tCI commentary:
Budget consultations. Since the case against Bristol last year, we have written numerous articles on the Courts thinking concerning the budget consultation processes. In the article below, a council scrutiny committee argued that proposals did not have enough detail to give an informed response, with the chief legal and monitoring officer opposing the claim confirming they wouldn’t have worked up proposals at this stage of the process.
As the Surrey case explored, there is a fine line between ensuring that you have provided enough detail for consultees, but that there isn’t so much detail that a budget cut will inevitably lead to a reduction in service. Where councils must tread carefully is if proposals have moved beyond simply the shape of the proposal to the substance, and in particular, paying special attention to establish if making savings in an area requires separate statutory requirements for consultation.
Article:
A decision to consult the public over a further £16m in savings has been branded “confusing” and “disgraceful” at a meeting.
Norfolk County Council’s scrutiny committee ‘called-in’ the Conservative-controlled cabinet’s decision to put plans for 2020/21 budget proposals to the public, saying there was not enough detail to merit an informed response.
The plans, which will mean a further £15.8m in savings have to be found, on top of just over £31m already agreed, will see an almost 4pc council tax rise, £7.2m in savings at adult social services and £3.8m saved from children’s services. They will be put to the public for a response until the end of the year before the council outlines specific budget proposals in January.
But at a scrutiny committee meeting on Tuesday, October 22, councillors disagreed over the wording of the cabinet’s decision.
The opposition argued the public should be given more detail in order to respond to the plans, while a council legal officer said the proposals were simply budget outlines, and specific savings or service changes would undergo a separate consultation process.
Scrutiny committee chairman and leader of the Labour group Steve Morphew said: “The call-in is because I certainly believe, there is not enough information in there for a proper consultation to take place with the public and for councillors to understand what’s being proposed.”
And Tim Adams, Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “These are serious issues which people’s lives will be affected by. To consider that the public should not be consulted is embarrassing and disrespectful.” He claimed the council were avoiding “delving into the detail”, which he called “disgraceful”. Labour councillor Emma Corlett claimed the public would find the decision “confusing”.
But Andrew Jamieson, cabinet member for finance, told the committee: “Consultation is not required when a council is considering a budget.” He added that the council had gone beyond the legal requirement for consultation, and said: “We would always like to have a fair, open and transparent decision on these matters and that is what I think this process is.”
Helen Edwards, chief legal and monitoring officer, added: “It’s never the case that at this stage we would have worked up proposals.”
The committee voted against returning the decision to the cabinet.
Article originally appeared on Eastern Daily Press
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate, we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
