Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Maurice Broomfield, Stuart Cross and Clive Holt.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 15 January 2016).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

None.

(previously circulated)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 November 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

As part of the Council's consultation process for the 2016/17 budget proposals, the Cabinet Members with Responsibility for Finance, Transformation and Commissioning, Localism and Communities, the Chief Financial Officer, the Director of Commercial and Change and the Head of Community and Environment were invited to the meeting to discuss:

·         latest performance information for 2015/16

·         the draft 2016/17 budget.

Following the scrutiny panels' round of budget discussions during November 2015, the Budget Member Challenge Group requested that the panels revisit and agree their comments on the Future Fit savings proposals taking into account the information discussed by Cabinet at its meeting on 17 December 2015.

The draft Report of the Budget Member Challenge Group, incorporating the views of individual scrutiny panels, would be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board, at its meeting on 28 January and subsequently passed to Cabinet.

The Chief Finance Officer made a presentation to the Panel which covered:

·         Key Headlines

·         Driving Home Highways Infrastructure Improvement Programme

·         The County Council’s starting point for financial planning

·         How the MTFP had been updated since February 2015

·         How expenditure and income projections were developed

·         The indicative funding gap

·         Plans to address the indicative funding gap

·         The proposed draft MTFP

·         Summary capital expenditure plans

·         Local Government Finance Settlement update and next steps.

In summary, the position in Worcestershire was that:

·         economic growth was continuing to show signs of improvement

·         there was continued revenue investment in the key Corporate Plan priorities

·         demand pressures on services was the biggest issue and was growing significantly

·         the Council's Budget was £327.8m (approximately £1m per day) with £25m savings requirement.

·         It would be proposed that Council Tax would increase by 3.94% of which 1.94% would be ring fenced for the pressures in the Looked After Children and 2% ring-fenced for Adult Social Care to contribute to cost pressures which had been funded by a one-off grant in 2015/16 but unavailable in 2016/17.

Prior to the Local Government Settlement (announced late December 2015), the County Council had a healthy Balance Sheet and were looking at a £2m savings gap.  The Settlement however, was very disappointing for Worcestershire. Shire and District councils had been hit hard as Government had shown intent to accelerate reductions and redistribute grant funding away from Shire County's to Metropolitan and London boroughs.  Key grants such as the Care Act had been rolled-in effectively at zero to the main Revenue Support Grant. 

The latest estimate was an £11m funding gap to add to the £2m gap already in existence.  It was thought that the plans to plug gap would mean that there would still be a £2m funding gap remaining.

During the discussion, the following points were made:

·         There was concern that Central Government thought that Worcestershire had £112m of Reserves; when in fact this wasn't the case as some of the £112m Reserves were earmarked. Government were being lobbied about this.

·         The Settlement detail was very complex: it was 4 year offer and much lower than anticipated. The expectation was that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

The Head of Community and Environment and the Head of Regulatory Services were invited to provide an update on recent developments in relation to Trading Standards and Animal Health.

The County Council as a commissioning council keeps its services under continuing review as necessary to ensure the best use of public money.  The Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee ('the Joint Committee') was established on 1 June 2010 by the County Council and the six district councils in Worcestershire as the vehicle to deliver regulatory services which included the county functions of:

·         Food Standards

·         Fair Trading

·         Animal Health

·         Weights and Measures

·         Product Safety

·         Petroleum and Explosives Licensing.

The services were delivered through Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) hosted by Bromsgrove District Council (BDC). This governance model was based upon established arrangements for shared service delivery operating within the county and was structured to allow for the addition of other shared services in the future.

In February 2015, the Joint Committee endorsed proposals to restructure the current partnership into a smaller partnership of the district councils, continuing to have closely aligned policies and service levels, and the County Council leaving the Joint Committee but entering into a service level agreement with BDC for the provision of trading standards services through WRS. The Joint Committee considered that this model would best maintain the strengths and benefits of the original business case whilst protecting individual partner councils from the pressures and risks of diverging financial positions.  The Proposal was agreed by Council and Cabinet in November 2015.

It was subsequently agreed that staff would be transferred back in-house with effect from 1 June 2016 (with a short term contract with WRS from 1 April to 1 June to ensure a continuity of service).

During the discussion, the following main points were made:

·         The Panel were supportive of the decision to move the service back in-house;

·         There was an opportunity to employ more staff by moving the Service back in-house;

·         The priorities for the service were:

Ø  High value detrimental issues

Ø  Organised crime

Ø  Serious product safety

Ø  Illicit alcohol and tobacco

Ø  Food fraud and disease control

·         It was confirmed in relation to animal health that there was a protocol in place relating to the 'Seizure of Ponies';

·         Poaching issues if significant would be investigated from time to time.

It was agreed that this this issue would be deferred to 21 March 2016 meeting.