Agenda item

Mr Simmonds, Ms Carey, Ms McMullan and Mr Wood were present for this item.

(1)   Mr Simmonds explained that it would be fair to say that the Council had been surprised when asked to make savings in this year’s budget; however what was revealed in the Government announcement of grant cuts was predictable. 

(2)   It was logical to look at the grants that were affected by the cuts and it was necessary to think through the implications of the grants and which were most beneficial to the residents of Kent.  Following the Leader’s decision of where the cuts would be made to meet the savings target for this year it was then necessary to analyse the services, what the effects of the cuts might be and it was hoped that Members would generally accept the direction of travel that had been made to meet this year’s savings targets. 

(3)   Mr Chittenden explained that he was a Member of the Police Authority with responsibility for road safety.  He had concerns around the effects of any cuts to the safety partnership and what support could be offered to minimise any effects, and he asked the Cabinet Member whether any further information was available on where the remaining £168,000 cuts would be made.  Mr Wood explained that in terms of the road safety grant £1.8milllion of the £2.3 million grant received went to the Kent and Medway Safety Partnership which employed 41 full time equivalent (FTE) staff at a cost of around £1.2million.  It was understood that the Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate were in discussions about how these cuts were dealt with operationally, the best use of the resources available and the best way of maintaining road safety. 

(4)   The speed limit review would not be going ahead at this stage so consequently the capital costs of the review were not required.  Mr Chittenden urged the Council to do everything in its power to mitigate the effects of the cuts to the safety partnership. 

(5)   The Chairman asked whether there was a longer list of options available originally; would it be possible to provide this list to Members? 

(6)   Mr Simmonds explained that the Council would be discussing possible options with the District authorities to determine the effects and possible implications of not continuing with particular projects and initiatives and how best to manage current situation.  Many contracts and projects were match funded and it would be in the residents’ best interests to continue with such projects.  It was vital to deal with the £15.5million in the short term to enable detailed examination of future cuts. 

(7)   The Chairman asked for clarification over the integrated transport schemes which were due to be going ahead this year.  Mr Simmonds explained that that should be addressed to Mr Chard as it was being looked at currently and all projects were under review.  All County Members were due to receive a full list of the schemes which would then be passed to the Joint Transportation Boards. 

(8)   Mr Christie asked whether it was right to assume that the Members grant would continue, would this be an area that would be looked at?  Mr Christie referred to the Area Based Grant (ABG), the report stated that this would be treated as a funding source of the overall budget requirement in a similar way to formula grant and council tax income.   Was it the case that the ABG for Children, Families and Education had to be spent on CFE, Mr Christie understood that the purpose of ABG was to get away from specific grants and allow more flexibility.  Ms McMullan explained that the ABG allowed a degree of freedom at a national level, however within KCC’s medium term plan; paragraphs 2.21 and 2.22, ABGs were dealt with as specific grants.  There was a need to re-think priorities to get through the in-year cuts and the commitment that ABG was discussed further in future years.

(9)   A report circulated at the Cabinet meeting was drawn to Members attention; this had not been circulated with the Cabinet Scrutiny papers.  POST MEETING NOTE:  This report was circulated via email to Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Members on 12 July 2010.

(10)          Mr Christie asked for further clarification on the use of reserves, was it inevitable that front line services would be affected?  Ms McMullan explained that the reserves were set up some years ago, and were intended to smooth the impact of any future cuts, however the reserves had been required 9 months sooner than expected.  Mr Simmonds explained that the effect on individuals would be limited; reserves had been put aside for this eventuality, using them now would allow time to look at the Council’s core services and how they were going to be delivered. 

(11)          The Chairman asked for clarification of when Members might be informed of the detail behind the other savings proposals.  Mr Simmonds confirmed that Members would be made aware as soon as possible, hopefully in time for the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.    Ms McMullan confirmed that the detail would be available in time for the next Cabinet meeting. 

(12)          Mrs Dean asked whether the longer list of options available to meet the grant reductions was available to Members and Ms McMullan confirmed that it could be made available to all Members. 

(13)          Mr Christie asked for clarification on the underspend against the Early Years entitlement extension.  Was this based on the extension from 12.5hour to 15 hours and should people not be encouraged to use it rather than cutting it because it was not being used.  In February the Council was suggesting an extra precept of £3million to cover the cost of asylum, however now £15.5million of cuts were being dealt with with minimal effect.   Mr Wood explained that on the Early Years entitlement, in 2008/09 there was an underspend of £1.4million, in 2009/10 £1.1million, in the Medium Term Plan £5.8million was set aside for the increase from 12.5hours to 15hours and the extension to 2 year olds.  A lot had been done to promote take up but the underspend suggested that this would continue in future years.  Regarding the asylum reserve, there was a reserve available which contained £1.7million at the end of 2009/10 plus a budgeted allowance for a grant shortfall of £1.3million in 2010/11.  There was £800,000 remaining in the reserve which should be sufficient if costs recovered in 2010/11. 

(14)          The Chairman asked that Members be involved as much as possible in future discussions.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

1. Thank Mr Simmonds, Ms Carey, Ms McMullan and Mr Wood for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions

2. Thank Mrs Hohler and Mr Abbott for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions

3. Welcome the assurance of the Cabinet Member for Finance that further details of the proposals to address revenue grant reductions would be released as soon as possible and in time for the next round of Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings

4. Thank the Director of Finance for agreeing to provide the long list of options available to the County Council to address the revenue grant reductions.