Agenda item

The report before members included the budget recommendations, Medium Term Financial Strategy, budget consultation report, scrutiny budget report, Council Strategy and due regard statement.

 

The Chief Executive explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting. First, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Leader of the Council, and Cllr Lynden Stowe, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, would be asked to present the recommendations from the Cabinet.

 

Second, in order to reach a position where a substantive motion could be debated, the other political groups would be invited to propose amendments to the budget but there would be no debate at that stage. This would be a departure from the normal procedure where only one amendment could be moved and discussed at any one time.

 

Once the amendments had been presented, the Chairman would call for an adjournment to provide an opportunity for the Group Leaders to reach a common position.

 

After the adjournment, the Leader of the Council would advise members of those areas where it had been possible to reach agreement. Any amendments which had not been accepted or withdrawn would then be presented by the groups, debated and voted upon.

 

Thereafter all members would have an opportunity to debate the budget in line with the normal rules of debate. At the end of the debate, the Leader of the Council would have the right of reply.

 

Finally, a recorded vote would be proposed by the Chairman, and seconded by the Vice Chairman, at each stage of the debate.

 

The Chairman therefore proposed that under procedure rune 23.1 the following part of procedure rule 12.5 be suspended for the duration of the budget debate:

 

‘Only one amendment may be moved and discussed at any one time. No further amendment may be moved until the amendment under discussion has been dealt with.’

 

The Vice-chairman seconded the motion and, on being put to the vote, the motion was supported.

 

Conservative Group

 

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, the Leader of the Council, and Cllr Lynden Stowe, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, presented the recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 27 January 2021.

 

The Leader of the Council informed the meeting that in addition to the proposals agreed on 27 January 2021 the Conservative Group were also submitting three amendments: -

 

		Proposal	Repeating or one-off?	2021/22 Cost £000s	Funded from
1	Highways	Highways Local - £10k per Councillor	one off	£530	Rates Retention Reserve / additional Council Tax(CT) / National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR)
2	Economy	£60k to support Nuclear South West Fusion bid at Berkeley/Oldbury	one off	£60	Rates Retention Reserve / additional CT / NNDR
3	Economy	£100k to develop Apprenticeship clearing house with GFirstLEP	one off	£100	Rates Retention Reserve / additional CT / NNDR

 

 

The Leader of the Council discussed the impact of Covid-19, and stated that the time to remember those lost to Covid-19 was not yet, but that they would be remembered. What was needed now was to focus on the recovery. He paid tribute to all those who had contributed to the work to protect people and communities during the pandemic, and highlighted the robust partnership working between the council’s social care teams and the NHS. He thanked all members of council staff, in particular the Public Health Team and Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service, for stepping up to every challenge presented to them. He went on to pay tribute to teachers and the wider school staff; and stated that we owed them all a huge debt of gratitude.

 

The Leader outlined the investment already made since the start of the pandemic. This included the provision of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), 1500 laptops to vulnerable children and young people, and support to local communities to the tune of £2.5m.

 

He stated the importance of everyone following the (lockdown) rules. Many people have lost their jobs, businesses were struggling with many ceasing to trade, and children and young people have had their education interrupted. He informed the meeting that it would be important for the council to lead the fight to build back better. He stated that the budget and amendments proposed today supported the front line and would help get Gloucestershire back open for business.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Change seconded the budget proposal and amendments. He drew members’ attention to the due regard statements; it was important to be aware of any impact on equalities. The Cabinet Member stated that he thought that this was a good settlement but acknowledged that he would have preferred a three year settlement as this would have enabled more certainty. With regard to council reserves, he informed the meeting that costs relating to the impact of the pandemic had so far been met by government and had not affected the council budget. The Chief Finance Officer has confirmed that the current reserve position was adequate.

 

The proposals would deliver an increase in revenue spending of just under £15m; this included significant increases in social care. The capital budget proposals included investment in improved ICT provision, and support to the climate change agenda. The proposed increase in council tax was 4.75% (1.99% on general tax, 2.76% specifically for social care).  This would deliver the third lowest council tax of any local authority in the country.

