Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting and explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Zoe Goodman.

To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors.  They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.  Any declaration of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

None.

The minutes of the meeting of the Resources Scrutiny Commission held on 21 November 2023 were confirmed as a correct record.

None.

Please note: this session will cover both Part 1 and Part 2 of this meeting of the Resources Scrutiny Commission, i.e. there will not be a separate public forum session for Part 2 of this meeting which is being held on 15 December.

Any member of the public or councillor may participate in Public Forum. The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda. Public Forum items should be emailed to scrutiny@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:

Questions - Written questions must be received at least 3 clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5.00 pm on Monday 4 December 2023

Petitions and Statements - Petitions or written statements must be received at latest by 12.00 noon on the working day prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that petitions or statements must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Thursday 7 December 2023

Please note: questions, petitions and statements must relate to the remit of the

Resources Scrutiny Commission.

The Commission noted that the following public forum items had been received:

Public questions:

Public questions received for this meeting were as follows:

1. Questions from David Redgewell and Gordon Richardson: budget and transport matters

a. Question: ‘What progress is being made? On public consultation on the Transport levy paid by Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council, BaNES and North Somerset council?

As the cuts to bus services have effect on the city region bus network in Ashton Vale, Stapleton, Broomhill, Fishponds, Oldbury Court, Downend, Bromley Heath, Southmead hospital bus station, UWE, Bristol Parkway, Bradley Stoke, Aztec west, Easton and the Dings,

South Bristol, Bishopsworth, Hengrove, Brislington, St Anne's park.

Some of the poorest members in society are left without public bus services.

On payment of the levy under the West of England Act, this lays out a duty on Bristol City Council, BaNES, South Gloucestershire Council and North Somerset Council to fund jointly public bus services, so what public discussions are happening between the Bristol City Council budget scrutiny commission, the West of England scrutiny commission on the vital public bus services network?’

Officer reply (as published in advance of the meeting):

The delivery and management of bus service operations is managed by the West of England Combined Authority.  Bristol City Council funds the operation of bus services through the levy that it pays to the combined authority. The majority of expenditure under the levy is for concessionary fares which are a statutory duty, funding is also provided for RTI, staffing and supported bus services. Council funding is very limited so there is very little scope for increases to the levy amount paid to the Combined Authority. The amount of levy paid will be considered at the appropriate time in discussion with the Combined Authority and other West of England unitary authorities.

In response to a supplementary question from the questioner, it was confirmed that whilst further conversations could take place between the unitary authorities and the Combined Authority about the transport levy, it needed to be recognised that if any future decision was taken to increase the levy, the additional costs involved would mean corresponding reductions in other council budgets.

b. Question: ‘With Bristol City Council having to making saving in all public services and directorates, what progress is being made in this budget to transfer the Public Transport and Transport Department staff to the West of England mayoral combined transport authority?

And what discussion is Bristol City Council having about the removal of interim Directors and consultants at the West of England mayoral combined transport authority to replace them with local government officers from Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council and BaNES to save a large amount of taxpayer money?’

Officer reply (as published in advance of the meeting):

The Combined Authority has indicated that given workloads and its focus on reviewing project delivery within the Combined Authority, it will not be able to progress with bilateral discussions in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Resources Scrutiny Commission will discuss the report on the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, which is due to be submitted to the Cabinet on 5 December 2023 with a view to comments from the Commission being forwarded to the Full Council on 12 December 2023.  The Cabinet report on this matter will be circulated to Resources Scrutiny members as soon as it is available.

The Chair advised members that since the publication of the agenda for this meeting of the Resources Scrutiny Commission, the Cabinet, on 5 December (following the conclusion of the second phase of public consultation and engagement) had taken a decision not to change the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) for 2024/25.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion of this item:

1. It was noted that as per previous comments submitted to the Cabinet and to Full Council, a majority of members of the Resources Scrutiny Commission/Finance Task Group had not supported a change to the CTRS.

2. A point was raised about the fact that the wide number of options for changing the CTRS, as included in the consultation, had produced a scenario where it had been difficult to identify a clearly favoured option to take forward based on the responses received.  It was suggested that lessons could be learned from the process followed and it would be appropriate to avoid running any future consultations in this way. 

3. In response to a question, it was noted that consideration had been given by the administration to using a ‘slider’ tool, to enable comparison of the impact of different options.  A view had been reached, however, that the tool (the use of which would also have incurred additional cost) would have been difficult to deploy in this case given the number of options involved and the related complexity.  The tool had been used previously as part of a council budget consultation, but experience had shown that some people had found it difficult to use in practice.

4. It was noted that the consultation materials had attempted to show the impact of different scenarios on households, but it was recognised that the information provided was complex.  Officers had conducted a ‘lessons learned’ exercise following the consultation, which could be shared with members.  The approaches taken by other local authorities in carrying out consultation on CTRS reviews would also be examined.

5. A number of members flagged the importance of the CTRS in assisting people on low incomes who may also be vulnerable or responsible for vulnerable individuals and welcomed the Cabinet decision not to change the scheme in 2024/25, especially in light of the fact that the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement had given no indication that the Household Support Fund would be extended into the next financial year.

