Agenda item

Report by the Chief Executive.

5.1       The Assistant Chief Executive introduced the report which provides a broad stock take of the Council’s position as it enters into the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process for 2023/24. It brings together two key items which are the Council’s end of year Monitoring report and the State of the County (SoC) report. They set out the Council’s performance, challenges, and reflects the high levels of uncertainty both over the last financial year and the coming year in 2023/24. The Committee is invited to consider the information contained in the report and identify any further information or items it wishes to consider as part of its RPPR work or the wider work programme. The Committee is also invited to comment on the criteria for assessing one off investment outlined in paragraph 1.6 of the report.

5.2       The Committee discussed the report, making a number of comments and raising a number of questions which are summarised below.

Monitoring Report

5.3       The Committee asked for clarification of what is meant by the term ‘eligible’ as part of the Council’s performance measure “The percentage of eligible 2 year olds who take up a place with an eligible early years provider” (page 26 of the report). The Assistant Chief Executive responded that he would report back separately on what constitutes ‘eligible’ as part of the definition of the performance measure.

5.4       A Committee member observed that the Monitoring report section on Legal Services contains information on the number of Local Government Ombudsman complaints but there is no information on the number Judicial Review cases the Council is involved in or other litigation work where the Council may be required to make a payment. The Assistant Chief Executive outlined that it is not normal practice to report back on the litigation work of Legal Services as part of Council Monitoring, which includes Judicial Reviews, contracts, insurance claims, Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunals and child protection proceedings etc.. Any payments made will be dependent on the case involved and does not necessarily mean the Council has been found to be at fault. The annual reporting of Local Government Ombudsman cases is a legal requirement, and the Governance Committee has requested that they are included in quarterly Council Monitoring reports. The Assistant Chief Executive offered provide the number of Judicial review cases for the last year.

5.5       The Committee asked for clarification of the Covid funding carried forward figures contained in the report (page 16, paragraph 3.4 of the report). The Chief Finance Officer outlined that the figures in the table represents the Covid funding (both specific and general) available in 2021/22, being £30.2m carried forward from 2020/21 plus £43m received in 2021/22, less that allocated in year of £50.1m and £5.2m allocated for specific use in future years, resulting in £17.9m being available to be carried forward to 2022/23. The £17.9m represents £8.9m of general Covid funding and £9m of specific funding as determined by the grant terms of condition. The total carry forward is less than the previous year and will reduce as the Council either spends the money or has to return it where specific grant conditions cannot be met. The Council has been successful in maximising the use of Covid grant funding where possible. Some work will continue on the impact of Covid and clarity is being sought on funding that can continue to be carried forward.

5.6       The Committee noted that over the last year the number of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) collisions had risen 15% despite the behaviour change project work that has been undertaken and the total number of collisions reported to the Police and Crime Panel had risen 27% from around 11,000 to 16,000. The Committee commented that the £170,000 one off investment earmarked for highway safety measures for the next two years could be allocated to the School Streets project to help keep people safe.

