Agenda item

Mr Peter Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services introduced the report and stated that the budget was updated and balanced, including minor changes since it was last presented to Members. Additionally, he extended his thanks to the finance team for their work on the budget.

1.    In response to comments and questions:

1. The Chairman shared his thanks to Mr Oakford and finance team for their attendance at the Committee.
2. A Member raised ideas such as moving more services in house to take control of the provision, delivering services in a more targeted manner, believing there was a clear argument for this in the Adult Social Care Directorate. Also, raising the idea of cutting contributions to local authorities and emphasising prevention as a policy. Mr Oakford explained that a large capital investment would be needed to bring services in house. There was a £6 million grant for the Children, Young People and Education Directorate which was to be spent on prevention.

A Member noted that the cost of the Adult Social Care Directorate was the greatest financial risk for council. The Member believed that residentMr Peter Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services introduced the report and stated that the budget was updated and balanced, including minor changes since it was last presented to Members. Additionally, he extended his thanks to the finance team for their work on the budget.

In response to comments and questions:

c.     The Chairman shared his thanks to Mr Oakford and finance team for their attendance at the Committee.

d.    A Member raised ideas such as moving more services in house to take control of the provision, delivering services in a more targeted manner, believing there was a clear argument for this in the Adult Social Care Directorate. Also, they emphasised prevention as a policy for delivering longer term savings. Mr Oakford explained that a large capital investment would be needed to bring services in house. There was a £6 million grant for the Children, Young People and Education Directorate (CYPE) which was to be spent on prevention.

e.    A Member noted that the cost of the Adult Social Care Directorate and the delivery of its savings target was the greatest financial risk for the council. The Member believed that residents would not be better served by greater private sector provision, more thought more ruthless decision making was needed. Mr Oakford agreed with the Member that the care system was poorly managed, commending the Corporate Director of CYPE and the team for their work, noting that this had taken some financial pressure off the Adult Social Care directorate. Mr Oakford recognised that tough decisions had to be made. Mr Gough added that there had been a significant amount of progress within the CYPE Directorate and SEN transport in managing services within budget. There had been a significant level of pressure on the Adult Social Care Directorate recognising that whilst across most services demands in terms of numbers had not increased significantly, the demand associated with mental health services had. Additionally, noting that there were system wide issues, if the high needs funding and the statutory override were not renewed there would be a major problem.

f.      A Member questioned whether there were any further changes to the budget paper between now and the County Council budget meeting. Mr Oakford shared that any further changes were not anticipated but the Council did not yet have the final tax base or business rates figures from all the district councils.

g.    A Member raised that the Liberal Democrat Group proposed savings in the Civil Society Fund previously and reallocation of that money which Mr Oakford spoke against. The Member asked for clarification on what had changed that now within the budget there was a £200,000 saving forecast for the Civil Society Fund. Mr Oakford explained that his opinion on the brilliant work and need for funding of the Civil Society Fund had not changed, there was significant thought put into this matter and a cut in funding was decided instead of an abolishment. Mrs Bell added that the Civil Society funding had decreased to £200,000. There was to be a review of the civil society strategy being conducted on how the money was spent and how it could be spent in the future.

h.    A Member asked for confirmation that whilst there was spending on new Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) contracts and additional spending within that area, that no HWRCs would be proposed for closure. Mr Thomas explained that in the current year a saving was required on HWRCs, there must be mindfulness around devolution and the potential changes that could arise. There was no intention to remove HWRCs but the network and infrastructure would continue to evolve.

i.      A Member questioned what cuts were going to be considered within the Adult Social Care Directorate in the future and when would they be scheduled to take effect. Additionally, questioning at what point those cuts became counterproductive. Finally, questioning whether a restructure of the Senior Officers within the Adult Social Care Directorate had been considered. Mr Oakford explained that the service was working on detailed proposals for any savings, this was not done in enough detail last year which caused some projected savings to not be delivered. The financial savings were already counterproductive in some areas of the Council, but there had been a legal requirement to balance the budget. Adult Social Care funding needed to be addressed nationally, otherwise the consequences would remain.  In response to the deficit of funding in this area, almost all other areas other than statutory services were receiving reductions in funding. Mr Oakford explained that there were only three Directors reporting to the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care. There were a huge number of staff vacancies in ASC, if there was potential for more assessments to be completed in less time there could be a possibility of more savings. There were no current plans to remove any staff from the directorate.

j.      A Member noted that within the budget, funding for schools was to be decreased, there were only three KCC schools with a deficit. Did the Cabinet Member know what the schools roll forward was up until 31^st March? Additionally, questioning as there was a high level of good and outstanding schools in Kent, did funding for school advisors need reviewing? Mr Love explained that the Government had prevented parents from having access to an overall single word rating for a school and the information accessible from Ofsted was to be of a diminishing use going forward. Mr Love noted that there should be a level playing field of funding and services available for academies and maintained schools. There was an aim to have a level playing field through the national schools funding formula. Mr Love confirmed that there would be no duplication of funding for schools that were already receiving funding through the national school funding formula. Mr Gough added that the contract with The Education People (TEP) involved current and future reductions.

k.     A Member questioned what the £200,000 cut in library material meant in real terms. Mrs Bell shared that there had been great investment in electronic offerings and offered to come back to Members with the details. Mrs Bell confirmed that there was no intention to cut the number of books.

