Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

1.  The minutes were approved by the Scrutiny Committee.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2023 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Mr Neil Baker (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Mrs S Chandler (Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services), Mrs Z Cooke (Corporate Director for Finance), Mr R Gough (Leader of the Council), Mrs S Hammond (Corporate Director of Children, Young People and Education), Mr S Jones (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport), Mr R Love, OBE (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills), Mr P Oakford (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services), Mr H Rayner (Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services), Mr D Shipton (Head of Finance, Policy, Planning and Strategy), Mr R Smith (Corporate Director for Adult Social Care and Health), and Mr D Watkins (Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health) were in attendance for this item.

1.  The Chairman explained that this report had been through all Cabinet Committees which had reviewed their own portfolio areas. The role of the Scrutiny Committee was to scrutinise the overall budget and direction of travel, with the report coming back to the Committee in January 2024. The Chairman urged all Members to engage with the budget setting process by challenging, asking questions, and making recommendations or representations. The Council needed to be synchronised and work together during this extraordinary time.

2.  The Leader stated that at the previous Scrutiny Committee meeting, Members had requested regular budget updates following the Cabinet process, and this was the first such report. The initial draft budget had been published at the end of November, but the process was iterative and remained ongoing.

3.  Mr Oakford explained at the initial draft budget was predicted to be £1415.5m in 2024/25, which included £201.5m (15.3%) of core spending growth including £45.5m for the previous years overspend; £42.6m for price inflation; £80.9m in other cost growth not related to inflation; £14.2m in pay; and £14.6m in other strategic priorities including £5m for highways. The vast majority of spending growth came from Adult Social Care which equated for £96.3m; Children’s Social Care which equated to £31.4m and home to school transport which equated to £32.9m, as well as £16.4m to increase reserves that had been depleted during 2022/23; and £15.1m on the safety valve agreement with the Department for Education. The Council is assuming approximately £99.8m of funding, assuming the council tax increased by the maximum of 5% and depended on the government funding settlement yet to be announced. This left an £118m shortfall in the 2024/25 budget before any savings or increased income had been accounted.

4.  Mr Oakford explained that the £118m shortfall had to be found from savings, increasing income, and decreasing costs. Numerous savings had already been proposed including a £30.9m reduction in future cost growth (largely in adult social care and home to school transport), £28.3m savings every directorate, and £10.1m increased income. This left a gap of £48.8m still to resolve. Since the publication of the initial draft budget paper further savings, income, and assumed funding increases have been identified of £12.3m, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Mr Neil Baker (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Mrs S Chandler (Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services), Mrs Z Cooke (Corporate Director for Finance), Mr R Gough (Leader of the Council), Mrs S Hammond (Corporate Director of Children, Young People and Education), Mr S Jones (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport), Mr R Love, OBE (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills), Mr P Oakford (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services), Mr H Rayner (Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services), Mr D Shipton (Head of Finance, Policy, Planning and Strategy), Mr R Smith (Corporate Director for Adult Social Care and Health), and Mr D Watkins (Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health) were in attendance for this item.

1.  The Chairman explained that the report had been presented to Cabinet on 30 November and was now back to the Scrutiny Committee for monitoring purposes.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

a)    Discussed, commented on, and noted the report.

Mrs S Chandler (Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services), Mrs S Hammond (Corporate Director of Children, Young People and Education), and Mr R Love, OBE (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills).

1.  Mr Love, OBE explained that the report provided a response to the Home to School transport Short Focused Inquiry (SFI). 

2.  Members questioned how the personal transport budget was being used regarding SEND home to school transport. Mr Love, OBE stated that parents were made aware of the personal transport budget and were encouraged to utilise this option as it was more cost effective. It provided an alternative to local authority transport and often worked better for parents.

3.  Members questioned the governance process of the SFI and it was confirmed that the SFI made recommendations to Cabinet, which Cabinet did not have to accept, but the SEND Sub-Committee reported directly to the Scrutiny Committee.

4.  Mr Barrington-King, as Chair of the SFI, provided a background to their work and felt that they had received good buy-in from Members and Officers, and made recommendations which could be applied to both SEND and mainstream home to school transport. Mr Love, OBE added that the report summarised the issues within home to school transport and the team were working to understand its implications and the potential for culture change, using the SFI as a prompt to re-examine and review.

5.  Members felt concerned regarding the robustness of the proposed savings within home to school transport, particularly regarding the use of personal transport budgets. Mrs Hammond confirmed that the threshold criteria meant that personal transport budgets must cost less than alternative offers, and an ongoing review was in place for all personal transport budgets granted since January 2022, which equated to approximately 500 families.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

a)    Noted the response to the Home to School Transport Short Focused Inquiry Report.

Mr A Brady (Member for Canterbury City North), Mrs S Chandler (Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services), Mrs S Hammond (Corporate Director of Children, Young People and Education), and Mr R Love, OBE (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills).

1.    The Chairman explained that the decision had been to Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee on 17 October, and a call-in had been submitted and subsequently rejected. Following Scrutiny Committee procedure, a request had been raised to add the decision onto the agenda for further consideration and discussion.

2.  Mr Brady explained that the reason he had requested the decision on the Scrutiny Committee agenda was for several reasons. These included the decision not meeting the requirements of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, as he felt the decision was not in line with the best interests of children and young people in Kent and had not taken into account their views and feelings. He questioned whether children and young people and had been consulted on the decision. Furthermore, the original paper had outlined that potential risks in the decision would be managed through the work of the District and Borough Councils within their capacity as the local housing associations. He questioned if local councils were involved in this decision and what consultation had been undertaken with them. He felt that the decision did not consider the knock-on costs for KCC, as the decision could increase homelessness in the borough, and therefore not provide a net saving.

3.  Mrs Chandler explained that care-leavers had been included within the decision, and some care-leavers had felt that the accommodation provided by KCC did not support them becoming independent and they would rather have more support in procuring their own accommodation. Discussions had also taken place between KCC and district/borough councils as well as with Kent Housing Group. Officers added that engagement with district councils had begun in 2021  when KCC officers had met individually with borough councils and the Housing Options Group, which contained all thirteen local councils. In September 2021 the Chair of the Housing Options Group attended the Corporate Parenting Panel, and officers had attended the Kent Finance Officers Group alongside district council officers to discuss the proposal. Mrs Hammond explained that legislation and statutory guidance mandated councils to take reasonable steps to keep in touch and re-establish contact with care-leavers up until the age of 21; and have a personal adviser up until the age of 25 if the young person wished to stay in touch. The legislation did not mandate the Council to provide accommodation to care-leavers past the age of 18, and this had been a discretionary service. She explained that KCC would continue to offer a personal adviser and provide assistance for housing where the care-leaver used to live or was seeking employment. Accommodation would continue to be provided for 18-19 year olds, which was not a statutory duty, and the decision would not be implemented until April 2024, which for those currently aged  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Members did not have any items to add to the Work Programme.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

a)     Considered and noted the report.