Issue - meetings

To review Scrutiny’s input into the RPPR process.  Report by the Chief Executive

30.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive which provided a review of the Committee’s input into the RPPR process for 2015/16 and sought views on how the process could be improved in future years.

30.2     The Committee discussed the RPPR process and made the following comments:

• The lack of clarity on the budget settlement in the run up to budget setting made the process very difficult.
• It would have been helpful to have more information on the corporate budgets that have an impact on the CET department and in particular the Corporate Resources and Business Services budgets.
• The Committee considered it was important to make the case for department’s budgets, as the Scrutiny Committee had the most detailed knowledge and understanding of the impact of proposed budget savings.
• Many of the savings proposals were offered without any real alternatives or options for how they might be achieved. It would be desirable to have some alternatives for the for the next RPPR process that is due to start in the autumn.

30.3     The Assistant Director, Operations commented that it was rational for the Committee to focus its work on the expenditure of the department. It was becoming increasingly difficult for Officers to provide savings alternatives as many areas for savings had already been explored and savings proposals taken. Some options have been tested before but it may be possible to re-visit them in the autumn RPPR process.

30.4     The Lead Member for Resources acknowledged that it is sometimes difficult to look at corporate issues, and the lateness of the settlement announcement had caused particular difficulties.

30.5     The Committee RESOLVED to request that:

(1)  further information be provided on corporate budgets for the next RPPR process; and

(2)  future budget savings proposals are provided with options, or alternatives, for the Committee to consider.

To review Scrutiny’s input relating to the RPPR process.  Report by the Chief Executive

54.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive about the input of Scrutiny to the RPPR process.  Martin Jenks reminded the Committee that this was an opportunity to review last year’s process and to suggest ways the process could be improved in future years. 

54.2     In reviewing last year’s process the Committee welcomed the early start to the Scrutiny engagement but queried whether their suggestions had made any impact on the Cabinet’s decisions.  The Committee acknowledged that the delays in the announcement of the final local government settlement had had an impact on all parties and their budget proposals, and added to the complexity of the budget debate.

54.3     The Committee also discussed:

o   The benefits of taking a long term view of the financial planning cycle for future years, as opposed to detailed scrutiny of the current year’s budget proposals.

Communications

o   Public awareness of the different tiers of local government, and their indifference towards which tier carries out work that might be required.  The results of the public consultation on the budget were held up as an example, and it was suggested that the Communications Team could take up the challenge of addressing this, and come back to the Committee with proposals.  A separation of Council Tax precepts between the tiers, or a breakdown of what each department spends, was also suggested.   

One Council

o   The Committee acknowledged the expertise of the Council’s officers, and the ambition behind “One Council”, but queried certain operational procedures that had raised concerns about whether the concept had been fully assimilated.    

o   The value of effective front end customer relations management, by providing an efficient link between the public and the service they require no matter how they contact the Council, was highlighted by the Chair. 

o   The need to take considered, cost-effective decisions at the most appropriate level, to achieve maximum return on investment, whether from revenue or capital budgets, and the need for Heads of Service to cooperate in achieving this, was stressed.         

54.4     The Committee RESOLVED to (1) thank officers for their work and assistance in preparing material for the Committee to consider;

(2) note the lack of impact of the Committee’s comments on the Cabinet’s budget proposals;

(3) consider looking further ahead in the financial planning cycle to identify areas for Chief Officers to examine for savings and efficiencies; 

(4) request re-consideration of the “One Council” concept; 

(5) request further consideration of Communications involvement in raising awareness of the work of different tiers of local government, in support of more effective public engagement during the budget consultation; and

(6) suggest a Whole Council Forum session on the Council’s standing orders, with particular reference to the budget debate. 

7.1       Members discussed this year’s round of RPPR meetings for Adult Social Care and Community Safety.

7.2       It was noted that, as RPPR scrutiny meetings are informal Scrutiny Board meetings rather than formal council committee meetings, there is limited guidance on how meetings should be conducted. The requirement to make continuing significant year-on-year efficiencies is likely to lead to more challenging decisions being debated at future RPPR meetings. It may therefore make sense to consider whether further guidance for the conduct of future RPPR Scrutiny Board meetings is needed, particularly in terms of voting on member motions.

7.3       Cllr Ungar told members that the current RPPR process could be improved by presenting members with a variety of options for savings, rather than presenting only one savings plan.

