Agenda item

15.       </AI5>

<AI6>

6.Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR)

15.1     The Chief Executive introduced the report which included in its appendices a report to be considered by Cabinet on 26 September detailing the latest financial outlook, in the context of the projected revenue outturn for 2024/25. The report outlined the Council’s response to the significant financial pressures, including a recommendation to begin public consultation on a range of specific potential savings. The Chief Executive outlined the next steps in the RPPR process, including considering the impact of any announcements in the national Budget which was expected on the 30 October.

15.2     The Director of Children’s Services Department (CSD) highlighted the key pressures in Children’s Services, including the impact of growth and complexity in need, particularly for care placements and SEND support, which had subsequently increased demand for home to school transport. The increase in demand and costs were reflective of national trends. The Director noted the local responses to these pressures, including work on prevention and early intervention, as well as national, local and regional work on the care market. The Department was also considering the potential for savings across support services and non-statutory services, as well as opportunities for consolidation, although there were currently no identified savings proposals that required public consultation.

15.3     The Assistant Director Planning, Performance and Engagement outlined the pressures in Adult Social Care and Health (ASCH), particularly on the community care budget, due to increased demand and complexity of need, cost of living challenges and increased levels of debt. The Assistant Director noted the Department’s legal duty under the Care Act 2014 to provide care and support to those eligible and outlined the areas which had been protected as far as possible when identifying savings. 11 public consultations were due to be launched in October; 7 of these would cover community based directly provided services for older people and adults with a learning disability and proposals included reprovisioning services for people with eligible needs. The other consultations focussed on preventative commissioned services including supported accommodation, housing support and drug and alcohol services. Consultations would be used to develop equality impact assessments (EQIAs), which would be considered as part of the decision making process.

15.4     The Chief Finance Officer outlined the financial position which included a significant gap and noted that similar pressures were being experienced by other councils.

15.5     The Committee asked a number of questions regarding the information provided in the report including:

• Council budget – The Committee sought clarification on the increasing projected deficit for the current financial year. The Chief Finance Officer commented that, at quarter 1, services were forecasting significant in-year overspends linked to continued pressures and demand on services. As a result, it was expected that further use of reserves would be needed for the current financial year. He noted that modelling on the Medium Term Financial Plan was continuing, and additional information would be presented at the November Cabinet meeting.
• Savings proposals – The Committee asked about the current budget for services identified in the proposals for consultation and enquired if alternative, more cost efficient ways of running these services had been explored. The Assistant Director noted that different models of running services, including Linden Court, were being explored, including through the consultation process. A question was also asked about how officers had identified these areas for savings in ASCH, and if more information could be shared on any initial considerations. In response, the Chief Executive recognised the potential impact these savings could have on vulnerable people and outlined that the proposals were made in light of significant financial pressures, and the need to set a balanced budget, and that protecting services with the most preventative impact had been prioritised. The Chief Executive welcomed any suggestions for alternative areas to consider for potential savings and clarified that the proposals were included in the report in order to begin consultation processes but that a further detail on the budgets could be provided outside of the meeting.
• Consultation process – The Committee sought assurance that the consultation process would seek to capture the views of vulnerable adults and older people and commented that those affected by the proposals did not always have the same advocacy as people engaged with other service areas, or the ability to engage digitally. In response, the Assistant Director noted different ways (including non-digitally) that people could engage with the consultations and recognised the importance of hearing a range voices. She noted that there would be engagement with advocacy groups, forums, associations, families and carers to achieve this. In response to a concern that consultations would not affect decisions about savings, the Lead Member for ASCH commented on the value of consultations which had historically contributed to how service changes were implemented, and that it was important people engaged with these. In response to a question about the cost of undertaking consultations, the Chief Executive noted the legal duty to consult on these proposals and that the cost would primarily be staff time.
• Equality considerations – The Committee asked about the impact of proposed savings on vulnerable people, including people who had previously been impacted by service closures and changes, and if more information could be provided on initial considerations for equality impact assessments (EQIAs). In response, the Chief Executive explained that an initial EQIA had been carried out to consider the impact on people sharing protected characteristics and emphasised that people eligible under the Care Act would still receive a service. The Assistant Director added that more detailed EQIAs were underway, and staff were working with clients to understand need and any potential impacts and provide advocacy for those less able to engage. It was recognised that suggested alternative services would not be suitable for all clients, but a range of services would be available, and the consultation process would increase understanding of need.
• Alternative ASCH services - The Committee sought more information on the ASCH savings proposals which detailed alternative services and the potential for reduction in choice for clients. The Assistant Director clarified that, although some options would be removed, alternatives such as direct payments could provide different options for some clients. A mapping exercise was underway to identify available services that could be viable alternatives, including those provided by the VCSE sector and private providers. Appropriate alternative services would be dependent on individual circumstances.
• Impact of proposals on partners – The Committee raised concerns about the impact proposed savings could have on other organisations, including the NHS and district and borough councils.The Assistant Director recognised the potential impacts on partners, especially in regard to services for supported housing and homelessness support and noted that the Council was working closely with district and borough councils to identify potential impacts and avoid systemic pressures where possible. However, ASCH’s priority was to meet its legal duty to support people eligible under the Care Act.
• Home to school transport - The Committee commented on the high costs of home to school transport and sought more information on plans to review this service. The Director of CSD responded that this was an area of continued focus, and the Department was reviewing the provision of solo transport, including shared transport opportunities and public transport, as well as opportunities to commission transport in a different way.  The Committee recognised the complexity of this service, including the need to provide transport to schools identified in Education, Health and Care Plans which could be a long distance from a child’s home, due to individual needs. The Director of CSD recognised the value of placing children in schools close to their home and noted work to increase inclusion across all schools so that they were better placed to meet the needs of their pupils.
• Income generation – A question was asked about plans for empty premises if proposals to close day services went ahead.In response, the Chief Finance Officer commented that a property asset management strategy was in place to ensure best value for money approaches were taken for council properties that were no longer needed.
• Lobbying – The Committee agreed that lobbying central government was an ongoing priority in response to financial pressures, including for the need to provide funding for preventative services.

15.6     The Lead Member for Education and ISEND commented on the difficult decisions needed to respond to departmental pressures and overspend and welcomed the input of Members in identifying any alternative areas for savings for consideration as well as contributing to lobbying efforts.

15.7     The Lead Member for ASCH noted the challenges arising from the demography of East Sussex and thanked officers for their work on the process so far. He also commented that the priority of the Department was delivering a good service to clients, which could be achieved without some of the physical buildings.   

15.8        The Committee RESOLVED to note the report.<AI5>

SCHOO