Agenda item

Officers provided a presentation on the Council’s budget in which it was noted that:

• Indicative sums published by DCLG indicated that there would be a further 13.8% funding reduction in 2015/16. This followed a total reduction of 37% (£58m) in central government funding since 2010/11.
• The proposed level of Education Services Grant for 2015/16 (£802m) represented a 20% cut compared to 2014/15 (£1.02b).
• An initial 2015/16 budget gap of approximately £20 million had been identified. This had been managed through a drawdown of £5 million from balances, and the full year effect of savings identified in 2014/15 as part of the BID transformation programme reducing the gap to around £10 million.
• The majority of the proposed savings related to changes proposed within the Adoption and Fostering Service, which was aiming to speed up the process of permanency.
• Since February 2014, groups had been developing savings proposals sufficient to manage the overall funding reduction and to manage any increased cost pressure within their services. A comprehensive review of the corporate elements of the budget had been undertaken, including funding inflation and capital financing. A series of budget challenge sessions had been held in the summer and autumn.
• The Children’s and Families Act 2014 came into force in September 2014. This introduced significant changes and required a substantial amount of work to ensure delivery.
• The Service was in the final stages of implementing the Children's Pathway BID Review, which should be completed in 2015. This would enable the Service to have a greater focus on early intervention, which should enable the Council to deliver savings in 2015/16.
• Asylum Seekers were continuing to have an impact on the budget. This was because the proportion of children over 18 was continuing to increase at a higher rate than the number under 18, which attracted less Home Office Grant funding.
• The primary pupil population continued to grow. It had increased by 2.8% between October 2013 and October 2014. This continued increase in the pupil population had required the council to build three new primary schools. The number of children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs had grown at double the rate of the general school population. The secondary school population had previously been stable and was now starting to grow.
• Capital investment was proposed of approximately £150m in primary schools and £80m for secondary schools.

Discussion

Members questioned the basis for some of the figures provided, the inflation rate used and whether the figures would prove to be feasible. Concerns were raised about how difficult it was to recruit social workers. Officers were asked to provide a figure in relation to the number of agency social workers working at the Council.

In response, Officers advised in relation to the inflation rate used and confirmed that work was in progress to reduce the number of children placed in private foster care and increase permanency. It was anticipated that these measures would help to ensure that the budgetary targets were realised. Around one third of workers in services that employed social workers were agency staff. Officers confirmed that recruitment of social workers was currently challenging due to a shortage of persons working in this field. The shortage was having an inflationary effect on wages which made recruitment a challenge. Agency workers were now staying an average of 36 weeks.

A Member highlighted the additional costs associated with the use of agency staff. These costs amounted to £1.2 million every six months. The Member felt that the additional costs were unsustainable and queried with Council officers over how this could continue in light of further reductions in Government funding. Officers acknowledged that there were cost implications associated with the widespread use of agency staff, but confirmed that the department was currently looking at ways of transforming the working environment in Hillingdon and balancing this with the statutory duty to deliver services.

It was further suggested by Members that a dedicated team should investigate costs at neighbouring councils and that the allocation of additional funding in the short term could save resources in the long run. Officers responded that work was in progress and that authorities within London and beyond were looking at the capping of pay rates. However, this was difficult as the provision of social workers was a statutory requirement. Investment in the service had supported stability and service transformation had taken place between during 2014.

In response to a question from the Committee, Officers advised that the proposed Adoption and Fostering Review would result in expected savings of £2.84 million over the next four years. This was equivalent to approximately one third of the service’s £8 million budget.

Members questioned why the Capital Programme did not include the expansion of specialist schools or provision at existing schools. Officers were also asked if there was capacity to go into the market to identify potential privately owned sites for future schools provision, in addition to those owned by the Council.

Officers stated that two thirds of the 3 new primary schools had Specialist Resource Provision built in and that a new special free school situated in the Borough, would offer 140 places.The proposed Additional Needs Strategy had gone to Cabinet. This would set out measures to meet the needs of children and young people in Hillingdon that had additional needs. Prospective sites for new schools were investigated by a dedicated team and by the Performance and Improvement Team. The Schools Places Programme was reviewed weekly and reported back to the Corporate Director of Residents’ Services.

The Committee noted that Fostering and Adoption had been identified as the main area in which savings could be made and there was concern that this could risk its positive Ofsted rating. Officers advised that the proposed changes would not affect service delivery and it was anticipated that productivity and the quality of outcomes would be enhanced.

The Chairman noted that the Hillingdon Music Education Hub had received an extra £90,000 of funding and thanked Officers for work in this area.

Resolved that:

1.    The Committee noted the budget proposal submitted and acknowledges the work that has been undertaken in providing a working budget, noting constraints placed via external funding streams. Concerns were expressed by some Members about the levels of savings that needed to be achieved.