7.4       Councillor Bentley suggested that RPPR Scrutiny Boards might have a useful role to play in conducting a comparative assessment of the administration’s budget plans and of alternative budget plans put forward by opposition groups. However, this would require the opposition groups to publish their alternative budget plans earlier than they had done this year.

Report by Chief Executive

43.1     The Cabinet considered a report by the Chief Executive together with further information received following the publication of the Cabinet agenda including a summary of the consultation meeting held with Trade Unions

43.2 It was RESOLVED to:

            1)         i) agree the proposals recommended for implementation in Appendix 3a and 3b, subject to Council agreeing the budget limit for that particular item in Appendix 3; and

                        ii) delegate authority to the relevant Chief Officers to take any actions necessary to give effect to or in consequence of the above recommendation.

          2)           approve the fees and charges set out in Appendix 4 and delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to approve an increase to all other fees and charges by up to 2%;

         3)          recommend County Council to:

i)        Approve in principle the draft Council Plan at Appendix 1 and authorise the Chief Executive to finalise the Plan in consultation with the relevant Lead Members;

ii)       Increase the Council Tax, in line with the current Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) by 3.99% (2% of which relates to the Adult Social Care precept), and then issue precepts accordingly to be paid by Borough and District Councils in accordance with the agreed schedule of instalments at Appendix 5;

iii)       Approve the net Revenue Budget estimates for 2016/17 set out in Appendix 2a;

                        iv)        Approve the fees and charges set out in Appendix 4 and delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to approve an increase to all other fees and charges by up to 2%;

                        v)         Approve the draft Capital Programme (see Appendix 2a) including further investment in essential programme need 2016/17 to 2017/18 as set out in Appendix 2a;

                        vi)        Authorise the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, Leader and Deputy Leader, to make adjustments to the presentation of the budget to reflect the final settlement;

                        vii)       Note the MTFP forecast for the period 2016/17 to 2018/19 as set out in Appendix 2a; and

                      viii)         Note the comments from engagement exercises set out in Appendix 7.

4)         endorse the letter to the Prime Minister set out in Appendix 8

Reason

43.3     The County Council is still projecting an overall deficit of at least £70m over 3 years. The proposed Medium Term Financial Plan provides a proposed budget which will give residents, businesses and partners a sustainable service offer during a period of significant change and uncertainty in local government and its financing. Identifying sustainable savings proposals for 2016/17 in order to deliver a balanced budget has been very challenging. The remaining two years of the current plan will be even more difficult as we need to bring forward significant additional savings in 2017/18, at the same time as demand will continue to grow. The County Council continues to be on track to deliver balanced budgets for the remaining two years of the MTFP. However, the significant policy changes that will take place over this period, particularly within Adult Social Care/Health integration and the removal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43

Report by Chief Executive

23.1The Cabinet considered a report by the Chief Executive

23.2     It was RESOLVED to:

1)            note the revised Medium Term Financial Plan including the movements within the forecast funding gap for 2016/17 - 2018/19 and pressures (Appendix 1 of the report);

2)            note the uncertainty that will remain until the Comprehensive Spending Review on 25 November 2015 and the Local Government settlement announcement;

3)            agree a savings requirement of £23m as a planning assumption for 2016/17;

4)            note the Scrutiny Committees’ initial comments on areas of search (Appendix 4 of the report);

5)            agree the proposed “One Council” framework for planning at paragraph 3.6 -3.19 of the report and savings proposals (Appendix 6 of the report); and

      6)        agree that more detailed work is done on all the above to develop the detailed draft plan for 2016/17 and the following two years

Reason

24.3     To note the progress in relation to savings proposals, agree a ‘One Council’ framework for planning and savings proposals and agree that more detailed work be undertaken to develop the detailed draft plan for 2016/17 and beyond

To begin scrutiny’s involvement in the RPPR process.  To establish an RPPR Board of members to undertake more detailed investigations as required – Report by the Chief Executive

16.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive.  The Lead Member for Resources confirmed that no budget was exempt from investigation for potential savings.  The Chief Executive highlighted changes to the financial landscape that had occurred since the Whole Council Forum, namely the delay in the implementation of aspects of the Care Act, and the announcement of the National Living Wage commitment, with its potential impacts on construction and care contracts.  

16.2     The Committee noted the areas of search for savings and recommended that the diagram in appendix 1 of the report should contain a reference to Business Growth as part of the Council’s One Council Plans.  The Committee further recommended that Income Generation is added for the Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) Department.  It was acknowledged that other Scrutiny Committees had expressed similar views for portfolios within their area of responsibility.  There was a discussion as to what sectors the County Council can most effectively focus on, given the constraints on local authorities trading for profit, and the areas in which the County Council is the principal provider.  The Committee felt it was important to highlight that funds raised would be spent for the benefit of the local community.  

