Agenda item

Context:

·         To provide detailed draft proposals on the budget savings required to meet the gap between available resources and need to spend in 2017/18, for consultation purposes.

·         To consider the 2017/18 budget within the context of the 4 year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the emergence of priorities to guide forward activities through Future Monmouthshire.

Key Issues:

The Select Committee scrutinised the Social Care and Housing Directorate’s budget proposals, as outlined in Appendix 3F of the report, which equated to a saving in the sum of £236,024.

Background information was provided by the Assistant Head of Finance that this report concentrates on revenue and running costs distinct from the previous report based on capital budgets. It was clarified that, historically, a mandate process has been applied where officers offer mandates and then deliver upon them.  This approach has been revised to challenge service managers to offer suggestions to make e.g. 5% or 10% savings to make services more sustainable.  This was undertaken across the directorates and a comprehensive list of proposals was compiled accordingly some viable and some less realistic.

Additional context was provided that a budget problem for next year has been resolved instead of preparing a four year Medium Term Financial Plan to allow some flexibility for the new administration following the local government elections in May 2017.

It was added that funding from Central Government is better than anticipated in recognition of the rurality of the County, however the best outcome remains a standstill (0%) budget despite annual pressures of salary increments, cost of living increases and rising contract inflation etc.  Attention was drawn to the report, para 3.2 budget assumptions for the year accordingly. It was pointed out if there were no changes implemented, the result would be £2.5million pressures next year from inflation. Additionally, pressures within services have been considered, e.g. where mandates have not materialised as originally planned and the position revised.  Pressures will rise to £4million accordingly. £4million savings have not been made in services in view of MRP proposals to progress paper savings instead.  This approach provides £1.5million headroom but it is implicit that saving are still made.  It was highlighted that the proposed percentage savings put forward by managers varied. Work on the budget and savings continues. 

Members were asked to consider the proposals for saving within Adults remit (Appendix 3f).

The Cabinet Member, Resources, provided clarification that recognition of the county’s rurality has allocated additional funding but it has not altered the overall funding position.  The County continues to receive the least funding of all Welsh authorities; per capita population has dropped from £1060 to £995. 

The Committee was informed that this is the opportunity to offer alternative proposals.

Member Scrutiny

The suggestion, Adult Commissioning (5.2), referring to the termination of room rental in Abergavenny was queried.  It was confirmed that the My Day My Life project will not be adversely affected through the amalgamation of arrangements. 

Adult Resources (5.1) was queried what was meant by “Restructure finance and benefits advice team to replace 2 posts on lower grades”, and if there would be any impact on the quality of the service.  It was responded that there will be regrading of posts, further details to be confirmed; consultation with unions is still in progress.  It was questioned if this was linked to 10.2 “alignment of welfare benefits information, advice and assistance services” and confirmed that there is a link between the two suggestions following a review of welfare rights which identifies a number of welfare advice portals and presents an opportunity for efficiency and a more cohesive approach.  It was additionally queried if this was across the council or just within adult social services.  It was confirmed that this was the case and there can be duplication including with organisations outside the authority and the opportunity to collaborate.

Regarding Adult Resources (5.3) “Reduce IT Development budget”, it was queried if there would be an adverse impact on delivery of services.  It was confirmed that the reduction is challenging but achievable though savings in license agreements.

Adults S406 MCHT (5.2) “explore live in carer rather than hourly cost via care agency” was queried by a Member who asked if this element referred to one service user or several, and if the proposal will go ahead.  It was clarified that this element refers to domiciliary care agencies or providers and that the mandate proposal is, for some cases, to change from 24 hour living support to a care agency not about individual cost.

Members reflected on 4 mandate proposals listed under Enterprise Directorate (Appendix 3c) totalling £40,923 and considered that the proposals were anticipated, and aligned to matters previously discussed and supported by the Select Committee.

The Committee was reassured that there were no budget proposals to cut Adult Education.  Instead, it was explained that the challenge was to accommodate the lack of franchising in view of reduced courses provided by Coleg Gwent. 

The Committee was reminded that there had been a pragmatic approach to the budget setting round this year, preferring to not make significant changes in service areas before a new council administration in May, and also in acknowledgement of this year’s more beneficial financial settlement.  It was also predicted that future settlements would be more challenging citing public sector funding in England, and that prioritisation and collaboration will be necessary to sustain services.