6. A point was also raised reiterating a previous concern raised by members that, if a revised CTRS had been introduced for 2024/25, difficulties could have been faced around deliverability of the envisaged saving with a potential negative impact on Council Tax collection rate and cost.  In response to this point, the Director: Finance clarified that the additional administration that would have been involved in collecting additional funds under a changed scheme was not considered to have represented a challenge that the authority could not have overcome (as per the experience of a number of other local authorities who had changed their CTRS in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Key background documents for this item are:

a. Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Strategy, as considered at the 31 October Full Council

ModernGov - bristol.gov.uk

b. Previous Resources Scrutiny/Finance Task Group comments as submitted to the 31 October Full Council

FTG submission for Full Council - 31 Oct 23.pdf (bristol.gov.uk)

c. Budget 2024-25 consultation as published on the Ask Bristol consultation and engagement hub

https://www.ask.bristol.gov.uk/budget-2024-25

In this session, the Resources Scrutiny Commission will consider the following issues:

a. Growth & Regeneration - clarification on CAZ income/utilisation (20 minutes)

Budget proposal reference points:

GAP 043 - Alternative investment in sustainable transport using net proceeds from CAZ - £6.3m 24/25

We would use net proceeds from Clean Air Zone charges to contribute to the amount of money we

pay to the West of England Combined Authority for the annual Transport Levy, which supports the Local Transport Plan, funding concessionary fares and other public transport related services.

GAP 057 - Use Clean Air Zone funds to maintain and improve the highways network - £2.311m 24/25

We would use net proceeds from Clean Air Zone charges to carry out repairs and improvement works on the city’s roads and footpaths. These works would support the Local Transport Plan by keeping our roads and footpaths safe for all users, encouraging walking and cycling and reducing traffic congestion.

Key questions/areas of scrutiny interest as identified in advance of this meeting by Resources Scrutiny members:

1. What is the position now in relation to CAZ income, and what are the future projections?

2. What other assumptions have been made in terms of the use of CAZ income?

3. When CAZ was introduced, a key part of the rationale/justification was that income would be used to secure cleaner air and environmental benefits for the city, including, for example through direct investment in active travel.  What is the justification (as per GAP 057) for utilising CAZ income to support what appear to be general repairs and improvement works?

b. Resources issues (20 minutes)

Key questions/areas of scrutiny interest as identified in advance of this meeting by Resources Scrutiny members:

1. Contingency: Are appropriate assumptions in place in terms of financial contingency provisions, given the ongoing factors of high levels of inflation/ interest rates?

2. Fees and charges:

Budget proposal reference point:

GAP038 - Fees and charges budget review

Review and where appropriate revise the budgets for fees and charges across sources of income that have repeatedly outperformed their approved budgets in recent years, reflecting where we are already receiving greater levels of income.

Is the authority satisfied that this proposal should proceed without further equalities impact analysis?

c. Capital strategy (30 mins)

Key questions/areas of scrutiny interest as identified in advance of this meeting by Resources Scrutiny members:

1. Assurance/clarification is sought on the action and measures being taken in relation to the governance, management and delivery of the capital programme, particularly in relation to slippage within the programme and addressing any inflationary impact of slippage/delay.

2. Based  ...  view the full agenda text for item 21.

a. Growth & Regeneration - clarification on Clean Air Zone (CAZ) income/utilisation

Members had identified in advance of the meeting that they wished to raise questions on the following budget proposal reference points:

GAP 043 - Alternative investment in sustainable transport using net proceeds from CAZ - £6.3m 24/25

We would use net proceeds from Clean Air Zone charges to contribute to the amount of money we

pay to the West of England Combined Authority for the annual Transport Levy, which supports the Local Transport Plan, funding concessionary fares and other public transport related services.

GAP 057 - Use Clean Air Zone funds to maintain and improve the highways network - £2.311m 24/25

We would use net proceeds from Clean Air Zone charges to carry out repairs and improvement works on the city’s roads and footpaths. These works would support the Local Transport Plan by keeping our roads and footpaths safe for all users, encouraging walking and cycling and reducing traffic congestion.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion of this item:

a. In response to questions, the Deputy Mayor for City Economy, Performance and Finance and Executive Director: Growth and Regeneration advised as follows:

i. The CAZ was essentially a public health intervention required of the Council by the government. 

ii. Data on the effectiveness of the CAZ in reducing levels of nitrogen dioxide and improving air quality would be provided at the end of 12 months. It was considered that providing detail of CAZ financial income in the meantime would prove to be a misleading figure.  Information on both matters would be provided, at the same time, to the Cabinet meeting on 23 January 2024, i.e. at the same meeting at which the Cabinet would determine its 2024/25 budget recommendations to Full Council.  It was acknowledged that at an earlier point, an indication had been given that this information might be available for the 5 December Cabinet; however, the analysis of air quality had taken longer than initially expected to provide the full 12 month position.

b. In response to a question, it was confirmed that there was an improved position overall in terms of vehicle compliance with CAZ standards.

c. It was noted that the CAZ update information (income and air quality assessment) would also be provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) in January.  The Chair commented that careful consideration would need to be given to the timing of the OSMB meeting to ensure that OSMB members had reasonable time to read these reports in advance of their meeting; discussion would also need to take place with the OSMB Chair about how best to involve Resources Scrutiny members during January in reviewing the financial aspects of CAZ (Note: it was subsequently agreed that Resources Scrutiny members would be invited to attend the relevant section of the January OSMB meeting).

d. In response to a question, it was noted that it was possible that the CAZ could potentially be discontinued after a further 3-4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.