16.3     The Committee commented that it will be difficult to review the savings plans for the CET Department as a whole, without some indication of the contribution being made by the Libraries and Information Service as part of the areas of search.  The work of the Audit, Best Value and Community Services Scrutiny Committee was highlighted, as was the report to the Cabinet due later in the year.  

16.4     The Committee expressed concern that the combined Council revenue expenditure in regard to Governance Services, Business Services, Contingencies and Corporate Services is in excess of the entire budget for CET (including Libraries). While it was noted that the preceding concern did not take account of substantive capital expenditure, the fact remains that the impending budget reductions will very severely affect future revenue expenditure. 

16.5     The Committee commented on the premises and business services costs for CET and asked if these costs will be reduced as the Spaces Programme, Agile, Orbis and other initiatives are implemented.  It was confirmed that the whole Council estate was under review. 

16.6     The Committee discussed the Road Safety section of the Transport and Environment portfolio plan. In particular the Committee noted the Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) reduction target and work done with partners, such as the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, to address the root causes of KSIs. Investigation of KSI accidents has shown 90% are attributable to driver error.  The effectiveness of proposed safety measures was discussed, to ensure schemes provide a measurable impact on the KSI figures even in the potential absence of enforcement by the Police, given their prioritisation of resources. The importance of evidence-based prioritisation was stressed.  The proposed joint scrutiny work with the Audit, Best Value and Community Services Scrutiny Committee, to review the Public Health investment in Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16

Report by the Chief Executive

13.1     The Lead Member for Resources, Councillor David Elkin, introduced the report by discussing the context of the current RPPR process.  It was confirmed that no budget was exempt from investigation for potential savings and that comments were welcome from the Committee on the areas of search.   The Chief Executive then updated the Committee on developments relating to the RPPR process.   This included reference to the ongoing assessments of both the implications of the Government’s July budget statement and the introduction of a National Living Wage. 

13.2 The Committee then discussed the areas of search before them.  The Committee sought more detailed information about the potential impact of the proposed savings and also made a number of more specific comments which are set out below: 

• that the Children’s Services Budget be presented (at future RPPR discussions) separately from the Dedicated Support Grant;
• more detailed information about the longer-term impact of disinvestment in preventative activities in respect of children’s centres, especially the impact of any proposed centre closures;
•  more information about the flexibility of health visiting and the extent to which a much more targeted approach could be adopted when dealing with individual families that require a range of support from different health and social work professionals;
• exploration of the impact of a more general disinvestment in preventative activities and the kinds of problems likely to ensue in the future (e.g. whether this will ultimately cost the local authority more);
• more information about the extent to which the department considers it would be able to continue to provide services at the current standards given the level of savings required; and
•  further exploration of opportunities for income generation.

13.3 The Committee also considered that:

• representations should be made to the Department for Education (DfE) arguing that it is no longer sustainable for local authorities to continue to have responsibility for aspects of schools’ performance over which they have no direct control;
• in response to anecdotal evidence cited at the meeting that the DfE is actively advising academy sponsors not to purchase services from local authorities, that this matter also be raised with the DfE; and
• if the local authority finds that it is unable to effectively influence schools/academies to improve in areas that we don’t control directly, then this would indicate areas to investigate for savings.

13.4     RESOLVED to:

(1) to ask that the information requested in Minute 13.2 is provided to the Committee and that consideration is given to the requests made in Minute 13.3; and

(2) establish a scrutiny review board to meet in December to consider the developing portfolio plans and savings proposals as they emerge. 

13.1 Cllr David Elkin (Deputy Leader), Cllr Sylvia Tidy (Lead Member for Children and Families), Becky Shaw (Chief Executive), and Keith Hinkley (Director of Adult Social Care & Health) were present for the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) item.

13.2     Cllr Elkin told the committee that the council had already made savings of £64 million in recent years, but would be required to find an additional £70-90 million over the next three years. These figures are based on current projections, and the final total may well be greater. The scale of the savings required means that there are no ‘red lines’ – no services are exempt from challenge. Planning has been in line with the council’s four key priorities and with a ‘one council’ approach.

