Agenda item

(Report by Mr K Abbott, Director, Resources and Planning Group and Mr G Ward, Director, Capital and Infrastructure Group)

(1)         The Committee considered the fifth report on the forecast outturn against budget for the Children Families and Education (CFE) Directorate for 2009/10 financial year, which was based on the third full quarterly monitoring report that had been presented to the Cabinet on 29 March 2010.

(2)         The Chairman asked Mr Abbott and Mr Ward to introduce the report.

(3)         Mr Abbott highlighted the key issues in the revenue budget, which included that the Directorate predicted an underspend of £2,001k (excluding Schools and Asylum), which was a movement of £1m since in the last report to the Committee.  The two key factors for this was; SEN Transport where a lot of transport runs were cancelled due to the prolonged period of heavy snow, and the impact of the contract negotiations being carried out by the Passenger Transportation Unit.  There was an increase in the underspend of over £½m, which reflected the continuing difficulty to recruit Social Workers.    Although the Asylum funding was not reflected in the £2m underspend of the Directorate there was the significant change on the position of Asylum funding. The forecast shortfall had been reduced by just over £1m, which was a direct result of the conclusions in the negotiations with the UK Border Agency (UKBA).  UKBA had agreed to payback £2.3m, in respect of the additional costs incurred in 2008/9/10, half of that was reflected in the 2009/10 financial year was now reflected in the forecast.  He concluded that the final figures for the schools reserves would be submitted to the Committee in the Summer.

(4)         Mr Ward then spoke on the key aspects reflected in the capital budget advising that the figures reflected the position statement at the end of December 2009.  The figures also reflected the cash limit adjustments that were made as part of the County Council Budget, which left a figure that suggested a £99k overspend on the capital programme, which was covered by the revenue contribution, this did mask the previous levels of slippage which had been adjusted as it moved along the formal approval process for the new capital programme.  One of the challenges now until the end of the year was the impact of the adverse weather and what it had done to a significant number of the building schemes, whilst special schools were being rolled out the delay had caused in slippage in expenditure but more challenging the impact it had on planned openings of schools.  He advised that colleagues in Corporate Property and some schools had to work through new time lines to ensure the schools could open at the start of the academic new year.

(5)         Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments which included the following:

(6)         In response to questions by Mr Tolputt, Mr Abbott advised that; the figure of £6m was the forecast of the reserves that schools would be spending for projects etc. If any funding was clawed back from schools it had to be used for the benefit of the schools and not for use by the County Council.  In response to the second question, Mr Abbott stated that there had been no Social worker posts held vacant. There had been some success with international recruitment but the reality was that as fast as there was recruitment; Social Workers were leaving for new posts elsewhere.  The County Council had also made a clear decision to put in additional funding to recruit Social Workers but KCC, like other local authorities were having great difficulties in recruiting Social Workers.  He added that the restructuring of the Directorate had no impact on this issue as one of the clear positions that had been adopted was that front line posts would be protected. With reference to the Looked After Children figures rising in Kent, Mr Abbott agreed to come back to Members with further information advising that the issue was being pursued with the government and that Mrs Turner, Managing Director, would be speaking to her counterparts in the region to tackle the issue.

(7)         In rely to a question by Mr Vye, Mr Abbott advised that in terms of the deficits the report referred to all schools, it was the case that when the accounts closed a few schools tipped into deficit usually because their cash flow calculations were incorrect, those would be dealt with by a telephone call.  Mr Abbott said that only once had a school been issued with a notice of concern, where there were concerns regarding their deficit and in the past delegation had been withdrawn from schools but this was very rare.  The process was about working closely with the school on an individual basis to agree a recovery plan.

(8)          In response to a question by Mr Vye, Mr Abbott said that when preparing the 2010/11 budget he would look to colleagues in the Passenger and Transport Unit and those in Special Educational Needs for an indication of the funding needed for SEN transport. There should be sufficient funding in the budget now but this would be addressed in the first monitoring report of the new financial year on whether the forecasts were genuine.

