Agenda item

Purpose of report:  Scrutiny of the Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy in relation to areas within the select committee’s remit.

Witnesses:

Denise Turner-Stewart, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities

David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care

Nicola Kilvington, Director - Corporate Strategy & Policy

Louise Lawson, Strategic Finance Business Partner – Customer & Communities

Nikki O’Connor, Strategic Finance Business Partner – Corporate

Rachel Wigley, Director – Finance Insights & Performance

Daniel Shurlock, Customer & Communities Strategic Lead

Susan Wills, Assistant Director for Cultural Services

Jean-Pierre Moore, Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention

Matt Marsden, Strategic Finance Business Partner – CFL

Key points made in the discussion:

1. A Member asked witnesses why library income levels were declining and what plans were in place to counteract that. The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities said that extensive efforts had been made to find alternative provisions due to the temporary closures recently. The Deputy Leader noted that the service had faced risks such as planning issues or procurement, but this had all been tracked timely and vigorously. The Assistant Director for Cultural Services noted that while the library went under refurbishment in Redhill, a temporary library in a Council owned site would be in place. This new library space directly under the current library would mean as little disruption as possible to residents and the Council would still be able to utilise the space for events. The Assistant Director offered to meet with the Member outside the meeting to hold a discussion about the Redhill library interim and refurbishment plans.

2. A Member noted that there was a proposed £100,000 shared reduction in funding from the Council to the Voluntary Community and Faith Sector (VCFS) in 2024/2025. The Member asked how the diverted funding would be used and the repercussions for the organisations. The Deputy Leader noted that there would be a period of transition. The Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention noted that during the period of transition they would help the charities be more independent.  The actual amount of the efficiency was £68k, rounded to £0.1m for the purposes of the budget papers.  The Council had invested £100,000 in the Strategic Strength Transformation Fund from the Community Foundation for Surrey that was available for the whole voluntary sector. The VCFS would also be putting around £230,000 in the same fund. This funding would empower smaller grassroot organisations to access better funding as part of a long-term funding strategy. The Member asked to see the impact assessment of the funding reductions. The Head of Community Partnerships said that he could share it with the Committee.

3. A Member asked to hold a conversation with the Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention regarding the voluntary sector within Surrey. The Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention agreed.

4. A Member noted that Surrey Youth Focus’s funding had already been cut, impacting their work. The Deputy Leader said that there had been a safety net around this transformation with additional funding to create capacity and resource around infrastructure organisations.

5. A Member emphasised the need to create a longer-term financial plan for the voluntary sector. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources said that there was a budget gap and if more funding was being asked for, it had to be considered where it would be drawn from.

Draft CFL Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy

6. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning noted that the proposed budget did not impact funding for children with additional needs and that the Council was bound by statutory duties to provide certain services. The Chair noted the need to comply with statutory duties but felt that the Council shouldinvest more heavily in early intervention.

7. A Member asked witnesses how achievable the £9 million in efficiencies identified were. The Strategic Finance Business Partner for CFL said that although the efficiencies were ambitious, he wanted to provide assurance to Members that they were achievable.

8. The Chair asked if the Cabinet was being pessimistic on the achievability of efficiencies, 60% of which were rated as amber or red.  The Strategic Finance Business Partner for CFL noted that with time and better data, the Council would become more confident in the deliverability and achievability of efficiency savings. The Executive Director for Children, Families & Learning noted that there was a distinction between delivery as expected and delivering services that achieved efficiencies as well. Services such as solo taxis which had experienced a rise in route numbers and allocations had all delivered to their intended targets, but the offsetting pressures of inflation outweighed any efficiencies.

9. A Member asked what the effect of the 10% spend reduction on contracts being procured during 2024/25 would be. The Executive Director for Children, Families & Learning said this referred to new contracts that had been commissioned and would expect changes to service delivery models to be more efficient or to redirect budget to another high priority area to ensure a balance of priorities was found.

10. A Member asked for clarification of when there had been robust consideration of the reversing of the 10% reduction policy. The Chair asked to see a response from witnesses in writing.

11. A Member asked how savings could be achieved through the expansion of children in fostering care considering the shortage of foster parents. The Executive Director for Children, Families & Learning said that there was increased investment in the recruitment and retention of foster parents. The Service was also looking to maximise current resources such as ensuring foster parents had the maximum number of children they could look after and looking at utilising capacity elsewhere in the system when possible.

12. A Member asked if the budget took account of the increase in the number of children needing Home to School Travel assistance. The Executive Director for Children, Families & Learning said that the demand for EHCPs was considered in the budget process and the Service worked on the assumption that 30% of EHCP children would need transport assistance.

