Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTES Minutes: Councillor Alan Ferguson (Substituting for Councillor Melanie Barrett) Councillor Simon Barrett (Substituting for Councillor Fenella Swan) |
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Minutes: None declared. |
|
Call In of the Babergh Cabinet Decision from the meeting held on 13 October 2017.
Decisions made by the Cabinet on 13 October 2017 in respect of the following report was called in for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rules as detailed on pages 141 and 142 of the Constitution.
BCa/17/22 - FUTURE OPTIONS FOR ‘WORKING TOGETHER’ BETWEEN BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCILS
The reasons for Call In are:
1. The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected. Clearly, however, there are many other options which should be considered before any decision to proceed with merger is made, even provisionally. For example, Suffolk County Council have not been consulted over a unitary option, even though we now share their building. 2. The decision does not appear to be listed as a Key Decision yet there could not be anything more key than an existential threat to Babergh planned by its own cabinet, not only with no mandate to do so but with a mandate from the 2011 local referendum not to do so. 3. This appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release. 4. We are concerned about the likely bias of any consultation. Without a published business case, it is difficult to see what can and will be consulted on, other than an argument constructed to meet the wishes of the Administration. 5. We believe there should be an opportunity to scrutinise the even-handedness of the consultation/surveys. Should feedback be positive from such a consultation, the Administration may seek to remove the need to challenge the business case developed thereafter, or to hold a poll. A business case published in advance of consultation would certainly ensure it builds the argument to proceed. 6. The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation. It reads more like a sketch of what the Administration wants us to hear. 7. Paragraphs 4.2 through 4.6 of the Chief Executive’s report appear to be written about an entirely hypothetical divorce in which the weakness of Babergh’s General Fund is emphasised. Yet it is quite clear that decisions already taken, for example over the Boundary Review, would make it probable that a merged council would increase Babergh’s Council Tax more than halfway towards Mid Suffolk’s and spend some of Babergh’s much healthier Housing Revenue Account on housing in Mid Suffolk. 8. Paragraph 4.3 suggests such a divorce would be ‘reputationally damaging’, implying that Babergh District Council would get the blame for it in the public mind, yet there could not be anything more reputationally damaging for Babergh District Council than to go ahead with merger in defiance of the will of its own electorate clearly expressed in the 2011 referendum. 9. Paragraphs 10.1 through 10.7 of the Chief Executive’s report and his Appendix 1 make the truly bizarre claim that the ... view the full agenda text for item 47. Additional documents:
Minutes: 47.1 The Chairman read out the Decision notice of Report BCA/17/22 from the meeting held on 13October 2017 and the valid point from the Call In notice as follows:-
1. The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected. 2. The decision does not appear to be listed as a key decision. 3. There appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release. 6. The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation.
47.2 On the PROPOSAL of Councillor Simon Barrett and SECONDED by Councillor Alan Ferguson the scope of the Call-In was AGREED as the four points above.
47.3 When PUT to the meeting the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.
It was RESOLVED:-
(i) That the Scope of the Call – in be based on the following points :-
1. The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected. 2. The decision does not appear to be listed as a key decision. 3. There appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release. 4. The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation.
47.4 Councillor Tony Bavington, the lead signatory of the Call In, read out the following statement:
47.5 In your report to Council on 24th October, Mr Chairman, you said that you aim to undertake pre-scrutiny in order to improve the quality of the scrutiny process and to provide the opportunity to introduce a topic where there is a concern, in a timely fashion. I have attended three of five cabinet meetings so far and looked up the forthcoming decisions list for all of them, including the one online last Wednesday – that is a period from July 2017- February 2018 – and not one of them list formally dissolving the two District Council’s and creating a new larger District Council as a decision, let alone a Key Decision. Several of them do, however, list the future use of the public toilets in Cordell Road, Long Melford, as a Key Decision. As you know, Scrutiny Committee agendas now routinely feature the Cabinet’s Forthcoming Decisions list followed by a Scrutiny Committee Forward Plan. How can you formulate your forward plan or undertake pre-scrutiny of a decision which not only is not flagged as to its existential significance but not even listed as going to be taken?
Yet no one could credibly argue that the dissolution of Babergh itself is not a Key Decision in the meaning of its new Constitution. This is a decision that, under the Constitution, Part 1, para 12.7.1b, would have a significant effect on the communities living or working in an area made up of two or more wards. If this decision were pushed through to the merger of the two districts, then almost certainly Babergh District Council Tax would rise ... view the full minutes text for item 47. |