Agenda item

This report presents for consideration the comments of all Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Committees on the provisional draft budget for 2020/2021 proposed by Cabinet on 19 November 2019.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which set out the comments of all Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Committees on the provisional draft budget for 2020/2021 proposed by Cabinet on 19 November 2019.

The following issues were discussed.

·         Reserves – clarification was sought that the budget gap would not be addressed by the use of what were now limited reserves. The Chief Finance Officer commented that the latest draft budget included new pressures but benefited from a surplus on the collection fund. Although the latter was a one off source of funding, the council tax base was growing at an accelerated rate and additional business rate income was expected. The draft budget addressed previous over ambitious income targets and also the need to invest significantly in children’s services. It was a robust budget but the Chief Finance Officer acknowledged it was underpinned by one off resources to an extent.

·         ILACS funding – regarding a comment that it was difficult to identify in the draft budget the increased funding in children’s services following the ILACs inspection, the Chief Finance Officer advised that the draft budget contained an additional £7m for children’s services in response to the ILACS inspection. Much of this would fund additional staffing, but also reflected a significant increase in funding to meet the increasing number and cost of placements. The plan was to reduce social worker’s high caseloads to help with recruitment and retention and to encourage more agency staff to become Council employees.

·         High Needs Reserve Deficit/SEN – concern was expressed about the likelihood of SEN pressures increasing, but with even less funding available. The Chief Finance Officer commented that SEN funding was now the biggest financial risk. The decision to ring fence deficits to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) was helpful but the additional DSG funding was still inadequate to meet the SEN pressures. He asserted that the Government would have to increase the funding as this was a national issue, however policy changes were also needed. The revised deficit recovery plan in Medway would not close the funding gap, but would go a long way to achieving this.

Members asked for information about how SEN children placed in Medway were funded and whether their needs were met by the authority who placed them. A briefing paper was requested, to include wider issues around housing, responsibilities more generally and how effective communications were between Medway and the other councils involved.

Regarding a recent announcement from the Chancellor that government departments needed to identify 5% savings, the Committee was advised it was too early to say what the impact on local government might be.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     refer the comments from the individual Overview and Scrutiny Committees, as set out in Section 3 of the report, together with those pertinent to this Committee as considered earlier in this agenda to Cabinet on 4 February, and;

b)     request a briefing note on the funding of SEN children placed in Medway by other local authorities, including wider issues such as housing, responsibilities more generally for SEN looked after children and how effective communications were between Medway and the other councils involved.