13. A Member asked a question on skills development and adult learning in Surrey and noted that community skills could be paid for by individuals to help offset the cost of the programmes. The Director for Education and Lifelong Learning noted that different programmes could be commissioned or funded through various organisations. The Service was reviewing changes, but the priority was to still ensure programmes were affordable to residents but also generating income for the Council.

14. A Member asked what the outcomes of the recommendation from June 2023 regarding prioritising community-based play and youth schemes budget for children with disabilities had been.  The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, formerly Cabinet Member for Children & Families, answered that the Council was committed to keeping the budget under review. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning noted that there had been no further budget for short breaks but there had been a one-off grant from the Department for Education which would re-occur next year as a one off. The Member emphasised the importance of short breaks to families and children. The Cabinet Member said that the budget was not being cut but the priority had to be providing statutory services to thousands of children in Surrey.

15. A Member emphasised the importance of short breaks to families and children.  The Executive Director for Children, Families & Learning noted that the core budget would not be reduced for non-statutory additional services. To improve short breaks the budget would have to be diverted from another area. The need to meet statutory obligations had to be prioritised.

16. A Member noted that not providing short breaks had a knock-on impact on the finances of other services.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning said there was no budget to increase capacity for play and leisure. The Chair noted that the reduction in short breaks and play and leisure had profound negative impacts on the mental health of residents.  The Cabinet Member regretted that there was no budget to meet the demand for play and leisure.

17. A Member asked if all changes identified as a result of the SEND inspection findings could be accommodated within the budget envelope. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning expressed confidence that it could be. The Cabinet had agreed to an extra £15 million funding over next few years and that was ringfenced for children with additional needs.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. The Assistant Director for Cultural Services will hold a discussion with Jonathan Essex on the Redhill library interim and refurbishment plans. 

2. The Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention to share the EIA impact Assessment with the Committee.

3. The Head of Community Partnerships and Prevention and Bernie Muir to discuss issues currently faced by the voluntary sector. 

4. The Strategic Finance Partner – Corporate to provide a written response on whether there are different policies between adults’ and children’s social care in respect of inflation or efficiencies automatically applied when recommissioning.

5. Cabinet Member for CFLL to outline evidence of the robust consideration given to reversing the policy of applying a blanket 10% reduction to the financial envelope for each service when it is recommissioned.

6. Director – CFL Commissioning and Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning to provide what evidence was considered in the evaluation that led to the decision to reduce the budget for community-based play and youth schemes for children with disabilities from 2023/24, explaining how they evaluated the impact of the cut as well as the financial value and clinical value (mental and physical) of the initiative. 

Resolved:

1. In order to give the voluntary sector stability, Cabinet should increase funding to VCFS organisations in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy in line with inflation and outline how it can offer the organisations longer term stability. These organisations play a crucial role in enabling and empowering communities and voluntary sector organisations.

2. The aspiration of prevention should be supported by restoring the £0.37m play and leisure short breaks cut from the 2023/24 budget, which has had significant detrimental repercussions on some of the most vulnerable families. This is in addition to applying for the Department for Education’s Short Breaks Innovation Grant, which supports new and complementary short breaks services. It should be noted that the DfE funding, if awarded, would not replace the play and leisure short breaks which were cut in 2023/24.

3. Rather than being classed as an overspend, the £16.3m 2023/24 pressures identified as historic (in CLA placements, home to school travel assistance, Special Guardianship Order rates, children with disabilities packages of care, care leavers) should be incorporated into the CFLL budget envelope going forward.

4. If the Council is to stay on track with “getting to good” whilst meeting demands for statutory services and supporting the ambition of “no one left behind”, the CFLL budget envelope for 2024/25 should increase to £283.91m. This comprises:

-       249.8m opening budget

-       + 39.9m pressures

-       + £0.37m play and leisure restoration

-       6.16m for the green and 60% of red and amber identified efficiencies that the Committee considers are likely to be achieved.

A smaller budget risks both the “getting to good” strategy and the guiding principle of the 2030 Community Vision that no one is left behind.

5. Should any proposed changes to the delivery of adult education come from the current review of cost to run the Council’s sites versus fees earned, there should first be a full and formal exploration of how any changes would impact residents’ access to community learning and adult skills. This recommendation is made in the context of the Council’s strong commitment to deliver the Surrey Skills Plan and promote skills and education to grow a sustainable economy, together with the proposed Level 2 County Deal which would devolve Adult Education functions and the core Adult Education Budget to the Council.