Agenda item

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1

The deadline for the submission of public questions is ordinarily 4 clear working days before the meeting and the deadline for the submission of statements is ordinarily midday the working day before the meeting. However, due to the late publication of the report relating to item 5, the deadline for the submission of questions and statements has been extended to 9am Tuesday 27 September 2022.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.

Public Questions

Questions from Mr Sofianos

1. Yesterday’s much-delayed Finance Report admits (para 34) that the revised plan “will have a direct impact on the level of services delivered by the council”.

Can you confirm which services would be impacted?

And, in particular, how will this reversal affect the delivery and staffing of Children’s and Social Care services?

Answer.

The statement quoted of “will have a direct impact on the level of services delivered by the council” relates to the MTFP and budget of the Council which adjusts service levels annually in line with any budget proposals. The details of any adjustment are normally set out as part of the annual February budget report with any proposals which need consultation being worked through in advance, to ensure we get the full year effect of the savings. As we have proven by record investment across children’s and adult services over the last 2 years, supporting the most vulnerable in our community is at the heart of this administrations agenda and we will continue to prioritise that.

2. The Finance Report also proposes a schedule of asset disposals (para 8), to fund the transformation Programme. This is hoped to raise somewhere between £26m to £46m.

Which council assets are you planning to sell to raise this funding?

And which sales do you expect to prioritise?

Answer.

The 7 September Finance Update report to Cabinet agreed the following recommendation, Cabinet agrees to bring forward a capital receipts schedule for additional, non-strategic, asset sales that could be used as an alternative method of financing the Council’s Transformation Investment Programme via the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts (FUCR). This workstream is ongoing and the schedule will be brought forward in due course.

Questions from Mr McKinstry

1. Tonight's report should have been released to the public by 11.59 p.m. on Friday 16 September, under the provisions set out in Section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972. That deadline was missed, as was the deadline for two reports for last Tuesday's O & S meeting; as was the deadline for the SPV report for the 20 July meeting; as was the deadline for the finance report for the 2 September meeting. These were all statutory deadlines. How can the Government trust you to abide by a financial strategy when you are repeatedly breaking the law?

Answer.

The Local Government Act does require that the agenda and reports for meetings should be available for inspection at least 5 clear days before the date of the meeting, but nothing in this legislation “requires copies of any agenda, item or report to be open to inspection by the public until copies are available to members of the council”. Provided that the agenda and a description of the business to be heard at the meeting are published timeously, the late publication of reports does not invalidate the meeting or make it unlawful. Late publication of reports in support of agenda items should be avoided however but with the pace of work ongoing in this report and number of workstreams ongoing, in particular modelling around the governments announcements during last week it was sensible to prepare the report with as many of those changes as possible.

2. As the deadline for releasing tonight's report drew near - or even perhaps at an earlier stage in the proceedings - did you consider asking DLUHC to defer the date when the report had to be submitted to them? (That date of course was 30 September.) If so, when did you approach DLUHC about this, and what was their response?

Answer.

To confirm the Chief Finance Officer of the Council met with representatives of DLUHC on the 22 September 2022. At this meeting it was agreed that this report would demonstrate the significant progress the council had made in balancing its 23/24 budget and the fully balanced position would be presented to Cabinet on the 26 October 2022.

3. Did you seek or receive any advice from a legal officer on the ramifications of breaching the 1972 Act? If so, can you release that advice in full? If you'd rather I went down the Freedom of Information route, could you confirm when precisely you received the advice and from whom, as this will help narrow down the FOI request.

Answer:

The decision to publish the financial update report on Monday was taken collectively by Cabinet and CMB at its meeting on 22 September.

Public Statements

Statement 1 from Mr Gattrell regarding agenda item 5

‘FINANCIAL STRATEGY UPDATE CABINET REPORT’

Observations arising from Accessible data in current absence of report on website & Inadequate FOIA response received 23.9.22 - being 31 days late & 1 working day prior to ICO’s otherwise Section 54 caution of potential contempt of court

FOIA request: Inflation factors in financial forecasts –

-       Response states “There is not a central collation of the rates applied due to the intricacies that exist.”.

-       In the context of high cost-push inflation no information given for enquiry as to “latest” CPI or other rates such as RPI used in forecasts e.g. the MTFPs.

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methods during high inflation –

-       Equally concerning the response states - unlike large entities & central Government - DCF techniques not used to evaluate financial viability of intended major schemes extending over future years ie whether on net present values, DCF yield or other appropriate basis.

Statement 2 from Mr Gattrell regarding agenda item 5

‘FINANCIAL STRATEGY UPDATE CABINET REPORT’

Observations concerning the essential Treasury Management of Cashflow with particular regard to Subsection 114(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the availability of liquid resources for expenditure during the Council’s severe financial constraints

Absence of Consolidated Cashflow Forecasts

-       Cashflow forecasts are essential to any organisation when assessing estimated future available liquid resources and the timing of achieving objectives and necessary discharging of liabilities whether revenue or capital.

-       Financial data - such as MTFPs & Budget Monitoring Reports - are required on the appropriate accruals accounting basis for income & expenditure in arriving at, for example, annual deficits ie they are not representative of cashflow requirements.

-       An FOIA response earlier this year states projected cashflow statements are “Not prepared”. Although it is noted segmentally detailed but apparently unconsolidated “Treasury Management Monitoring Reports” are periodically presented to Council meetings.

Statement 1 from Mr McKinstry regarding agenda item 5

I'm astounded this administration can allow a vital report to breach a statutory deadline by ten days. The breach lays this report wide open to legal challenge; an instructive case is Joicey, R (application of) v Northumberland County Council (2014), where Justice Cranston said "information must be published by a local authority in good time for members of the public to ... digest it and make intelligent representations". The same surely applies to committee members, who've had just 30 hours to study a make-or-break report for Cabinet tomorrow. It smacks of scrutiny being downgraded, which brings me to my second statement.

Statement 2 from Mr McKinstry regarding agenda item 5

We know from Appendix A to tonight's report that this Council must undergo an external assurance review of its governance arrangements. I welcome this passionately, and hope the assessors have access to the recent draft AGS consultation, including my e-mail to Head of Audit dated 23 August, which spells out - in my view - everything that has gone wrong with BCP's governance lately: OSB abolished, fewer scrutiny meetings, whips ubiquitous, the ruling party holding the casting votes. An external review would therefore be most timely and I sincerely hope it would guide BCP's governance back towards a stabler footing.