Agenda and draft minutes

Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday, 5th November, 2024 10.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone. View directions

Contact: Anna Taylor  03000 416478

Media

Items
No. Item

73.

Apologies and Substitutes

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Mr Barrington-King, Mr Bond (for whom Mrs Hudson was substituting), Mrs Game, Ms Hawkins, Mrs Prendergast and Mr Webb.  Mrs Game and Ms Hawkins joined the meeting virtually. 

74.

Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2024 pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 18th September 2024 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman. 

 

75.

Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Report – June 2024-25 pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1.    Mr Peter Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services and Mr John Betts, Interim Corporate Director Finance introduced the report and provided a verbal update on the following: 

 

a.    The report included first-quarter results up to June 2024. The revenue overspend was forecast at £16.3 million, less than in the previous year, with a savings target of £111.3m; £96.3 million of savings were forecast to be achieved.

b.    Adult Social Care had a forecast overspend of £16.3 million. Despite an extra £100 million added to their gross spend budget last year, the shortfall was due to unmet savings targets, adding pressure to next year’s budget.

c.     Children, Young People and Education were on budget.

d.    Growth, Environment and Transport was predicted to overspend by £6.2 million, but this was expected to fall back in line with the budget. 

e.    Non-attributable costs, or interest on investments, showed an underspend of £7 million, offsetting some of the overall overspend

f.      Early indications for the second quarter showed no budget improvement. Mr Oakford would provide more information at the next Cabinet meeting.

 

2.    The Chairman invited Members to comment.  The key points raised and responded to by the Cabinet Members and officers present included the following: 

 

a.    Would National Insurance worsen the third quarter’s budget? Mr Oakford confirmed that it would add a pressure next year and mentioned a possible extra £13 million for Adult Social Care, but this would not alleviate all the budgetary problems.

b.    Mr Betts clarified that comments made in the Autumn Statement related to 2025/26 and would impact next year’s forecast.

c.     A Member requested a breakdown of finances for months four and five to understand the high overspend and lack of savings. Mr Oakford confirmed that the quarter two report would be brought to Cabinet in November.

d.    The Chairman requested assurance that the budget figures were moving in the right direction and that plans were robust and achievable. Mr Oakford explained that while Adult Social Care nationwide faced challenges, KCC’s other departments were on track. To balance the budget, services might need to be reduced, meeting only statutory responsibilities for Adult Social Care. Directors were aware of the problems and would address them despite growing demand. Price Waterhouse Cooper was working with KCC to improve efficiency. Figures relating to the second quarter would be brought to the next Scrutiny Committee meeting for member analysis.

e.    A member referred to a table in the report showing the revenue budget forecast for each directorate, specifically the schools' delegated budget. It was questioned if the zero figure for the revenue budget was realistic and if it should have been higher. Also questioned was the VAT on independent schools. John Betts explained that the zero figure was because all money from the Dedicated Schools Grant should be spent or delegated to schools. The report stated that KCC was on track regarding the cumulative target set by DfE for the high needs block, but the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Fee Uplifts for Adult Social Care Providers 2024/25 decision 24/00009 pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

As the original proposer of this item the Chairman invited Mr Brady to explain to the Committee why this was on the agenda.  Mr Brady explained that this issue was initially brought to the Adult Social Care Committee in March as an out of cycle decision item, and due to unanswered questions, it was brought to the Scrutiny Committee for further discussion. 

 

1.    Mr Watkins explained that the semi-urgent decision was due to the timing of the Cabinet Committees and the budget discussion.

2.    Mr Ellis added that there was a proposal to bring the papers to the January 2025 Cabinet Committee for debate, with Mr Watkins making a decision after the Budget County Council meeting in February.  Initial discussions with finance colleagues and providers aimed to understand their pressures, affordability, and alternative service provisions. An impact assessment was conducted to understand the decision's wider implications.

3.    Mr Brady asked for clarification on several points: the incentives for providers whose expectations were not met with the proposed uplift, what would happen to those needing support if providers couldn't deliver care packages, negotiations on costs outside the framework, funding and negotiation details, the absence of impact assessment information for members, any legal issues from the impact assessment, and mitigations for equality implications.

4.    Mr Ellis responded that partly due to available capacity, discussions on incentives did not come to fruition. No providers failed to deliver care packages due to the decision, factors like CQC ratings could affect providers but this was not an issue in this case. The priority remained those needing care and support. For negotiations outside the framework, £9.4 million was set aside. Provider costs were assessed individually, but none exceeded what was offered to framework providers. More detail on the impact assessment could have been provided, and Mr Ellis would consider this for future reports. There were no legal issues from the impact assessment, which aligned with contract terms.

5.    Richard Streatfeild noted a link between extending contracts in January and KCC's current overspend.

6.    Mr Ellis agreed that future approaches should differ. At the time, a 4% uplift seemed fair, though it was a difficult balance.

 

The Scrutiny Committee fully supported the proposal to discuss the fee uplift decision at Adult Social Care Cabinet Committee in January in the future, understanding that the decision would then be taken by the Cabinet Member following Budget County Council in February. 

 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report.

77.

Capital Works Provider Management and Engagement pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Open minute of exempt item

 

1.    This item had been placed on the agenda following the urgent decision taken around Chilmington Green Secondary School. 

 

2.    Members had the opportunity to discuss the decision and to receive reassurance that measures were being put in place to prevent, in so far as is possible, similar events occurring in the future.

 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report. 

78.

Work Programme pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members requested that the quarter 2 revenue and capital budget monitoring report be included on the agenda for the meeting on 4 December 2024 along with the provisional 25/26 budget and MTFP.

 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the work programme.