Agenda item

Mr I.L. asked the following question of the Leader:

It seems that the Urgent Decision procedure is used rather a lot for decisions that, on the face of them, are not urgent. Examples from recent months:

1. 'Procurement for a Cafe/Bar & Event Catering Management Concessionaire at The Nottingham Theatre Royal and Concert Hall' 'Urgent decision required in order to maximise the income to the Council.' You could make almost any decision about an income-generating service urgent in that way. It does not mean that the decision is urgent.

2. 'Property Investment Acquisition – Project Highland' 'To allow for a timely purchase.' Similar to (1). This is a tautology - performing something urgently makes it timely almost by definition.

3. 'Approval of procurement of electricity supply for Nottingham City Council' 'To enable an immediate tender to be placed.' This one was £24,000,000 (over several years). I appreciate this is a tender and not money being immediately spent, but how can such a significant deal be undertaken without the opportunity for political input - even on the framework?

4. 'Island Site - consultancy fees to support CPO business case' 'To bring forward development of the site', that is no reason for urgency. There are millions upon millions of council funds being authorised to be spent under this procedure. It seems that there is a serious lack of accountability inherent in the Urgent Decision procedure.

Does the Councillor agree that the procedure is undemocratic and is allowing too much money to be spent without proper oversight? Will the Council please strengthen the requirements for undertaking decisions under the procedure? Will the Council further require the decision taker to submit much more detailed information to Full Council meetings, in order to allow councillors to scrutinise the decisions of portfolio holders? Will the Council finally consider establishing a post-facto review process for Urgent Decisions, including a role for citizens, which provides for the possibility of censuring portfolio holders who sidestep proper expenditure procedures?

Councillor Jon Collins responded as follows:

Thank you Lord Mayor. Nottingham City Council, like other major local authorities, has faced unprecedented government funding cuts over the past 5 years, creating significant pressures on budgets and services. In response we’ve taken an increasingly proactive and commercial approach to generating additional income. This does mean, however, that a number of decisions, many of which relate to land and property management, have to be taken quickly and often within externally imposed timescales.

Every decision authorised by the Council is robustly checked to ensure that it is both financially viable and in line with all legal and constitutional requirements.

All non-exempt Executive decisions over £25,000 are published and made available at Loxley House for public inspection. The call-in procedure applies to all Executive Portfolio Holder decisions, and any Executive Officer decision with a value of £50,000.00 and above. The call-in procedure is also applicable to urgent decisions, but can be circumvented where delay is likely to seriously prejudice the Council or the public interests.

Nevertheless, it is important that even these urgent decisions are subject to appropriate challenge and scrutiny. That’s why before a decision can be considered and taken as urgent, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee must agree both that the decision proposed is reasonable and that given the circumstances should be exempt from the usual procedures.

Overall, I believe that the current arrangements strike a reasonable balance between the need to take timely decisions in an increasingly commercial environment, and remain accountable to the electorate for the use of local government powers and the use of public money. I do not, therefore, believe the current system is undemocratic but I am happy to accept that there may be ways of improving this aspect of the Council’s work, and to ask that these procedures be reviewed.