Agenda item

Economy & Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Overall, the Panel recognised the complexity of the budget plans, but for future scrutiny, the OSPB was urged to look at the quality of information provided at the initial finance development meetings, and the delay in responding to requests for further information. Comparison with previous years' figures was also essential to enable effective analysis.

The Services where a variance was projected were:

Waste Services which were forecast to overspend by £1.3m. This was due to increased tonnages and as a direct result of the energy to waste plant working more efficiently and producing less process residues and incinerator bottom ash. Having asked about the situation and work to mitigate this overspend, it was understood that this was not a concern moving forward and would reduce next year. Overall, the energy to waste plant was a good news story.

Scientific Services were forecasting a variance of approximately £500k, due to loss of a contract in Northern Ireland which was beyond the service's control.  Of more concern to the Panel was the loss of business from asbestos removal, arising from the Place Partnership agreement. The Panel was extremely disappointed that entering into the Place Partnership had taken business away from Scientific Services, which had also affected the resilience of the asbestos removal service.

A variance of £132k was forecast for the Archives and Archaeology Service, which was contributed to by allocation to the service of the accommodation costs of The Hive, which the Panel strongly recommended should be reviewed.

County Enterprises (a service which employed people with learning disabilities) was forecast not to achieve the target to become self-financed in 2017/18 by £114k. In discussing the role of County Enterprises, and whether it would fit more appropriately with Adult Services, the Director was happy to continue the operation which greatly enhanced the lives and needs of those employed, which would otherwise need to be addressed elsewhere. The Panel commended this initiative.

The Panel was surprised by the forecast variance of £236k for Trading Standards.  Although the figure was projected to reduce by the end of year, this pointed to a perceived lack of transparency around the original case to bring the service back in house. Nonetheless, the rationale behind the transition costs were explained and the co-location of the Council's 12 Trading Standards staff alongside Worcestershire Regulatory Services was a good result.

In October 2017, the Panel looked at the Council's plans for delivering on and enabling cycling, and was surprised that there was no budget for cycling. Cycle ways were an important part of Worcestershire's infrastructure and the Panel therefore recommended that there should be a dedicated budget. Cycling representatives suggested to the Panel that this should be set at a minimum of £10 per resident.

Adult Care and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Panel

The net budget for Adult Services for 2017-2018 was £131.1m, with services for older people and learning disability taking up £124.2m in total and covering 4,856 service users. There was a shortfall in savings delivery of £3.3m mainly due to timing issues and an increase in demand and cost of services for older people. The Budget was particularly challenging in line with the national picture and it was difficult to plan as the Service was totally demand led.

The Directorate reserves were needed to support the budget. 

There was concern about reducing funding for Public Health Ring Fenced Grant and the need to provide mandated services.

The Panel was waiting for further information from the Directorate on a number of points, including how contributions were calculated and Disabled Facilities Grant.

Crime and Disorder

Cllr Middlebrough advised that he had attended the Adult Care and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Panel to discuss budget and funding issues relating to crime and disorder.  A further meeting had been arranged with the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health and Wellbeing and the Director of Public Health to explore further.

Corporate and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel

With reference to the Public Health Grant, it was confirmed that £1.1 million currently appeared in the COaCH budget pending identification of qualifying expenditure across other Directorate budgets. Following negotiation between the Director of Public Health and Service Directors, funds would be transferred to Adult and Children's Services accordingly.

Further clarification was requested on what was included in Commissioned Expenditure. It was confirmed that this covered multiple contracts and included, for example, IT licences, maintenance of property (Place Partnership Ltd), and legal services.

Members were informed that at month 6, the IT Services budget was forecasting an overspend of £1.2m, which included the non-delivery of outstanding savings targets of £900k. This was due in the main to the IT support costs (laptops, licences etc) still being incurred as a consequence of a forecast reduction in headcount across the County Council not being realised as quickly as first estimated. Positive inroads were already being made into this overspend.

Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Panel

The majority of the Directorate's budget was spent on placements and there was a £6m deficit.  It was also noted that the Family Front Door had grown considerably in recent months. In relation to the Placements budget, it was suggested that there was a need to consider providing more small children's homes in Worcestershire as opposed to using more expensive out-of-county placements.  Similarly, an increase of in-house foster carers would reduce spend on Independent Fostering Agencies.  It was acknowledged that there would always be some children with very specific needs who would need to be looked after out-of-county, but the Council should look to reduce numbers of these placements where possible.