Witnesses:
Julie Iles, Cabinet
Member for All-Age Learning
Mary Lewis, Cabinet
Member for Children, Young People and Families
Rachel Wigley,
Director of Financial Insight
Daniel Peattie,
Strategic Finance Business Partner
Dave Hill, Executive
Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and
Culture
Key
points raised during the discussion:
Peter
Martin declared a personal interest – grandchild applying for
an Education, Health & Care Plan (EHCP) in Surrey.
-
The Director of Financial Insight gave an overview
of the council’s budgetary position and strategy. They stated
the budget was in the consultation phase and that comments and
observations from each of the Select Committees would be
communicated back to the Resources and
Performance Select Committee ahead of Cabinet. Cabinet would
then decide whether to recommend the budget to council on February
42020. The budget was underpinned by the concept of financial
envelopes for each directorate. Service
strategies and proposals had been developed to ensure costs were
contained within these financial envelopes.
[Amanda Boote arrived at the meeting at
10.08]
2.
The Director stated that the financial strategy set
out how resources would be directed to deliver on both the
organisation strategy and the transformation and ambitions of the
council. Significant progress had been made as an organisation from
financial recovery towards financial stability, whilst continuing
the journey of improvement. The Director stated that two years
previously the council had been relying on reserves to balance the
budget however, the budget for 2020/21 would be based on
sustainability and investment. The Transformation Programme would
continue to deliver efficiencies, providing offset against
continuing demand for services. For the council’s picture as
a whole, in terms of revenue, there was £78m worth of demand
pressure from services which were partly offset by £38m in
proposed efficiencies. Therefore, the council’s net budget
increased from £928m to £968m in 20/21. The £40m
increase was from additional funding from central government. The
Capital Programme proposed over the coming years was £1.4bn.
The Director highlighted that the cost of borrowing had been
included in the council’s budget.
[Peter
Martin arrived at the meeting 10.10]
-
The Strategic Finance Business Partner highlighted
placements, Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND), the
High Needs Block (HNB) and transport as being key areas of
financial risk for the directorate. The number of children with
SEND being transported by the council had been increasing year on
year as was the use of taxis, both of which had exerted great
financial pressure on the council. Education had previously been
picking up costs that they were not statutorily required to.
Members were informed that one of the main areas of commissioning
activity over the next few months would be Child and Adolescent
Mental Health Services (CAMHS), which would be out for tender
imminently.
[Yvonna
Lay arrived at the meeting at 10.20]
-
The Strategic Finance Business Partner stated that
the Directorate’s 2020/1 budget for HNB is a £24
million budgeted overspend in SEND including £13m of
additional funding and requiring efficiencies of £14m to
manage demand pressures and inflation. The council’s request
to transfer funds from the Direct Schools Grant (DSG) to the HNB
was rejected by the Secretary of State and a further review had
been undertaken, therefore the existing numbers in the report would
alter slightly (the base funding of £151m would decrease to
£148m, whilst the efficiencies would increase from £14m
to £15m).
-
A Member asked what would happen if inflation was
higher than predicted and, if so, what restructuring could be done
to address this. The Director stated that they had built both
flexibility into the overall budget proposals and into the
contingency; the general fund balance was higher than previous
years. The flexibility in the overall council position therefore
would allow for unexpected inflation rates.
-
The Vice Chairman asked how the £14m figure of
SEND efficiencies in the main report related to the £11.979m
of efficiencies in Annex A. Firstly, it was explained that there
was a difference of £5m between the £29m of forecast
SEND overspend in 19/20 and the budgeted overspend of £24m in
20/21. The reduction of approximately £5m shown in the
General Fund efficiencies was the reduction in annual contribution
to the matching SEND reserves. The Director of Financial Insight
explained that there would be an overspend in SEND and therefore
they had provided an offsetting reserve to ensure resilience in the
balance sheet. The deficit of £29m and SEND was charged to
the dedicated schools grant. The cumulative deficit is held on the
balance sheet. The pressures would increase but there was the
transformation programme and the potential to make efficiencies
within SEND, which would enable to directorate to reduce its
contribution to the offsetting reserve.
[Chris
Townsend arrived at the meeting at 10.26]
-
The Vice Chairman asked whether the SEND
efficiencies had been stress tested against the impact on the front
line and whether it would cause SEND provision to be rationed for
families in need. The Executive Director stated that the
transformation programme was making a number of efficiencies
including reducing the number of children placed in non-maintained
schools and if these were taken against demand, it was expected
that the directorate would be able to reduce costs.
-
Members asked what the Executive Director considered
to be the biggest risks and whether there was anything that could
derail the budget proposals. The Executive Director stated that the
biggest risks were potential logistical issues such as planning
problems that could slow the delivery of the capital plans for more
school places. If the speed at which the council could provide the
852 new school places slowed down then the budget would be under
pressure. Nevertheless, the Executive Director had confidence that
a good plan was in place and the risks were managed.
-
A Member asked whether the additional 852 places
would be sufficient to achieve the change required. The Executive
Director stated that this was a rolling programme with an
infrastructure of three main special schools alongside a smaller
number of placements in mainstream schools, within the 852 places.
They stated that the three larger schools were two years away from
completion and the budget programme had been based on the
understanding that these places were coming on stream.
-
A Member of the Committee referred to the comparison
in spend per child between Surrey and Essex from 2017-2018
(£700 and £460, respectively) and asked why Surrey
County Council’s per capita cost was so high. The Executive
Director stated that services had been put in place for children
with SEND at the point of crisis and, along with the high number of Education, Health and Care Plans
(EHCPs) being issued, had resulted in a high cost for Surrey. They
informed Members that they were approaching 10,000 EHCPs and when
they had benchmarked themselves on cost, Surrey County Council was
higher than other councils. The Executive Director stated that it
would take a three to four year plan to achieve the median local
authority spend, or below.
-
The Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning highlighted
that there were issues with placement and inclusion in mainstream
schools; the number of children who received special needs support
in the mainstream schools had reduced significantly from 2009, yet
there had been a large rise in EHCPs. The number of independent
specialist placements had also increased for EHCP children, more
than the number of mainstream placements. The Cabinet Member stated
that it was crucial to strike the right balance.
[Lesley
Steeds arrived at the meeting at 10.34]
-
The Committee moved on to review the rest of the
Directorate’s budget and questioned the level of confidence
that the Cabinet Member for All Age Learning had in the savings in
their remit. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that the
savings had been looked at in great detail and were backed up by
transformation plans. The schools budget came from the Department
of Education and complicated calculations ensured that it protected
the minimum funding levels for schools. With regard to the
libraries programme, efficiencies were made in the current year by
looking at transforming what underpinned the libraries and the
services that they provided. Transformation would also be achieved
through a capital programme that was in place. Cost efficiencies
were also made through shared spaces. The Cabinet Member told the
Committee that they believed savings had been identified in the
right places. They stated that the refusal from the Secretary of
State to transfer £3.3m into the HNB needed to be updated in
the budget going forward to council.
-
The Vice Chairman referred to the council’s
relationship with health and the potential £2m funding from
clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and subsequently queried the
risk attached to achieving this transfer and whether this sum was
achievable. The Executive Director explained that this was not a
simple transfer but related to individual children and that the
council would negotiate with the NHS on a case-by-case basis. The
Executive Director further informed the Committee that management
of health and social care commissioning for children now sat within
his portfolio and therefore he was now directly managing the
children’s commissioner for the NHS. There had been a genuine
attempt across the council and the NHS via a strategic finance
group to think holistically about how the money was being spent
across the agencies. The Vice Chairman was pleased that steps had
been made towards the joint commissioning of health and social
care.
-
The Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning stated that
they were also linking the transport assistance team with the
transport coordination team, which would also report to the
Executive Director.
-
The Chairman asked for examples on how the budget
would be supporting key elements of the council’s
organisation strategy and vision for the following five years. The
Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families informed the
Committee that almost everything in children’s social care
and improvement was about partnership working and the ambition that
no one was left behind. The new safeguarding arrangements meant
that the police, health and the council were statutory partners in
the statutory elements of the work of the Cabinet Member. District
and borough councils and schools had also been included in the new
arrangements in Surrey. The budget supported this partnership
working.
-
The Cabinet Member also highlighted that strong
focus had been put on bringing schooling closer to home for SEND
children and increasing the number of social workers and foster
carers in county, all of which would reduce transport and travel.
These would help deliver the efficiencies within the budget whilst
contributing to Surrey’s greener future and enhancing the
wellbeing of the children and families in Surrey. The Chairman
considered it important that Cabinet Members were able to
articulate how the budget would help realise the council’s
vision for 2030.
-
The Cabinet Member for All Age Learning referred to
the work undertaken to set the investment up for the Surrey
Alliance for Excellence structure which would highlight issues at
some of Surrey’s schools where support was needed. If there
was a case to justify for early intervention of a child, schools
could access a small pot of money through the Local Learning Fund.
This would enable the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO)
staff at schools to approach the council for assistance that might
enable a child to remain in mainstream education. The Cabinet
Member stated that their partnership working was very much around
schools continuing to be good and outstanding, the inclusion work
in school, and early intervention, all of which was funded by the
budget provision.
-
The Chairman questioned what level of confidence
there was regarding the sufficiency of contingencies for future
possible demand. The Executive Director stated that SEND was the
greatest area of volatility and they were hoping that the number of
EHCPs would decrease. In relation to children’s social care,
the numbers had reduced over the previous two years, particularly
around the number of child protection cases. The numbers on looked
after children (LAC) were stable and the proportion of
Surrey’s children in care were relatively low and stable.
Overall, they were content with the budget that had been
set.
-
The Chairman asked whether there were any ways that
the budget would be used to recruit and retain social workers. The
Committee asked why more progress had not been made in this area.
The Executive Director informed the Committee that it was only
since the new recruitment campaign began in December that seventeen
permanent new social workers had been recruited; more had been
recruited throughout the previous year. To be fully staffed, the
service needed to recruit 110 social workers. If all vacancies were
filled, caseloads would be about twelve per social worker. The
service was trying to encourage agency staff to become permanent
employees and there was also a return to work programme, a
retraining programme, and the option of working flexible hours. The
Executive Director also discussed other incentives such as gym
memberships, and retainers for social workers who stayed with the
council and the possibility of recruitment in North
America.
[Robert
Evans left the meeting at 11.10am)
RESOLVED:
The Chairman summarised that the Committee were
supportive of the Directorate’s budget and agreed to
recommend it to the Resources and Performances Select Committee
ahead of Cabinet’s meeting.