l.      When asked whether the subsidy of £500,000 for the Turner account was the best use of funding. Mrs Bell shared that the funding to the Turner account had dramatically decreased.

m.   A Member noted that KCC had been the last port for many vulnerable people, extending thanks to carers across Kent. Additionally, sharing that unless the flow into the system was controlled nothing could be supported, noting a better use of technology to reduce staffing costs as a possible help.

n.    A Member noted that KCC funded 7 Windmills, costing £1.7 million per annum, questioning whether this was best use of KCC funding. Additionally, questioning what the 16+ travel saver £385,000 saving within the budget this year meant in terms of price. Mr Oakford agreed that the windmills were not a good use of funding, there was work being conducted to look at trusts to divest windmills to other organisations. Mr Oakford explained that three years of funding needed to be put into the MFTP but there was a desire to reduce  the cost before then. Mr Chapman shared that the price of the 16+ travel saver was set and was subject to annual uplift every year.

o.    When asked how savings would be made within Adult Social Care contracts. Mr Smith shared that when requesting extensions to contracts, significant thought went into best value for money. The recommissioning of large contracts would take time and those savings would come.

p.    A Member asked for clarification on the proposed cut to the council tax reduction scheme support payments for districts. Mr Shipton shared that provisional tax-based notifications had been received from all 12 districts, which was a 1.22% increase, the difference of £4.6 million below what had been originally expected was to come from the council tax equalisation smoothing reserve. Mr Shipton confirmed that the underlying factors of the lower than expected collection rates were provisional tax-based notifications, changes in eligibility for council tax reduction discount for low-income households and estimated single person discount changes.

q.    A Member questioned the estimated reduction in KCC’s share of the DfE DHSC Family Hubs and Start for Life Fund of £3.3 million, was this considering the new funding in the Governments Budget? Mr Shipton explained that the KCC budget had not been updated to include this as the information had not been available but it would be within the final budget. Mr Shipton confirmed that it would become an additional one-off resource for use.

The Chair invited the Cabinet Members to provide an overview of their portfolios:

r.      Mr Baker, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, explained that the BSIP funding had been extended to a three-year grant, noting that multi-year funding was incredibly helpful for oversight into the future. There was a focus on the maintenance of highway assets, highways term maintenance contracts were to adapt and evolve to ensure money would go as far as possible.

s.     Mr Kennedy, Deputy Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, shared that more collaborative work with NHS had taken place. In conversation about levels of commissioning savings, Mr Kennedy explained that most were undeliverable this financial year so were to be carried over. Additionally, highlighting the use of technology to reduce need of hospitalisation and nursing homes.

t.      Mr Jeffrey, Cabinet Member for Communications and Democratic Services, emphasised a more for less approach to delivering services. Additionally, highlighting the potential for AI to assist in delivering better, more cost-effective services. Mr Jeffrey identified the potential impact devolution could have on Kent and the prospective new structure of KCC.

u.    Mrs Chandler, Cabinet Member for Integrated Children's Services, acknowledged the financial challenges for children's services. There was success in maintaining the current year's budget through a cohesive directorate ethos, next year could lead to increased costs due to complex child placements particularly in severe mental health cases. Most early intervention funding had been maintained, additional funding for prevention work would be welcomed. There had been no uplift in consolidated children and families grants this year which would have an impact on the budget. A proposed capital item for in-house care development could be used in response to the challenges present in children's placements.

v.     Mr Thomas, Cabinet Member for Environment, highlighted a £50 million expenditure on energy from waste, noting that Kent fell behind in terms of recycling, however Kent had a low landfill rate. A new textiles contract had been procured. Mr Thomas emphasised the importance of increasing recycling rates, as this had the potential to save £17 million per annum. There was confirmation of government funding to aid with the processing of waste for 2025/26 of £13 million for KCC and £10 million for the district councils Additionally, a Kent Resource Partnership Manager had been appointed to improve recycling and address industry challenges.

w.   Mr Rayner, Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance, explained that there had been a failure by the government to address the funding issues in adult social care. Mr Rayner believed that the issue required a national solution such as reducing public expectations regarding support in old age and encouraging greater private arrangements to maintain the desired standard of living. The was a need for proactive measures to alleviate the ongoing financial pressure caused by adult social care.

x.     Mrs Bell, Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services, explained that her portfolio was working at a £1.5 million underspend on a £26.4 million budget, which was primarily as a result of management action in terms of next year’s budget. There was a need to increase spending in some statutory services, this was partially offset by increased income from libraries and registration, price inflation for public rights of way contracts and trading standards fees. Mrs Bell confirmed that efforts to manage spending and generate income were to continue.

y.     Mr Love, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, shared that difficult decisions had been taken in education, there was a need to be able to say no to those that did not meet threshold for additional funding. There had been a £3 million reduction in the education portfolio. The statutory override on high needs block was coming to an end which would likely affect future budgets, the funding needed to be brought back under control, which was to be done through a number of thought-out reforms.

z.     Mr Gough, Leader of Kent County Council, shared that the executive was delivering a sound budget. There was a need to continue delivering saving in discretionary areas. Mr Gough identified three big areas of pressure: Adult Social Care, Children and Young People and SEND (SEN Transport), there was need for government decision or action to help with this.

Mr Oakford thanked colleagues for heathy debate on the budget and thanked colleagues in finance and directorates for their work.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee noted updated draft revenue budget and MTFP, draft capital programme and draft Treasury Management Strategy.