Agenda item

Councillor Cowling, Leader of the Council, presented the following statement:

 

EU Referendum - The decision by our country to leave the EU is one of the biggest changes that most of us will have seen in our lifetime and will have far reaching consequences.  I believe it is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the history of our country and will provide opportunities which we, as a council, must be ready to take advantage of.  We will need to continue to work with our officers to evaluate the impact on our council.

 

Tonight on our agenda we have items that are very relevant for the future wellbeing of our district.  They now have to be viewed alongside the decision to leave the EU.  For the time being I believe they remain relevant and in the best interests of our community.

 

Our corporate business plan - Delivering the Council's priorities - ensures that we focus on those core priorities - the things that matter to Ryedale and its residents.

 

Our Budget Strategy and Efficiency Statement sets out our plan to deliver the savings required to live within our budget - working towards 2020.

 

Our Policy & Resources Committee is recommending the use of reserves to fund the transformation programme that we have in place.  Sometimes it is necessary to spend to save, and this is one of those occasions.  We have been really clear that any underspend has to be returned to the NHB reserve.

 

Following tomorrow's LEP Board meeting there is a meeting of LGNY&Y Leaders and CEXS  when we shall be discussing - again - Combined Authorities, Devolution and single tier authorities - all viewed now in the light of our exit from Europe and what that will mean.  We will be working through some very uncertain times in the coming months and possibly years, so we will need to remain really clear about what our residents and businesses need.  Our Chief Executive has coined a phrase "Delivering what matters for Ryedale" and in these difficult financial times it is never more relevant.

 

From Councillor Thornton

 

Could the Leader of Council please inform Council how much was in the 2016/17 and the 2015/16 budgets for T2020 and transformation projects?

 

The Leader replied

 

I will get you a written answer to that.

 

Councillor Thornton then asked the following supplementary question

 

As this process was started in November 2015 and planned earlier and much completed by the budget meeting in March 2016, could you also include in your response, why was there nothing in the 2015/16 budget and why not in the 2016/17 budget and is this not a departure from the 2015/16 and 2016/17 budgets?

 

The Leader replied

 

I'll get you a full written response to that.

 

From Councillor Potter

 

I managed to highlight a couple of points out of that one  - specifically delivering the Council's priorities, the things that matter to Ryedale and its residents, sometimes it's necessary to spend to save and delivering what matters for Ryedale. Would the Leader therefore agree the importance of sound financial management, strict value for money and scrupulously accurate budgets and future spending plans in every aspect of Council business.

 

The Leader replied

 

I couldn't possibly argue with that.

 

From Councillor P Andrews

 

In regard to core priorities can the Leader confirm that it's not going to be confined to our strict statutory duties but is going to go further than that?

 

The Leader replied

 

I don't quite understand what you're asking.

 

Councillor P Andrews clarified

 

There are certain functions which the Council has to carry out which are mandatory functions and there are certain functions which are discretionary functions. Can you confirm please that when you're talking about core priorities that you are not restricting the Council's business to mandatory, statutory functions?

 

The Leader replied

 

Absolutely. I think one thing this Council has been really clear about and many Councillors who I speak to are really clear that some of the non-statutory are really important and if you look what we've spent money over the years such as flood defences which things we didn't have to do. We didn't have to do Brambling Fields. They are the things that matter to the people of Ryedale and I think that councillors have been really clear that they wish to continue to deliver all those services - all the services that we do, not just the statutory ones and this is why this transformation programme is as it is. This is in order to try to continue to deliver all those services.

 

From Councillor Wainwright

 

In the second paragraph of your statement you talk about the future well being of our district and the best interests of our community. At the Ryedale Area Committee meeting last Wednesday the A64 improvements were on the agenda. I understand from that meeting that the improvements that were scheduled for Barton Hill will not now take place. Could you explain why that might happen  and what will happen in the future?

 

The Leader replied

 

It is simply a financial thing and there's no doubt that at that meeting it was cross party, we were all really, really cross. I think Lindsay, John and Val that you would all agree that everybody explained just how unhappy we were about that. It's simply that it's been bumped out of the budget. All the work's done, the scheme is still there but whether or not it will be financed in the future we don't know. What I can tell you is that Caroline has written to our MP and he's doing all that he can to get it back into the work programme. I can't say how cross we all were about it.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

Going back to paragraph four and the T2020. I understand that iEse, that we have a partnership with them. Is this a local authority company? How much was the entry fee and what were our reasons for joining?

 

The Leader replied

 

iEse are a public interest company and I will get the answer to your questions written down and it will be sent to all Councillors. It was a very small joining fee as I recall.