13.3     Becky Shaw told members that, in addition to Government funding reductions, the council also had to deal with growing demographic pressures, particularly in terms of our ageing population. The council was still assessing the implications of the July budget statement, of the decision to delay the implementation of the cap on care costs, and of the introduction of a National Living Wage. The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review will be published on November 25^th, although the details of the Local Government settlement will be considerably later; so much so that there may be pressure on council to meet their budget deadlines.

13.4     Keith Hinkley told the committee that it was important to bear in mind that this was not the beginning of the savings process: council budgets have been reducing for a number of years, meaning that many of the most readily achieved savings have already been taken. Further integration with NHS partners does offer significant opportunities. However, the NHS is itself struggling with funding levels, and there is some uncertainty as to how much future NHS funding will be routed through Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG), our main partners in integrating services. There are likely to be further changes to the Better Care Fund, but this will probably not include any more direct transfers of funding to Local Authorities.

13.5     In response to a question from Cllr John Ungar on what the council was doing in terms of lobbying Government about the demographic pressures we face, Becky Shaw told members that there was ongoing dialogue via ADASS (Association of Directors of Adult Social Services), the LGA, SE7 and the County Council Network. However, many other councils face similar pressures to East Sussex.

13.6     Keith Hinkley added that ADASS had told the Government that its members have reduced confidence in their ability to continue to meet local government commitments to adult social care (ASC). The South East Adult Social Care Lead Member group had also been active in lobbying on demographic pressures, but also on problems of pay and recruitment which are particularly acute in the region. CCG partners have also expressed their concerns to Government about adult social care pressures. There will be some additional funding for winter pressures this year, and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13

To begin scrutiny’s involvement in the RPPR process. To establish an RPPR Board of members to undertake more detailed investigations as required - Report by the Chief Executive

22.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive which invited the Committee to begin its involvement in the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process.  A revised Appendix 3 had been circulated. The Lead Member for Resources confirmed that no budget was exempt from investigation for potential savings. 

22.2     The Committee discussed:

22.3     The Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer confirmed that the matter of what could be capitalised was subject to a set of technical accounting issues.  The tenders for the Highways maintenance contract are being examined and assessed, and the process had been overseen by a Review Board of the Economy, Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee.  The Lead Member for Resources set out that the Asset Management Strategy was under review, including the use of community asset transfers, and would be presented to Scrutiny at a future meeting. 

22.4     The Leader and Lead Member for Strategic Management and Economic Development emphasised the need for the Council to take a business-like approach, to improve opportunities to generate income.  He stressed the need to exploit available resources fully, which could include community uses for Council-owned property, but that a flexibility of approach should be retained, to allow for disposal if necessary.

22.5     The Chief Operating Officer explained the impacts of digitisation in several modernisation programmes, such as Agile and the Social Care Information System (SCIS) update, and the links to the Information Management Strategy.    The Chief Executive set out that there were significant demands on senior management as a result of the various transformation programmes that were under way and planned.   A briefing on the street lighting project was offered, and it was confirmed that the Economy, Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee were keeping the matter under review. 

22.6     RESOLVED to (1) note the report;

(2) convene meetings of the standing RPPR Board in October and December 2015, and note that Review Boards had been established to examine the Library Service and Communications;

(3) focus on (a) the Property Strategy, (b) the shape and structure of the Council in the medium term, and (c) capital programme levels and funding sources.

Report by Chief Executive

5.1       The Cabinet considered a report by the Chief Executive.

5.2       It was RESOLVED to:

1)            agree to the development of a three year business and financial plan based on existing priority outcomes and operating principles;

2)                  note the anticipated financial context for the period 2016/17 to 2018/19 is a savings requirement of £70m - £90m, subject to any announcements which affect financial plans in the budget on 8 July 2015, with plans to be developed for savings of £20m - £25m in 2016/17 for initial consideration by Cabinet in October;

3)            note the evidence base on demographics and the policy and resources outlook set out in the report and in Appendix 2 and 3;

4)            agree the proposed areas of search for savings proposals for consideration by Cabinet in October, as set out in paragraphs 4.12 – 4.16 and 6.4 of the report;

5)            note the developing proposals for lobbying communications and engagement as set out in paragraph 7 of the report;

6)            agree the revised capital programme in Appendix 4;

7)            note the progress made in identifying capital pressures and potential resources in Appendix 4; and  

8)            recommend the County Council to agree the amendments to the Treasury management Strategy set out in Appendix 5 to facilitate investment in a wholly local government owned municipal bond agency

Reason

5.3       The report begins our Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources process for 2016/17 and beyond