 

Liberal Democrat Group

 

Cllr Paul Hodgkinson and Cllr Nigel Robbins proposed the amendments from the Liberal Democrat Group: -

 

		Proposal	Repeating or one-off?	2021/22 Cost £000s	Funded from
1	Highways	20 mph speed zones	One-off	£100	Savings Contingency Fund (Technical & Countywide (T&C))
2	Community	Barriers to mobility report actions reserve	One-off	£67	Savings Contingency Fund (T&C)
3	Highways	School Street pilot extension for remaining districts	One-off	£100	Savings Contingency Fund (T&C)
4	Parking	Cancelling planned increase to parking permits, with enforcement funding maintained.	One-off	£33	Savings Contingency Fund (T&C)
5	Education	Children at risk of Exclusion pilot fund	One-off	£100	Uplift to external placements budget (Childrens)
6	Education	Preparation for school / early years fund (building on previous DfE funding)	One-off	£100	Uplift to external placements budget (Childrens)
7	Community	Covid Community Recovery - £10k per councillor pa for 3 years	3 years	£530	Rates Retention Reserve
8	Highways	Highways Local - additional £20k per councillor	One-off	£1,060	£127k revenue from drainage schemes carried to 2022/23 £933k capital from - £112.46k from Capital and Minor Work, £207.2k from reactive works, £27.95k from Unclassified Roads Structural maintenance 21/22, £159.01k from Class C structural maintenance 21/22, £95.64k from B roads structural maintenance and £330.74k from A roads structural maintenance 21/22

 

 

Cllr Hodgkinson stated that these amendments were about keeping people safe and that communities knew what was best for their areas. The Highways Local scheme had been transformative, hence the proposal for the additional investment in this area. He stated that it was not appropriate for the Conservative group to slash this amount. He informed the meeting that all the proposed amendments had been costed and were watertight. The Liberal Democrat Group could not support the overall budget because of the lack of ambition, particularly around the climate change emergency. He stated that Gloucestershire deserved better.

 

Cllr Robbins stated that delaying the increase in parking permits as proposed in the amendments was eminently sensible. He reminded the meeting that Gloucestershire has a high rate of school exclusions; schools did their best but often failed. The proposal was to employ youth workers to work with these children and young people. He explained that the school readiness proposal related to early years provision.

 

Labour Group

 

Cllr Lesley Williams and Cllr Kate Haigh proposed the amendments from the Labour Group: -

 

	Sector	Proposal	Repeating or one-off?	2021/22 Cost £000s	Funded from
1	Public Health	£50k for Food Projects - a fund to support initiatives for supplying food. -	one off	£50	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift
2	Youth Services	£1k per councillor to support youth work / support	one off	£53	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift
3	Environment	£1k per Councillor to support climate change initiatives	one off	£53	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift
4	Children & Families	£50k Fund for essential ICT equipment for secondary school students	permanent	£50	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift
5	Community	£150k Fund to support voluntary groups to cover core running costs	permanent	£150	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift
6	Public Health	£50k to fund research into the impacts of long COVID	one off	£50	Funded from £1.253m CT and NNDR uplift

 

Cllr L Williams thanked officers for their dedication to the response to the Covid-19 pandemic. She also thanked the residents of Gloucestershire for following the guidance. She informed the committee that the Labour Group thought that this was a disappointing budget. She was concerned about young people; isolation was affecting them. The pandemic had also highlighted the inequalities in society. She questioned where the investment in supporting young people and communities was in the proposed budget. Local councillors knew their communities and should be provided with the financial support to help their local areas.

 

Cllr Haigh stated that now more than ever our communities needed our support. She stated that services were not always commissioned well and that this had been discussed during the scrutiny of the budget process. There was unmet need because of years of cuts. She stated that the proposed budget seemed to be a penny pinching approach.

 

Green Group

 

The Chairman of council clarified that the members of the Green Group had given their apologies to this meeting, and had not submitted any amendments for consideration.

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting from 11.53 to 12.15 for Group Leaders to discuss amendments and identify areas of agreement.

 

Debate on decisions on the budget amendments

 

Following the adjournment, Cllr Hawthorne set out the position of the Conservative Group in relation to the budget amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrat and Labour Groups.

 

The following amendments were accepted:

 

 

Party	Item	One-off	Amount	Funded by
Lib Dem	20 mph speed zones	One-off	100,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Lib Dem	Barriers to mobility report actions reserve	One-off	67,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Lib Dem	School Street pilot extension for remaining districts	One-off	100,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Lib Dem	Cancelling planned increase to parking permits, with enforcement funding maintained.	One-off	33,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Lib Dem	Children at risk of Exclusion pilot fund	One-off	100,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Lib Dem	Preparation for school / early years fund (building on previous DfE funding)	One-off	100,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Labour / Lib Dem	Covid Community Recovery - £5k per councillor	One off	265,000	Covid Funding
Labour	Food projects	One off	50,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Conservative	Highways Local	One-off	530,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Conservative	Apprenticeships	One off	100,000	CT/NNDR Growth
Conservative	Nuclear South West	One-off	60,000	CT/NNDR Growth

 

The following amendments were not accepted:

 

Party	Item	One-off	Amount	Comment
Lib Dem	Covid Community Recovery - £10k per councillor pa for 3 years	3 years	530,000	Amended
Lib Dem	Highways Local - additional £20k per councillor	One-off	1,060,000	Amended
Labour	Laptops	One off	50,000	Refused
Labour	Covid Community Grants	One-off	150,000	Amended
Labour	Youth Grants	One-off	53,000	Amended
Labour	Climate change grants	One-off	53,000	Refused
Labour	Long Covid study	One-off	50,000	Refused

 

 

Debate then followed on the amendments that had not been accepted.