 

Councillor Clark then asked the following supplementary question

 

It doesn't appear, it seems to be so small that iEse appear to have missed Ryedale Council off their list of partners or maybe they've just failed on their website but my concern is more than that. My concern is that this is a local authority company that we have joined as you Leader has just said, so if we've joined this Techal company and it's therefore subject to the Teckal rules, my understanding is from the Standing Orders, under responsibility for Council functions - and I'll read out to you 1.0 F, "Only the Council will exercise the following functions  - All policy matters, new proposals relating to significant partnerships with external agencies and local authority companies". So on that basis we've done that. Could you tell me when that decisions to go down the iEse route was made by Full Council? If not I believe you've broken the Council's Constitution. And that really does require an answer now Chair.

 

The Leader requested the Chief Executive to answer

 

Thank you Cllr Clark, I think you've asked lots of these questions before and I think they come up in your motion later this evening. I think the entrance fee was £5. The decision to work with iEse is for tonight at Council now because I have worked under delegations in the amount of resource that I have applied within my delegations and we're asking members if they would like to continue the relationship. The relationship is not breaking Standing Orders in my view because I have a job to do, I've done it within the delegated scheme, the amount of money I have spent is within those delegations  and we need to be able to manage the business of the Council. If Members do not wish to enter into this arrangement, then that is for tonight. The decision with iEse has been to a previous Resources Working Party, it has been to Policy and Resources Committee. We have appended the Mandate for Change and the Blueprint for change to Councillors, we've linked that to our strategy on our assets, Scrutiny are looking at the assets so in my view that is where we are and it's for Members this evening, if they wish to continue that relationship. It's no surprise to Members that it's my recommendation because we need help to move on, to save the money that we need to and that is the help that I believe we need.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

If the Leader prefers I will refer my next question to the CX because it follows on from that statement which she has just made. It doesn't say all significant decisions to work with local government companies, it says all. But let's just accept that because we have to have flexibility. So far and the CX's authority without going to Committee is £50k - I don't know the figure for June but the figure up until the end of  May of £60,307 and there is commitment to considerably more. How does that fit in with the Financial Standing Orders, financial regulations and responsibility for Council functions? 

 

The Leader replied

 

I think I object to this because it's supposed to be questions to me not to the CX and if there are questions that I can't answer then you'll get a written answer. Now ask me something I can answer.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

I will ask you something you can answer. If the Council Standing Orders ad Financial Regulations are being broken is it not your duty to know at least the simple one that the limit of the CX's expenditure is £50k? Is it not your duty to know that if we're going into a partnership costing hundreds of thousands that it is to go to Full Council under the Tekal agreement not something that you will duck by saying that you will give a written answer later? Is that a question you can answer?

 

[Amended at the meeting on 1 September 2016.]

 

The Leader replied

 

I do know that the limit is £50k and it is at Full Council tonight.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

Why has £60,307 been spent and breaking that without an apology, a comment or anything else?

 

The Chairman intervened

 

Councillor Clark you have been told that people will provide answers to these questions that you're raising. We cannot keep going on at this time.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

This is the whole crux of tonight's meeting that we are going to be spending £1.2M on redundancies. we're asking for a further £400k. It wasn't to our belief, in the budget last March, it wasn't in the previous budget and on that questions - if we say that we can't answer those questions now, we shouldn't be going down the route that we're going down tonight because the reasons for those questions is because tonight is dependent on the answers to those questions.

 

The Leader replied

 

Chairman this is for debate later on 

 

From Councillor J Andrews

 

If RDC and iEse have an internal agreement, which I think we do, why are we paying them 50p per mile in travel expenses, which is above what we pay staff?

 

The Leader replied

 

I'll get you a written answer. It would have been nice - my statement's been out for a week, I could have got you that answer, you could have had it tonight had you let me know what you're question was. You've obviously done your homework very well but do me the courtesy of giving me some notice. That is a very detailed question to be asking me.

 

The Chairman

 

The CX wishes to say something.

 

The Chief Executive

 

I do appreciate that this your territory Members but this is my profession and I'm being challenged a lot, which is obviously your role. We pay an amount of money as per the agreement and it's in the agreement I sent you, that you have and that's what I sent you. So obviously this is a political game that we're playing but I think when you say that I'm breaking the Constitution, breaking the law and breaking other things I must stand up for myself. I will say that there has been spend over 2 years, I will say that we're working with a company who are a regional improvement and efficiency partnership that have a good track record, that have helped us a lot. That have helped us get to where we need to be in terms of managing change.

 

There has been a scoping exercise where we spent £10k and it is true that we have paid over £50k to the same company, which has been paid over 2 financial years and I can't stress enough Chairman, that this has been to Resources Working Party, it has been to Policy and Resources Committee and it has been to Council. It's Council tonight and if Members do not wish to continue those arrangements that's absolutely up to Members of course. I'm sure they'll help me understand how I'll do what they want me to do, which is to manage £1.1M of savings before 2020 and at the same time keep frontline services going.

 

From Councillor Clark

 

Point of personal explanation. I did not wish those questions to go to the CX. It is up to the Leader of Council to know what the CX is doing, whether she is sticking to the Constitution, whether she is exceeding her limits. She should know that. That is her responsibility, not the CX's to end up having to answer questions that the Leader of Council can't answer.