Agenda item

Budget 2018-2019 - Outcome of Consultation

[To receive a report on the outcome of the Budget Consultation].

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Resources introduced a report on the Budget Consultation.  A total of 669 people had taken part in the budget consultation survey.  All of the budget reductions for the forthcoming budget were as a result of financial transaction changes, income generation or efficiency savings, which had not resulted in any proposed changes to overall service delivery.  The Cabinet Member for Resources explained he believed this was one of the main reasons there was less interest in the budget consultation compared to last year, where waste and recycling changes featured more prominently.  A number of valuable meetings had been held, including four different community meetings spread across Wolverhampton.  A meeting had taken place with the Equality and Diversity forum, the in-house trade unions and the business community.  The meeting with the business community had been particularly well attended. There had also been a meeting with the Youth Council, which had been a very valuable and worthwhile discussion as part of the consultation process.  They had tried to keep the costs of the consultation down to a minimum and engage as many people as possible, which included the utilisation of social media. 

 

The Director of Finance referred to a document which had been tabled by the Head of Corporate Communications which outlined the approach taken to the budget consultation.  Many of the mechanisms utilised, allowed the budget consultation to reach a wider audience and at little to no cost, such as the social media platforms – Facebook and Twitter.  The Council’s Facebook account had nearly 59,000 subscribers.  Cllr Brookfield stated she was pleased to see the Equality and Diversity forum had been included.  She stated she wanted to receive the attendance list from the meeting and who had been invited to attend.  

 

A Panel Member asked why in paragraph 3.7 of the report it referred to 569 respondents, when earlier in the report it had said there had been 669.  The Cabinet Member for Resources confirmed this was an error and the figure in paragraph 3.7 should have read 669.  He asked what the Director of Finance views were on encouraging more people to take part in the consultation.  In response, the Director of Finance stated each year they were trying to do different things to promote the consultation.  They tried to spread the consultation events across the City and held the meetings in the evenings to allow people who worked during the day to attend.  She did recognise that the weather during the Autumn could be inclement and it was also dark when the meetings were taking place.  The Cabinet Member for Resources stated they had listened to feedback from the previous year and had staggered the events across different days rather than on the same weekday.  This was because some people worked a specific evening on the same day each week.  Since the venue had been changed at Bilston, due to previous feedback, the attendance figures had disappointingly reduced.   The Chair stated promoting youth engagement to a greater level, in the budget consultation, was something which could be encouraged in the future. 

 

A Panel Member asked at what point did the numbers attending public consultation events become so low that the Council ceased to hold them and did the Council try to learn from what other authorities were doing regarding budget consultation.  In response the Cabinet Member for Resources stated the Council always tried to learn from other local authorities and information was shared between authorities.  The budget consultation was however specific to the local area and was related to how the proposals would impact on a particular community.  Public meetings were only one of the mechanisms for the consultation.  The Chair referred to the legislation on budget consultation which in summary showed a requirement for the Council to be seen to be conducting a fair and equitable process.

 

A Panel Member stated it would have been helpful if the report had contained information on how the budget consultation response figures compared to neighbouring authorities, such as Sandwell or Dudley or even nationally.  He added that benchmarking of data at a sub-regional, regional and national level would be helpful to the scrutiny process, as such data would help determine how much resource was put into the budget consultation process by other authorities.  He asked for a future report to contain contextualised information on a sub-regional, regional and national level.  The Panel Member stated that the breakdown of the people who had responded to the budget consultation survey by age, gender, ethnicity, religion and disability, whilst interesting information, would have been more useful if it had been shown comparatively to Wolverhampton’s overall population.  It would have enabled them to have seen contextually if it was a good representation of the overall population in Wolverhampton. 

 

A Panel Member stated consultation response rates were directly correlated to how controversial the issues were being consulted on.  Communication of change was very important for the Council.  He cited adult community care as an example.  He added the Council needed to utilise learning from other areas to develop understanding as to how best to communicate change.  This would help to make changes in services as smooth a process as possible. 

 

The Chair asked if there had been any changes to the forthcoming budget as a consequence of the budget consultation process.  The Cabinet Member for Resources confirmed there had been no changes because of the budget consultation process.  The information obtained had however gone into the general forecasting for the future.  A lot more consultation was needed for adult care in the future and some of this needed to take place with individuals and families. 

 

A Panel Member stated that alongside the budget consultation process it needed to be explained how budgets were set.  Many members of the general public were unaware of precepts for the Police, Fire Authority, and potentially the West Midlands Combined Authority.  They saw the Council Tax as just being solely for the Council.  There were other areas which required education such as business rates and how Local Government was funded. 

 

A Panel Member stated there were many community groups and special interest groups which the Council could talk to about the budget setting process.  This could work better than inviting people to general budget consultation events. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Resources stated it had been a meaningful consultation, although there had not been many suggested specific changes to the forthcoming budget, from those that had responded. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: