Caroline Holland introduced the report and highlighted that there were no new savings being brought forward for 2014 but that in future years, despite the savings proposed, there was a £2 million shortfall. The Capital Programme was dominated by primary and secondary school expansion. A briefing note, as requested by the O&S Commission on the funding of free schools was also included in the report.

Councillor Hanna proposed that the budget be scrutinised in the following order:

·         Overall process;

·         Savings proposed together with Equality Impact Assessments;

·         Capital Programme; and

·         Service Plans

Panel agreed.

Overall process:

Councillor Linda Taylor requested clarification on what third party payments were. Caroline Holland informed the Panel that they related to contract payments to providers.

Councillor James Holmes asked about the process for determining the savings proposed. Yvette Stanley outlined the process by which each department is responsible for an identified savings target and the process they undertake to identify potential savings within that service. The larger areas of expenditure are looked at which cover SEN Transport, and social care placements. The CSF department have undergone a transformation programme and have tried to identify savings where possible which align with our transformation approach. Given much of what we do is statutory and heavily regulated we have had to focus savings on areas where there is higher amounts of general fund spend and where the statutory requirements still give some scope for savings. Areas where there may be some scope for savings are:

·         Youth services (via our commissioning approach);

·         Early years;

·         School improvement

Councillor Iain Dysart asked if the basic need capital maintenance grant amount had been determined as yet. Paul Ballatt confirmed that this figure had not been received as yet.

Proposed savings:

CSFO1 – Paul Ballatt informed the Panel that this saving was phased over 3 years and services would increasingly be targeted at those most in need. Services to children’s centres would also be differentiated which may result in a reduced offer in certain areas in the borough. The Early Years savings will retain certain services, for example, safeguarding, and will place expectations on settings to self serve more for the rest. Support for example on statutory and data returns will be reduced for settings. The provision of free training will also be withdrawn and will be on a cost recovery basis. Paul Ballatt added that these were indicative examples of where some of the savings could be made. More specific proposals would be drawn up closer to the time.

Yvette Stanley highlighted that this saving would not impact on maintaining direct provision for the most vulnerable children and that the council are committed to keeping children’s centres open.

Councillor Iain Dysart asked about the fluctuation in the savings over the three years. In addition, Councillor Iain Dysart added that he was pleased to hear that children’s centres would stay open. Yvette Stanley confirmed that the fluctuation would be addressed when proposals for savings year on year were firmed up. The council will remain focused on supporting vulnerable children whilst trying to set a balanced budget.

Councillor Agatha Akyigyina added that it is a difficult task to find savings in these service areas and that the children’s centres were important and should remain open.

Councillor Oonagh Moulton enquired about the 10 redundancies indicated. Yvette Stanley explained that an equalities impact assessment had been undertaken and was included in the report. The majority of the redundancies would be in central functions. There would also be scope to increase income from training. Consultation would need to be undertaken in due course.

Councillor Iain Dysart stated that he would not support this saving in its current form. Cllr James Holmes added that he could not support Councillor Iain Dysart’s comments in this instance.

CSF02 – Paul Ballatt informed the Panel that this saving related to reduced school improvement capacity. This saving would result from the reduction of one school improvement advisor or alternatively the service would look at increasing income generation, with the possibility of a mix of both approaches. The school improvement service has become more targeted and risk based. The department are using data and intelligence to identify schools that need help. This does mean that remaining staff will have to cover increased targeting work in a smarter way.

Councillor James Holmes asked what work had been done to look at outsourcing or of the council offering a service to generate income. Yvette Stanley confirmed that other agencies offer this provision. The department currently sells services to other boroughs. Specialist provision is brought in when required for our schools. The council also works with the south west London consortium and has reciprocal arrangements with other boroughs. Intelligence suggests that other boroughs have struggled to do this.

Councillor Oonagh Moulton expressed concerns about the saving reducing the good provision currently offered, which is well regarded and suggested that the department look at further options for income generation.

CSF03 – Councillor Jeff Hanna expressed concerns that this saving wasn’t specific enough and that the Panel would like to see a more detailed proposal in due course.

Equality Impact Assessments –

Noted.

Capital Programme –

Councillor Jeff Hanna noted that a more detailed breakdown on a school by school basis where details are known in future would be useful.

Service Plans –

Noted.

RESOLVED: 

With regard to the proposed savings, the Panel agreed that the following resolutions be forwarded to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission for consideration:

Proposed saving CSFO1 (Early Years) - Whilst some reservations were expressed regarding the impact of the savings, Panel did not wish to reject the proposed savings, in the light of the overall budget pressure.

Proposed saving CSFO2 (School Improvement) - Whilst reluctantly accepting the proposed saving, Panel expressed some concern regarding the potentially negative impact a reduction in resources might have upon the service, and also recommended that further work be undertaken to consider offering the council’s school improvement services on a commercial basis as a potential income stream for the authority.

Proposed saving CSFO3 (All Divisions): This saving related to making further reductions in staffing across CSF, without specifying the nature of the posts involved. Panel felt unable to scrutinise the proposal. Panel agreed neither to accept nor reject the proposal but asked that further detail be brought back for scrutiny in due course and before the proposal is agreed.

Capital Programme: The Panel noted the Capital Programme having previously undertaken in depth scrutiny of the councils school expansion programme.

MEETING ADJOURNED FOR 5 MINUTE BREAK. 8:15PM

MEETING RE-OPENED AT 8:20PM