 

Liberal Democrat Group amendments

 

Some members expressed disappointment that the Highways Local proposal had not been fully supported; it was suggested that many divisions would miss out on highway schemes this year. Some members were also concerned that without these proposed amendments communities would lose out, and some local initiatives might have to close their doors.

 

It was stated that it could not be argued that lack of money was the reason why these amendments had not been accepted; in the case of the Covid-19 proposal it was questioned why this could not be afforded even for one year.

 

In response to concerns/questions raised the Leader of the Council informed the meeting that he would be happy to explain the budget proposals on the doorstep to any concerned residents. The proposed budget did not take away any funding from existing budget areas. He stated that this was a budget that allowed councillors to support their local areas.

 

Some members expressed concern that these amendments diverted funding away from flooding support funding streams, in particular the drainage budget. This did not take into account the impact of the recent weather. Other members commented that the proposed amendment was not proposing to withdraw funding from the drainage budget.

 

Some members stated that the substantive proposals were taking more money from communities when the community could probably do a better job of identifying where to spend funding. It was also stated that although roads were important communities were more so.

 

There was a clear difference of opinion across the meeting with regard to whether the proposed amendments withdrew funding from the drainage budget, or not; and whether the partial support to the highways local scheme would be sufficient to support the community.

 

On being put to a recorded vote those Liberal Democrat Group’s amendments which had not been accepted by the Conservative Administration were not supported.

 

For (20): Cllrs David Brown, Chris Coleman, Dr John Cordwell, Iain Dobie, Ben Evans, Bernie Fisher, Kate Haigh, Joe Harris, Colin Hay, Jeremy Hilton, Paul Hodgkinson, Graham Morgan, Brian Oosthuysen, Nigel Robbins, Brian Robinson, Steve Robinson, Klara Sudbury, Simon Wheeler, Lesley Williams and Suzanne Williams

 

Against (29): Cllrs Carole Allaway-Martin, Phil Awford, Matt Babbage, Rob Bird, Richard Boyles, Kevin Cromwell, Stephen Davies, Andrew Gravells, Terry Hale, Tim Harman, Mark Hawthorne, Stephen Hirst, Andrew Miller, Patrick Molyneux, Nigel Moor, Dave Norman, Shaun Parsons, Sajid Patel, Loraine Patrick, John Payne, Alan Preest, Vernon Smith, Lynden Stowe, Ray Theodoulou, Brian Tipper, Pam Tracey, Robert Vines, Kathy Williams and Will Windsor-Clive

 

Labour Group amendments

 

Some members expressed disappointment that not all the amendments, other than food banks, had been supported. The amendments had been about supporting local communities, looking to the future, and building back fairer. Some members questioned why money was being taken away from communities. It was argued that small amounts of money could return huge results; why take power away from the community.

 

With regard to laptops the Leader of the Council stated that this was also about 4G dongles. Additional funding was already available for this equipment, although there was currently a national shortage of these items. These issues were already being progressed.

 

As to Long Covid-19 the Leader of the Council informed the meeting that the Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group would be opening its Long Covid-19 clinic shortly. He also stated that an additional £2.5m had been invested in communities during the previous year.

 

Some members reiterated their disappointment that not all of these amendments had been supported.

 

On being put to a recorded vote those Labour Group’s amendments which had not been accepted by the Conservative Administration were not supported.

 

For (20): Cllrs David Brown, Chris Coleman, Dr John Cordwell, Iain Dobie, Ben Evans, Bernie Fisher, Kate Haigh, Joe Harris, Colin Hay, Jeremy Hilton, Paul Hodgkinson, Graham Morgan, Brian Oosthuysen, Nigel Robbins, Brian Robinson, Steve Robinson, Klara Sudbury, Simon Wheeler, Lesley Williams and Suzanne Williams

 

Against (29): Cllrs Carole Allaway-Martin, Phil Awford, Matt Babbage, Rob Bird, Richard Boyles, Kevin Cromwell, Stephen Davies, Andrew Gravells, Terry Hale, Tim Harman, Mark Hawthorne, Stephen Hirst, Andrew Miller, Patrick Molyneux, Nigel Moor, Dave Norman, Shaun Parsons, Sajid Patel, Loraine Patrick, John Payne, Alan Preest, Vernon Smith, Lynden Stowe, Ray Theodoulou, Brian Tipper, Pam Tracey, Robert Vines, Kathy Williams and Will Windsor-Clive

 

Adjournment for lunch 13.30 to 14.00

 

General debate on the budget

 

Members acknowledged the work of officers in preparing the budget and they thanked them for their efforts.

 

The main points raised in the budget debate were: -

 

Ø   That it did not sufficiently reflect and address climate change,

Ø   That the impact of the increase in home working was not recognised; the implications of this were profound,

Ø   That it did not sufficiently enable councillors to support their local community,

Ø   That the impact on residents should be recognised,

Ø   That work to support climate change was funded within this budget,

Ø   That there was concern that the budget for children and families would again prove to be insufficient,

Ø   That it was disappointing that the government was not doing more with regard to funding the recovery from Covid-19,

Ø   That the budget did invest in both adults and children (£6m and £5m respectively),

Ø   That the overall capital budget had been increased to £100m.

 

On being put to a recorded vote the substantive motion was carried:-

 

For (29): Cllrs Carole Allaway-Martin, Phil Awford, Matt Babbage, Rob Bird, Richard Boyles, Kevin Cromwell, Stephen Davies, Andrew Gravells, Terry Hale, Tim Harman, Mark Hawthorne, Stephen Hirst, Andrew Miller, Patrick Molyneux, Nigel Moor, Dave Norman, Shaun Parsons, Sajid Patel, Loraine Patrick, John Payne, Alan Preest, Vernon Smith, Lynden Stowe, Ray Theodoulou, Brian Tipper, Pam Tracey, Robert Vines, Kathy Williams and Will Windsor-Clive

 

Against (5): Cllrs Kate Haigh, Brian Oosthuysen, Brian Robinson, Klara Sudbury and Lesley Williams

 

Abstentions (14): Cllrs David Brown, Chris Coleman, Dr John Cordwell, Iain Dobie, Ben Evans, Bernie Fisher, Joe Harris, Colin Hay, Jeremy Hilton, Paul Hodgkinson, Graham Morgan, Nigel Robbins, Steve Robinson and Suzanne Williams

 

RESOLVED

 

 

1.         That, the Council Strategy for 2021/22 is approved.

 

2.         That, having considered the additional consultation responses and the Public Sector Equality Duty Due Regard Statement , approval is given to the MTFS and the revenue and capital budgets for 2021/22, council tax for each valuation band, and to issue precepts on each district collection fund as set out below:

           

            a)         Gloucestershire County Council 2021/22 Budget:

 

           

 

Total to be precepted:

 

 

b)     That approval is given to the Capital programme set out in Annex 8a of the detailed MTFS, and delegated authority is given to the Section 151 Officer to vary allocations between individual schemes in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Change.

 

3.         That the following amendments to the draft budget be approved:

Party	Item	One-off	Amount
Lib Dem	20 mph speed zones	One-off	100,000
Lib Dem	Barriers to mobility report actions reserve	One-off	67,000
Lib Dem	School Street pilot extension for remaining districts	One-off	100,000
Lib Dem	Cancelling planned increase to parking permits, with enforcement funding maintained.	One-off	33,000
Lib Dem	Children at risk of Exclusion pilot fund	One-off	100,000
Lib Dem	Preparation for school / early years fund (building on previous DfE funding)	One-off	100,000
Labour / Lib Dem	Covid Community Recovery - £5k per councillor	One off	265,000
Labour	Food projects	One off	50,000
Conservative	Highways Local	One-off	530,000
Conservative	Apprenticeships	One off	100,000
Conservative	Nuclear South West	One-off	60,000
			1,505,000

 

4.         That the Council approves the Capital Strategy, set out in Annex 7 of the detailed MTFS, the Treasury Management Strategy and the non treasury Investment Strategy for 2021/22, set out in Annex 10 of the detailed MTFS.

 

5.         That approval is given to the Operational Boundary and Authorised Limits of borrowing, as set out in the Capital Strategy, at Annex 7 in the detailed MTFS as follows:

 

 

 

 

a)        Noting that the authorised limit for 2021/22 will be the statutory limit determined under section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003

 

b)         That the approval is given to the Prudential Indicators for Treasury Management set out in Annex 10 of the detailed MTFS for :

 

(i)            the maturity structure of borrowings, and

(ii)          the upper limit for principal sums invested for more than 364 days of £200 million.

 

6.         That the Council approves the Schools Funding set out in section G and Annex 9 in the detailed MTFS.