to fall in line to deliver these corporate priorities.

BSWG did have areas of concern around the detail and assessment of deliverability of the savings targets and how savings gaps will be filled. The assessment of the commerciality of assets will be key. Clarity around savings was also highlighted in the recent peer review.

The group noted that over the last two years there have been targets to increase the levels of general balances which have not been achieved.They emphasised the importance of having clear plans to ensure general balances reach the levels set out in the statement of the Section 151 Officer.

During the meeting, the following questions were asked of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Assets who was in attendance.

·         Appendix 2 of the Budget Proposal shows an increase of nearly 80% in the budget for the Chief Executive Directorate. Clarification was sought as to the factors driving this significant interest, whether this was primarily attributable to staffing costs or whether it related to other specific areas of expenditure.

·         Several apparent omissions were noted within Appendix 7 specifically relating to Street Trading Consent Fees and Charges 2026/27, specifically from reference 16.28 onwards there was no proposed charge listed for seasonal Ice Cream Vehicles and for hot food units, only the full?year charge is shown; half?year, quarterly, and monthly rates are not included. It was asked as to whether these omissions are intentional and if not, whether the shorter-term charging options had been inadvertently excluded. If so, concern was expressed that the absence of these options may discourage participation in street trading.

The Cabinet Member Finance was not in a position to respond in detail to the questions and undertook to provide an answer in due course.

In response to Member questions the following replies were provided :

·         The government has provided a very late settlement to local authorities

·         The authority must determine how to address the budget gap, as central government is not adequately funding the services that residents expect.

·         Questions about the extent to which Members are expected to respond to the budget consultation fall within the remit of the finance team rather than BSWG.

·         Responses to the budget consultation have historically come mainly from other political parties; when members of the public do respond, their feedback tends to be more directly aligned with their concerns.