Agenda item

The Strategic Director of Resources outlined a report detailing the position regarding the Council’s revenue and capital budget for the financial year 2011/2012, together with a supplementary report clarifying complex changes to local government funding and a number of service pressures arising from these.

The Committee was advised that because some changes in public sector funding had resulted in significant financial challenges and some services had not received any element of national funding at all,  Members would be required to make difficult decisions to reduce the cost base and consequently close the budget gap. Alternatively, Members could request further savings from other areas to enable them to continue to support unfunded services.

   The Director discussed the required Revenue, Capital and Treasury Management Budgets over the medium term and for 2011/12. The annual Capital and Revenue Budgets identified  the resources required to deliver the full range of council services subject to decisions taken to address the budget deficit to secure a balanced budget.

The report would be submitted to Cabinet for approval at its meeting on 7^th February, 2011, in advance of its submission for agreement at  Council on 21st February 2011. 

In the ensuing debate Members raised a number of questions /comments as follows (responses in italics):

• Members had been advised previously that indices and targets had been scrapped- would there be a reduction in the number of staff who reported performance and wasn’t performance a managerial function?

This was the case and the Committee was referred to page 13 of the supplementary report which set out the detail of savings in this area. £298K had been secured within the relevant tier. Not all of the indicators had been withdrawn and the Council was obliged to provide information around input and activity levels.

• How much bad debt did the Council have and what was the strategy to collect this?

Members were  referred to the figures in the report and it was highlighted that the debt related to sundry debtors which had arisen historically and not to Council Tax or Business Rates.

• What was the debt figure and why had it been allowed to accumulate?

The amount was approximately £4m. An example of where a debt occurred was when a person had died and the debt could not be recovered through Executors. In other cases  debt was written off and this was unavoidable because it was impossible to locate the debtor.

• How tough could the Council be in ensuring that pressure would be placed on schools to ensure they were carrying out particular services?

The decision on what it should fund or not fund was down to the particular school. Meetings had been held and it was clear  that schools were receptive to the changes in budget arrangements.

• What was the position regarding the restructure in the Education Department?

The consultation had been carried out and it was clear that there would be some redundancies. Wherever possible peripheral functions had been removed, leaving the requirement to perform largely statutory functions.  Significant changes had taken place and more were anticipated in the coming months. The Early intervention Grant had been reduced recently to £600k and levels of staffing would be examined.

• Was the Council looking at the provision of shared services to reduce costs in education services and other areas.?

The Council had  investigated this option with other neighbouring authorities and put out tenders whilst ensuring the continuity of safety for children. The Officer discussed Pan London and other joint agency working which would be considered to reduce costs.  Work was ongoing to drive down the cost of  external placements for looked after children and negotiations with Foster Agencies were ongoing.

• It was suggested that the budget situation provided an opportunity for Directorates to start from a zero budget position-had this occurred?

Corporate and Support Services had required significant savings so the whole of the budget position and possible alternative provision had been assessed.  This principle would also take effect to some degree in other Directorates.

• It was felt that the Wexham Nursery site was a high profile service that the Council had protected over many years and it would be difficult to support any decision to close the operation.  Would it not be better to keep the nursery going at full capacity until such time as work was found for all the employees, otherwise there would be a lot of bad will in the community.

It was acknowledged that this was a difficult decision but over the years the service had cost more to run in a very competitive market. It was now possible to buy plants cheaper elsewhere and some of the buildings on site were very difficult to let.  Discussions had been held with other organisations to make provision for the three employees with learning difficulties to move into employment elsewhere.  It was highlighted that the Nursery was a pseudo community organisation which was losing money and the Council was not in a position to continue funding in this area.  It would not be possible to keep the Nursery open due to the current financial situation and an investigation into the option to provide a smaller site or set up a social enterprise had not been successful. ‘Speedwell’ had been given quite a lot of support and this would be sustained over 2011/12 as part of the long term review.

• Members were concerned that there had been a £500k spend on consultants during 2009/10 and suggested that future Cabinet reports contain a full breakdown of costs in this area.  It was important that checks and balances were in place to ensure that finances were not being used unnecessarily. There was also the concern that senior employees could retire early and returned as Consultants.

The Director advised that the information requested was published and fully accessible. It would be difficult to provide this information ‘going forward’ as the recruitment of Consultants was unpredictable. Often Consultants were employed because they had specialist knowledge and the ability to quickly get behind an issue; the return on their investment was therefore high. The decision to employ a Consultant was never taken lightly but as a last resort.

• Members referred to the proposal that savings would be achieved by the reduction in Political Group support.  It was argued that the ruling Group had a Political Officer and a full time PA and it was grossly unfair that opposition Groups would have their support reduced in this way.  An independent Member stated that he would not be able to represent his Ward if he did not have the services of a Political Officer.

The Director advised that the decision on whether to retain the complement of Political Officers was one which Members would need to make.

In summary, the Committee considered the recommendations within the report and expressed concerns regarding the proposal to close Wexham Nursery and the resulting loss of supported employment; and the proposal to reduce the provision of Political Group Officer support.  The Committee also considered that the appointment of Consultants and related costs should be closely monitored so that a check and balance system was in place to ensure that the related cost was justified.

Resolved-

(a)  That the Committee notes the recommendations set out in the report, that will be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 7^th February, 2011 and the proposals to address the budget deficit position.

(b)  That the Committee regret the proposal to close Wexham Nursery and requests that Cabinet ensure that the members of staff with learning disabilities are granted a  period of 9 months support to assist them with future employment opportunities.

(c)  That the Committee receive an update report on the position with Wexham Nursery in June, 2011.

(d)  That a periodic report detailing the reasons for employing any Consultant, setting out in particular the related costs and benefits be submitted to the Committee.

(e)  That the view of opposition Members that the proposal to reduce Political Group Officer support will disadvantage those Members and their constituents be noted.