5.7       The Committee asked a number of further questions about the report, which are summarised below:

• Percentage of Young People not in Education, Employment or Training – The Committee asked what the Council is doing about the 7% of young people not in education, employment or training. The Assistant Chief Executive offered to get a briefing on what the Council is doing and respond after the meeting. The Director for Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) added that the CET department does work with Children’s Services on this including initiatives such as the Multiply programme to improve numeracy; work with Skills East Sussex to identify how young people can get the right attainment; and getting employers involved with educational establishments to ensure young people have the right skills for the employment market.
• Careers East Sussex Web Site – The Committee asked about the new Careers East Sussex web site and if we know how many hits the site is having and what the target reach is for this site. The Assistant Chief Executive outlined that he would ask for the relevant information to be sent to Councillor Hilton after the meeting.
• Social Value Market Place – The Chief Operating Officer outlined that the Social Value Market Place is a web-based platform that provides a number of options for contractors (particularly smaller ones) to meet the Social Value requirements of bidding for contracts as part of the procurement process. It provides the opportunity for community and voluntary sector organisations to post requests for Social Value contributions that would meet identified local community needs.
• CO₂ Reduction Target – Actions are being taken to model different scenarios and choices to reduce the Council’s carbon emissions (e.g. from the maintained schools estate) to catch up on the missed reduction target.
• Asset Disposal for Capital Receipt vs Retaining an Asset to Generate Income– The process for determining whether to sell an asset for a capital receipt or whether to retain it for income generation purposes is carried out through strategic asset reviews which are undertaken to establish the best option for each asset. Every potential disposal is considered for other uses, and to maximise income or a capital receipt for the Council. Capital receipts are used to fund the capital programme which has an assumed level of capital receipts.
• SEND Home school transport contract– The Transport Hub team is working with Children’s Services on the lessons learnt from the withdrawal of one contractor at the beginning of the contract last year. This work involves developing a better understanding of the needs of the children as the number that need the specialist transport service and distance travelled has grown, and particular needs have changed (e.g. some children need to be transported on their own with an escort rather than travelling with a group of other children). This work will ensure the right transport is in place to meet the needs of children for the start of the school year in September.
• Debt and Aged Debt – The Committed commented that the paragraphs in the report on debt were not easy to understand and to get a view of what action is being taken. The Chief Finance Officer clarified that the amount of debt overall had fallen, which is positive given the economic picture. Most debt is related to Adult Social Care, and the amount of aged debt is within acceptable tolerances which is lower over the year. New systems and processes will be introduced to help reduce debt as the Managing Back Office Systems project is implemented.  The Chief Finance Officer agreed to take away the Committee’s comments about the readability and clarity of the paragraphs in the report.
• Waste – The Committee asked for figures on the amount of plastic waste recycled and whether the Council could do more to increase the amount recycled. The Committee also asked about the proportion of recyclable plastic in ‘black bag’ general waste. The Director for Communities, Economy and Transport outlined that there had been a lot of campaigning to reduce the amount and types of plastic waste. Some plastics are challenging to recycle, and the transport and processing costs can be high. There are conversations taking place at Government level with manufacturers and retailers to reduce the amount and type of plastic waste (e.g. the Department for Food and Rural Affairs works with the Food Standards Agency and retailers to reduce plastic waste). The department also undertakes composition analysis of black bag waste from time to time to find out the proportion of recyclable plastic in general waste. The Director for Communities, Economy and Transport agreed to provide some figures on the amount of plastic waste.
• Trading Standards service performance - The number of positive interventions for vulnerable people who have been the target of rogue trading or financial abuse is provided in the report. The Committee asked how many non-positive interventions there were. The Assistant Chief Executive offered to find an answer to the question after the meeting.

Performance Targets and Direction of Travel

5.8       The Committee commented that some performance targets appeared to be lower than last years outturn. Also, the direction of travel arrows in the table indicating the trend in performance appeared to be misleading, as some showed a negative direction of travel when performance targets were being met and in some cases exceeded. The Committee suggested that it might be helpful to add a narrative to explain the direction of travel indicators. The Assistant Chief Executive outlined that performance targets are revised in the light of previous years targets and trends, in addition to what is reasonable for the Council to achieve.  Many targets were also impacted by Covid. The Assistant Chief Executive added that he would be happy to look at the direction of travel indicators and the suggestion of adding narrative to explain the direction of travel.

State of the County report

5.9       The Committee discussed the Council Priority Outcomes and some Committee members commented that the word ‘vulnerable’ should be removed from the outcome of “Keeping vulnerable people safe” and that this should instead read “Keeping people safe” as the council’s services are there to keep everyone in the community safe. It was also suggested the word ‘well’ was not needed in the definition of delivery outcomes (e.g. People feel safe at home and well supported by their networks) as this does not need stating.

Criteria for One-off investment opportunities

5.10     The Committee supported the criteria for one-off investments as outlined in the report. Councillor Hilton commented that she would like to see opportunities for identifying ideas or approaches to support new ways of problem solving in areas such as the Council’s work on climate change, added to the criteria. Councillor Collier commented that he particularly supported the use of the investment money to help reduce service demand. He suggested that if Cabinet is looking for ‘oven ready’ projects, the spending ideas for Children’s Services contained in the Opposition’s budget amendment could be considered.

RPPR Board

5.11     The Committee noted the recommendation contained in the report and agreed to establish a RPPR Board to consider the Portfolio Plans, Medium Term Financial Plan, and submit comments on them to Cabinet on behalf on the Committee. (Post Meeting note: the membership of the RPPR Board will be all Committee members).

5.12     The Committee RESOLVED to:

(1) Note the information within the 2021/22 end of year Council monitoring report and State of the County 2022 report relevant to the remit of the Committee;

(2) Endorse the proposed criteria for assessing one-off investment proposals as set out in paragraph 1.6; and

(3) Agreed to establish a RPPR scrutiny board to consider the developing Portfolio Plans and Medium Term Financial Plan and to submit scrutiny’s final comments on them to Cabinet in January 2022.