Council and democracy

Agenda item

Review of Budget Setting Procedure at Full Council on 22 February 2017

Minutes:

Councillor Hebb introduced the report that reviewed the budget setting procedure that had been adopted at February Council and considered the options for reviewing the process going forward.

 

A Peer Review had been commissioned to look into the way that budgets were set within Thurrock. The Peer Review had been designed to show how the Council operated last year and feedback would be received. The Review may also identify processes that were already seen as best practice.

 

Councillor J Kent accepted the legal opinion of the Monitoring Officer but that the majority of Members had voted against the budget envelopes for a number of different reasons. Councillor Kent stated his reason for voting against this was that insufficient monies had been allocated to adult social care. Councillor Kent stated that it was regrettable that Cabinet had gone along with the letter of the law rather than with the spirit of what the Council wanted to do and if Cabinet continued along that route it would not be long before the majority of Members would decide on a committee system.

 

Councillor Duffin stated that the report had missed the points raised by Members during the debate in February and that the reports were not worth the paper they had been printed on and until these issues had been fixed the politics of Thurrock would not function properly.

 

Councillor S Little stated that the number of Agency Workers had been reduced since the Conservatives had come into Administration which had also been acknowledged in the Eastern Region and the service had in turn had become cost effective with a better outcome for youngsters.

 

Councillor Halden stated that in this financial year £4.5million extra would be spent on adult social care. It had become clear that it had not mattered how much money went into a system, how much tax was paid or how much cash was thrown at a problem the need was to ensure that the right people were using the right services available at the right times. The Administration had invested more money into adult social services to address those problems.

 

Councillor Spillman stated that there was a lot of “will” within the Chambers to go forward together and that the committee system should be looked into to ensure that residents’ voices were heard.

 

Councillor B Rice stated that the report was a budget item and should not be used for political gains at the expense of local residents who required social care. Councillor S Little confirmed that she was referring to Children Social Care Agency Workers where the number had been halved since she had become Portfolio Holder.

 

Councillor B Little stated that the Peer Review was to look at how processes were managed and how to avoid recommendations not being approved. Councillor B Little suggested that if Members wished to make proposals on how the Administration worked as a Council they should be part of the process and attend joint meetings such as the spending reviews.

 

Councillor Okunade stated that Councillor S Little should not claim credit for everything but to come to Council and assure Members that she was running a safe service.

 

Councillor Huelin stated that services had been improved and had kept the budget balanced. The Administration was focused on what residents wanted and spending the budget wisely.

 

Councillor MacPherson welcomed the report but stated that there was no place in the future for committee systems.

 

Councillors Snell and Coxshall both agreed that the Peer Review should be undertaken.

 

The Mayor invited the Chamber to vote on the recommendation.

 

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted in favour of the recommendation, whereupon the Mayor declared this to be carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Council note the advice of the Monitoring Officer set out in Section 2 of the report.

Supporting documents: