To receive a verbal update from the Executive Director of Resources on the progress of setting the budget for 2024/25.

Elizabeth Griffiths said that the financial position of the council was well documented and all political groups had been briefed on the situation. The Spending Control Board had considered decisions which were a choice on a weekly basis to ensure that spending was being done appropriately. The finance team had sat down with each service area to check and challenge figures and assumptions to understand where a difference could be made. The relevant Cabinet Member, along with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance had also attended budget challenge sessions.

Councillor Price felt that there were lessons to learn from last year’s process. Corporate had considered the whole budget but had referred relevant parts to People and Place but this had been disjointed. When Councillor Price first became a Councillor, there was an appendix which was a risk analysis and there were figures against each risk. This had not been produced in recent years but Councillor Price suggested that this would be a useful addition. Councillor Price believed that last year officers in adult social care made assumptions on figures that were very accurate but Cabinet had decided to lower these figures. If this were to happen this year, Councillor Price asked that this was made clear to improve transparency. Councillor Price continued that she had questions on the robustness of assumptions but some answers were not convincing last year and did not provide assurance. She said that any questions and answers were published on the website.

Elizabeth Griffiths said that the assessment of risk was important and the council was focused on the mitigation of that risk and ensuring that the budget which was being proposed was achievable.

Stephen Evans believed it was right for all three Overview and Scrutiny Panels to be involved in budget scrutiny but that work was not being duplicated as a result.

Mark Beeley outlined the budget scrutiny process. The full budget would be considered by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 19^th December. Before this, two offline meetings would be held with the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel and the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel to decide on a list of questions, comments and potential recommendations. This would be published in the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel agenda and the Chairs of both Panels would be invited to present at the meeting.

Councillor Price asked if this process could be shared with all Councillors.

ACTION – Article on the budget scrutiny process to be shared as part of the Councillor newsletter.

Councillor Buckley raised concern that the budget process was focused on cost savings and not on income increases. He suggested an income panel could be set up to investigate opportunities to increase income generation.

Elizabeth Griffiths reassured Councillor Buckley that officers were looking at transformation and income generation as part of the process.

Councillor Howard said that the process sounded positive and that it seemed the culture of the organisation was that things could be done. He raised the point of communication and that any changes should be communicated to Parish Councils as soon as possible.

Stephen Evans said that Parish Councils would be engaged with, a meeting had been organised with the Parish Councils, the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council for December. He added that it was a disgrace that the government did not confirm the local government settlement until just before Christmas. This meant that Cabinet had to set a draft budget before this settlement was received.

Councillor J Tisi agreed with the point made by Councillor Price, that all of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels had a role to play in the budget scrutiny process. He asked how the Panel could help assist officers with the budget setting process.

Elizabeth Griffiths hoped that the Panel would be able to consider the budget papers with an open mind.

Councillor Wilson welcomed the process of setting the budget and the role that scrutiny would play. He asked if financial clarity could be given on the decisions that would be made so that resident expectations could be managed.

Councillor Hunt left the meeting.

Councillor Reeves noted that the process was becoming more robust. Clear communication with the public was important to ensure that they were aware of the situation and why certain financial decisions had been taken. The budget papers also needed to consider the narrative around the quality of the service rather than just the financial information.

Councillor Sharpe said that the budget process had been effective in previous years.

Councillor Price responded that the budget was a highly complex issue and hoped that things could be learnt from last year’s process.