Issue - meetings

23.1     The Director of Adult Social Care and Health highlighted the separation of budgets and areas of search for savings between the East Sussex Better Together (ESBT) area and the rest of the county and the difference this makes to the proposals. In the ESBT area the Council and Clinical Commissioning Groups have agreed a joint Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) and pooled budget from 2017/18 which enables savings to be considered across the entirety of the health and care budget. In the High Weald Lewes Havens area work is underway to align budgets but they remain separate, meaning that balance must be achieved within the ASC budget only.

23.2     In response to a question, the Director clarified that for universal services the budgets have been divided up on a population basis. Other service budgets have been divided based on need.

23.3     The committee considered each set of proposals in turn:

Savings outside ESBT

·         It was noted that the Connecting for You integration programme is at a much earlier stage of development than ESBT and, because there is not yet agreement with regard to pooling resources there is not the same ability to manage demand differently and avoid cost. This results in a focus on shorter term savings similar to what was seen across all parts of the county pre-ESBT.

·         Concern was expressed that cuts to assessment and care management could lead to further costs and therefore further savings being required in future.

·         It was confirmed that the ASC levy had already been taken into account in the medium term financial plan for next year.

·         It was suggested that the committee’s focus could be on the level and nature of impact of proposed savings.

·         Concern was expressed about the potential loss of staff in a context of rising demand.

ESBT savings

·         It was noted that the focus in ESBT on investment in community services results in a different outcome in terms of savings proposals, but the service changes remain very challenging to implement.

·         Additional description of how savings will be achieved in practice was requested in order for the committee to gain assurance around delivery. The Director confirmed that proposals would be developed further in some areas to demonstrate how savings will be achieved.

·         It was noted that some investments will save money elsewhere reflecting the ESBT aim to divert the flow of activity and ‘invest to save’.

·         The Director confirmed that a more detailed breakdown of savings across the schemes, particularly in terms of the savings attributed to ASC, could be provided.

·         The Director confirmed that reviews of care packages are built in but that it may be possible to look further at the role of locality teams in reviewing ongoing support across all agencies.

23.4     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1)    note that the RPPR Board had been arranged for 12 December;

2)    In relation to savings outside ESBT, have particular focus on clarifying the impact of proposals and any possible mitigation; and

3)    In relation to savings within ESBT,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23

Report by the Chief Executive

25.1     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) introduced the report. Since the Committee discussed the savings identified in the medium term financial plan at the September meeting, additional savings have been identified for 2017/18. The Autumn Statement on the budget settlement for Local Authorities is expected on 23 November. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an opportunity to examine the additional savings outlined in the October Cabinet report; suggest alternative areas of search for savings and; identify any further information needed in preparation for the RPPR Board in December.

Allocation of Additional Savings to the Communities, Economy and Transport department (CET)

25.2     The Committee noted that CET has an additional savings target of £537,000 in 2017/18 and £825,000 in 2018/19, and asked whether the share of additional savings burden had been fairly allocated.

25.3     The Director of CET responded that the financial pressures on services in Adult Social Care and Children’s Services are huge. The Council is a corporate organisation and therefore has to act in that manner. The Director views the allocation of additional savings for CET as fair, bearing in mind the overall context of the savings requirement for whole the organisation.

25.4     The Committee commented that although the savings allocation may appear fair, roads and other services that CET provides are as important to residents as the services other departments provide. Everybody uses East Sussex’s roads, which support the provision of other services and Council priorities such as the local economy. Year on year, the department has had to find further cuts. The Committee considers the approach to savings is fundamentally wrong where the quality of the Council’s assets are degraded leading to a long term negative effect.

25.6     The Director of CET responded that there had been a recognition of the importance of roads through the additional capital funding that has been allocated to highways.

25.7     The Lead Member for Economy outlined that representations had been made either directly to Government, or through the Local Government Association, about the punitive financial settlement for East Sussex. The ‘One Council’ Policy was agreed in 2013, which set out The Council’s corporate priorities. Investment in education is important for the local economy, as is protecting the vulnerable.

25.8     While it may be suggested that all departments are of equal importance, the Committee is uncomfortable with an approach to cost cutting, which fails to recognise the underlying importance of the County Council’s road network to every activity carried out by the Council on behalf of East Sussex residents.  Year on year cost cutting in relation to the work done by the County’s Highways operation has significant long term implications, best illustrated by what has happened in the past in relation to the long term deterioration of County Council’s drainage network.

25.9     The Lead Member for Transport and Environment commented that the majority other departments’ savings have been planned for 2017/18 and not 2018/19. He acknowledged that CET’s services are very visible to all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25

Report by the Chief Executive

38.1     The Chief Operating Officer introduced report. The Chair referred the Committee to the list of further information requests contained in the minutes of the previous meeting. There were no additional items for the Committee to consider with the exception of the additional savings requirement for Orbis.

38.2     The Committee asked if the additional Orbis savings involved bringing existing savings plans forward from 2018/19. The Chief Operating Officer responded that the additional savings would be achieved in part by bringing savings forward and in part from increased savings from ‘manged on behalf of’ budgets. The increased savings will come from Procurement and Business Operations. At present Orbis is checking to make sure that the additional savings are applied in an equal and fair way across the two organisations. More detail will be provided at RPPR Board meeting.

38.3     The Committee asked for further detail about the savings being made in Trading Standards. The Senior Democratic Services Advisor informed the Committee that this service area was within the remit of the Economy, Transport and Environment (ETE) Scrutiny Committee, and agreed to circulate an earlier report to the ETE Scrutiny Committee on Trading Standards.

38.4     The Committee RESOLVED to note the report and that there were no further requests for additional information for the RPPR Board.