Agenda item

To receive a verbal update regarding the budget consultation process from the Head of Communications. Attached is the special budget edition of the Reporter and the accompanying questionnaire. The programme of face-to-face and public meetings will be sent to follow.

The Committee received a verbal update regarding the budget consultation process from the Head of Communications.

The Communications department were in the penultimate week of a six week consultation, which would conclude the week ending Friday 9 November. There had not been a major budget consultation since 2004 and the Communications department had tried to be innovative, inclusive and extensive in their approach to the consultation. A variety of approaches were being utilised including face to face meetings, public meetings, online consultation, coffee mornings and events at Jubilee 2, which the public had been supportive of. 6,000 copies of the special budget Reporter had been distributed and 500 responses had been received so far. Young people were being engaged through the Kidsgrove Youth Parliament and it was important that their voices be heard. The Head of Communications felt that the consultation was going quite well. It had been a learning curve, with some elements being good and some not so good. Lessons were being learnt should the process be conducted again.

Members considered that the use of resources was an important element to consider. The results of the consultation would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on 10 December. Members questioned what the attendance had been at the public meetings. These had been the least successful element of the consultation exercise, with the face to face meetings being the most successful. Asking people to come to you did not work, it was necessary to go where the conversations were, as engaging the public was difficult. Members considered that it was difficult to quantify the consultation results and questioned how the results would be fed into the outcomes, and how they would affect the final decisions. This could be considered alongside best practice compared to neighbouring authorities. The Council was doing well compared to its neighbours considering the number of responses and the size of the population. It was hoped that there would be around 600 responses in total. If there was a clear steer from Borough residents then this would be given weight.

Members considered that the consultation questions on the questionnaire were quite simple and that most residents would like improvements. They questioned how the exercise could be validated when most people would consider the options extremely important. The Head of Communications considered that the two documents distributed had worked as a pair, with context being established from the special edition Reporter. The questionnaire would not being distributed in isolation. People were taking the time to complete the questionnaires and make comments; they were not just ticking the boxes.

The question was raised by Members as to why a question had not been included regarding council tax, and it was asked whether there would be a freeze or a reduction in council tax. As of the date of the meeting there would be a steer to the Executive Director Resources and Support Services that a freeze would be desirable. If the settlement for central government funding was not good, then the situation could be reassessed, but the aim was to have a freeze. The possibility of including a question regarding council tax had been discussed by the Budget Review Group who compiled the questionnaire; however it was decided to settle upon areas of direct concern for the public. Best practice had also been considered, and a similar format to best practice had been followed. It was noted that Stoke-on-Trent City Council had not asked a direct question as part of their budget consultation. It was questioned whether members of the public had made comments regarding council tax, and it was confirmed that this was the case, with many comments noting that they did not want an increase in council tax. The Portfolio Holder also noted that council tax had been mentioned several times when speaking to members of the public.

Members questioned whether it had been ascertained that all people partaking in the face to face meetings resided within the Borough. This was confirmed as the case, and where people were completing the questionnaire online, they were asked for their post code and address to ensure they were Newcastle Borough residents.

The Chair of the Committee requested the breakdown between the percentage of people who completed the questionnaire online and those who physically completed it, for the next meeting. It was considered that online consultation might be the key pointer in going forward.

RESOLVED:                        (a) That the information be received.

(b) That the results of the consultation be bought to the next meeting of the Committee on 10 December.