Councillor Gledhill briefly introduced the reasons for the call-in and outlined the alternative course of action and recommendation he wished to propose. Key points to note were:

·         He felt that recommendation 1.3 in the original July 2014 Cabinet report was poorly worded and gave the impression of some form of predetermination.

·         He called for the results of the consultations to be referred to full Council for consideration and agreement / refusal.

·         It was felt that this was important to allow all Members to scrutinise and comment on the budget proposals.

·         That full Council should have the opportunity to scrutinise and recalled that in the 2013/14 budget the £2.4 million overspend was underwritten by reserves.

·         That Cabinet had agreed in July 2014 that over £400,000 of savings could be considered by Overview and Scrutiny and referred back to Cabinet for a decision, and this did not allow all Members to take part in the debate.

In response the Leader of the Council made the following comments:

·         That the Constitution stated that it was within the remit of Council to set the budget framework (the budget envelope) and that it was in the scope of Cabinet to make decisions as to how the budgets were allocated and used within the year.

·         That given the fact that Cabinet were able to make these decisions, the greater debate surrounded whether it was fair.

·         That Members were involved in the budget setting process and had the opportunity to comment as the results of the consultation were being scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny before being referred to Cabinet.

·         That it was prudent for Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet to be involved in the budget setting process as the Council could not afford to wait before taking action if the required budget savings were to be achieved before the next financial year.

The Principal Solicitor explained to the Committee that there were a number of clauses within the Council Constitution which set out the framework for decision making, specifically Chapter 3, Part 3. The Committee were advised of the distinction between Council and Cabinet functions, and that it was within Cabinet / the Leader’s authority to make in-year budget savings and efficiencies in so far as it was in line with the budget framework decisions made by Council.

Councillor Gledhill felt that this was not a constitutional matter, but was an issue of fairness. He emphasised that Members could see the number of savings proposed, however they could not evaluate the rationale for the savings proposals as this level of detail was not provided.

In response the Leader made the following key points:

·         That a contingency budget was set by full Council and all Members had the opportunity to comment.

·         That the Cabinet system had appropriate checks and balances in place. Although decisions were made by Cabinet, all Members had the opportunity to contribute to the savings proposals through Overview and Scrutiny Committees. 

·         That it was critical that savings could be made in good time in order to balance the budget for 2014/15, otherwise it would have a detrimental impact on the 2015/16 budget.

Councillor Hebb echoed the sentiments made by Councillor Gledhill and felt that savings proposals related to major service redesign should be referred to Council for full debate by all 49 Elected Members.

Councillor Johnson reiterated the comments regarding fairness of decision making and called for the council to take a zero based budgeting approach when setting the budget.

Councillor Gerrish felt that the current decision making process was robust and did not exclude Members. He emphasised that all Members had the opportunity to participate through Overview and Scrutiny and attending and asking questions at Cabinet.

Councillor Ray expressed a view that he preferred the Committee system rather than the Cabinet system but asked Councillor Kent how tight the timescales were in order to achieve the required savings.

In response Councillor Kent explained that it was crucial that savings were delivered in the current financial year, which is why a budget focussed Cabinet meeting was required in August. He outlined that some savings would result in redundancies and this process would take at least three months.

A vote was undertaken in respect of the call-in recommendations, whereupon, two Members voted in favour of referring the recommendation to Cabinet for reconsideration, and four Members voted to reject the call-in. The Chair declared that the call-in was lost.

RESOLVED:

That the Call-In be rejected, for the reasons as outlined above.