(9)         In reply to a question by Mr Vye regarding the pressures on the Learning Group, Mr Abbott advised that the report reflected the pressures on the Advisory Service.  The smaller pressures had been addressed in the budget.  He felt that for the future the pressures and demands from schools would not disappear but it was clear there was a national drive for schools to start working collaboratively and looking for solutions.  Even with £6m coming out of schools from reserves, their spending plans were just closing; schools would still have £45m in the bank in revenue budgets.  There was a need to look at the schools reserves to put in support where schools had been struggling with their sending plans, he suggested this could be carried out through getting the governors and Headteachers to reprioritise and spending their own money on things that in the past the LEA had picked up on occasion.  The Governors and Headteachers needed to be aware that there would be less money in the future and the LEA would not be able to carry on funding things it had done in the past.

(10)    In reply to a question by Mr Myers, Mr Ward advised that the appointment of the SEN transport contractors was not driven by budget constraints; the Informal Member Group for SEN Transport had been looking at this issue and would be addressed in Item B5 on the agenda. The LEA was aware of its responsibilities and the challenges of being aware of the complete variation of needs for young people that go to special schools.

(11)    In response to a question by Mr Smith, Mr Cooke said that it was the role of this Committee to scrutinise the budgets of Children, Families and Education Directorate and that it would not be possible to have individual Informal Member Groups for each of the three Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees (POSCs) with the Directors. Mrs Rook suggested that Budget IMG that looked at the budget in November 2009 worked well. 

(12)    The Chairman sought the Committees agreement to a Budget IMG being set up with a membership of 6 (2,2,2) by each of the three POSC Chairmen nominating 2 Members from their Committee.   The Committee agreed this without a vote.

(13)    In reply to a question by Mr Whiting, Mr Abbott agreed to report back to Mr Whiting and Members of the Committee in writing regarding the graph for the position on SEN Home to School Transport in relation to the underspend.

(14)    In response to questions by Miss Kemsley,  Mr Cooke advised that the Children’s Champions Board and its parent Committee the Vulnerable Children and Partnerships Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee monitored the numbers of children placed in Kent by other local authorities.  It was a significant issue.  There was a shift that was being seen due to the 25 mile rule [children allowed to be placed no further than 25 miles from their home], with a large number of London Boroughs placing children in Kent and a shift of placements from the Thanet area to the Sittingbourne area.  A number of the children were with independent fostering agencies too.  Mr Abbott advised that KCC was not able to make money from the placements. This was an historic issue with the London Boroughs in particular as their funding per child was much higher than the shire authorities, they had actively recruited to Thanet but that had now changed because of the mileage limits.  He added that the London Authorities were able to pay more than KCC could, which was a contributing factor in KCC’s difficulty in recruiting foster carers.

(15)    Mr Long made a declaration of interest as a Director of the Integrated Services Programme, which was one of the largest independent fostering providers in Kent.  He felt that some social problems did occur by placing children directly or indirectly in Kent he felt that the issues were often overstated.  He stated that the cost of the placement of children was borne by the placing authorities they paid fees to independent organisations who then paid foster carers, schools carers, and social workers etc who cared for the children.  Children placed with those carers were often less of a burden.  Kent social worker only became involved if there were allegations against people involved in the care, which was rare. He concluded that the situation would not change soon as there were experienced people in the present economic climate who were in a position to carry out this type of care.

(16)    The Chairman paid tribute to Mr Abbott and Mr Ward and their Teams for the detailed budget reports they produce.

(17)    RESOLVED that:

(a)     the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted,

(b)     the Scrutiny Board be requested to endorse a CFE Budget IMG being set up with a membership of 6 (2,2,2) by each of the three CFE POSC Chairmen nominating 2 Members from their Committee;

(c)     the requests for further information be carried out; and

(d)     the projected outturn figures for the CFE Directorate as at the third full quarterly monitoring report be noted.