Agenda item

The Council had before it a report by the Executive Director - Corporate Services on the application of the Budget Protocol which included public engagement on officer budget saving options within the 2024/25 budget and which identified any lessons learned or proposed revisions for applying the protocol to the 2025/26 budget. The report also responded to instructions from the Council budget meeting in respect of engagement and consultation.

The report recommended:-

that the Council -

(a)          note the feedback collated from officers and elected members on the Budget Protocol in its first year of operation, summarised at Appendix A;

(b)          instruct officers to develop budget options and Integrated Impact Assessments during Quarter 1 as the basis for 1) elected member engagement; 2) Phase 1 engagement with the public both online and face to face; and 3) a second phase of engagement during quarter 3 after the Medium Term Financial Plan was reported to Council; and

(c)          note that the Protocol formed part of the Scheme of Governance and as such would be reviewed by the cross-party Governance Reference Group in April and May and submitted to Council in July for approval of any proposed revisions, including giving effect to the improvements outlined in (b) above.

Councillor McLellan moved, seconded by Councillor Yuill:-

            That the Council approve the recommendations.

Councillor Kusznir moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Cross:-

            That the Council -

(1)      notes the feedback collated from officers and Elected Members on the Budget Protocol in its first year of operation;

(2)       considers that the Budget Protocol was only implemented because of the SNP - Liberal Democrat Administration’s disastrous 2022/23 Budget, which defunded Big Noise Torry, closed 6 libraries, precipitated the closure of Bucksburn Swimming Pool and subsequent and multiple Judicial Reviews; and

(3)       agrees therefore to cease further work on the public engagement, beyond what’s necessary for officers to ensure due regard in relation to protected characteristics element of the Budget Protocol because of:

·           cost: both in terms of (a) financial and (b) officer time;

·           uptake: responses to Budget Consultation Phase 2 represent just over 1% of Aberdeen’s population. Multiple responses from the same IP address were allowed;

·           balanced budget: this was not a requirement of public consultation yet is a legal obligation of Elected Members. A consultation cannot be credible if it does not replicate the Budget framework in which decisions will be made; and

·           tax: the consultation process focused predominantly on raising taxes and fees/charges as a means of meeting the Budget deficit. The public were  provided with a limited number of other options.

Councillor Malik moved as a second amendment, seconded by Councillor Watson:-       

            That Council -

Note the feedback collated from officers and some elected members on the Budget Protocol in its first year of operation.

Note 3.13 of the report Stage 6 - Public Engagement Phase 2 notes “What worked well” versus “what could have been better” noting every other stage was presented as “what worked well” versus “what worked less well” indicates an acknowledgement Public Engagement Phase 2 did not bring about the benefits desired by the Council.

Agree the Chief Officer - Finance must provide Group Leaders with a summary of the financial position the Council is to receive from the Scottish Government following the provisional Scottish Government budget each December within 21 days of receiving the provisional settlement.

Agree that a suspension of Standing Orders was required to allow budgets to be presented which proves that the budget protocol insisting on the three-day provision for providing a budget was and remains unworkable and is contrary to good governance given if members had not agreed to a suspension of Standing Orders not all budgets could have been debated on the day defeating the purpose of the Standing Order. Noting if presented budgets to officers three days in advance were considered those budgets would not have captured the political modifications required to present a true budget of political choice.

Agree to remove this provision from our Standing Orders and to revert to the previous position in terms of Standing Order 29.2:- 

Any motion or amendment in respect of the budget should be submitted to the Chief Officer - Finance, by 10am on the third last Working Day before the meeting takes place to enable the Chief Officer - Finance to consider any financial implications. For example, if the budget meeting is on Tuesday then any amendment should be submitted to the Chief Officer - Finance, by 10am the Thursday before. Such motion or amendment should detail the cost of the proposal(s) being advanced or the savings proposed to be achieved and the consequential impact of that cost or those savings on the annual budget and any associated commissioning intentions and service standards.

There being a motion and two amendments, the Council first divided between the amendment by Councillor Kusznir and the amendment by Councillor Malik.

On a division, there voted:-

For the amendment by Councillor Kusznir  (7)  -  Councillors Boulton, Brooks, Cross, Farquhar, Kusznir, McLeod and Massey.

For the amendment by Councillor Malik  (12)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Crockett, Graham, Grant, Lawrence, Macdonald, Malik, Thomson, Tissera and Watson.

Declined to vote  (22)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Allard, Alphonse, Bouse, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Nicoll, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

The Council then divided between the motion and the amendment by Councillor Malik.

On a division, there voted:-

For the motion  (22)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Allard, Alphonse, Bouse, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Nicoll, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

For the amendment by Councillor Malik  (12)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Crockett, Graham, Grant, Lawrence, Macdonald, Malik, Thomson, Tissera and Watson.

Declined to vote  (7)  -  Councillors Boulton, Brooks, Cross, Farquhar, Kusznir, McLeod and Massey.

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion.