Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Jo Monk and Tony Muir, Church Representative Tim Reid and Tina Russell, Director of Children’s Services/Chief Executive Worcestershire Children First (WCF).

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 9 January 2024).  Further details are available on the Council's website.  Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed in this agenda and on the website.

None.

(previously circulated)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 December 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Attending for this item were:

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Health and Wellbeing

·         Director of Public Health (DPH)

·         Head of Regulatory Services (HORS)

·         Advanced Public Health Practitioner (APHP)

It was noted that the CMR for Health and Wellbeing was attending the discussion from a public health perspective (rather than in the capacity as CMR for Health and Wellbeing).

The DPH introduced the report and in doing so highlighted that as vaping was cross cutting, members of the Corporate and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel had also been invited to attend and contribute to this discussion. During the introduction, the DPH made the following points:

·         There was contradictory evidence about the health position of vaping. The DPH’s advice was, that if people did not smoke, they should not start to vape. Although vaping was a safer alternative to smoking, it was still not a safe option and it was important to discourage young people from starting to vape.

·         Vaping had proved to be an important part of the Smoking Cessation Strategy nationally, so the DPH would encourage smokers to switch to vaping, as vapes contained less tar and fewer carcinogens. 

·         Public Health’s approach to vaping had been to understand the extent of vaping in the community, the reasons why people vaped and to seek to reduce demand and disrupt supply.

·         The quality of the data held on vaping for the County was excellent, for example, the sample size used for surveys being larger than that used nationally.

The Panel was invited to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·         In response to a question as to whether vapes should be available on a prescription only basis, so that the demand was removed, the DPH advised that it would be a national policy decision, however it would be costly to the taxpayer, and pharmaceutical companies would be less inclined to invest resources in a product where demand was being actively reduced. The illegal market would also be boosted if they were removed from sale.

·         The HORS explained that vapes were part of the Government’s consultation on the approach to smoking.

·         The DPH advised that through Public Health’s work with children and young people (CYP) it had been identified that CYP generally over- estimated the prevalence of vaping amongst their peers, with usage being much lower than the perceived norm. Social norms encouraged others to take up an activity, and this was therefore harmful where the behaviour had damaging consequences. The APHP provided details of the social norms pilot at Baxter College to correct this understanding and combat the use of vapes amongst CYP.  If the outcomes of this Pilot were positive, they would be shared with other schools across the County, tailored to the needs of individual schools. In addition, the good practice and resources would be shared with other colleagues across the region.

·         In response to a question as to whether CYP were using vaping as a means to stop smoking, the DPH advised that specific data  ...  view the full minutes text for item 617.

The Panel received the Council’s draft Budget for 2024-25 for services relating to Children and Families. The Chief Financial Officer advised that Cabinet had considered the budget situation earlier in the day. The key points made were:

·         There was currently a £22.2m overspend on a £401m net budget after using one off monies from business rates and reserves, with demand pressures and inflationary costs being the main causes of the overspend. It was highlighted that there was currently a £35m structural deficit, due to ongoing expenditure being greater than income.

·         The main demand pressures were adult and children’s social care and Home to School Transport (HTST), a situation that was similarly faced by many local authorities across the country.

·         The Council was on track to make £20m of savings in the financial year, although this would not be sufficient, with a £20.4m gap still to close.

·         The Government’s one-year settlement, received on 18 December, was as  expected with no extra funding being provided in recognition of the current pressures on Council budgets. There had also been a net £1.6m reduction in the services grant, compared to the expected funding built into Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. The Government’s settlement included a statement about Council’s use of reserves, but it was highlighted that this was not sustainable in the longer term.

·         The Council was proposing a Council Tax increase of 2.99% plus a 2% increase in the Adult Social Care Levy, totalling 4.99%.

·         During January, the draft budget would be scrutinised by Scrutiny Panels and the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board, following which Cabinet would consider the Budget and make its recommendation to Council on 15 February.

·         The WCF Interim Director of Resources advised that at this stage in the process, the Panel would usually have received details of the WCF indicative contract price for the following year, but due to the late government settlement and the gap in the draft budget, this had not been possible at this stage. The Panel was assured that there was close transparent working with Council colleagues, and that further information would be available over the next 2 weeks and that a contract price could then be fixed.

·         The WCF draft budget included a total investment of £45.3m (£26.9m for Childrens social care and £15.7m for Home to School Transport). This was £28.6m for the structural deficit and £16.7m for new growth. It was highlighted that £9.7m growth had been included for these areas in the 2023/4 budget. WCF were continuing to seek to negotiate costs downward, but going forward there would be ongoing inflationary pressures from the structural deficit.

·         The Panel was informed that the draft WCF budget included £10.2m savings for children and families budget areas agreed corporately. Assurance was given that Safeguarding and SEND services priority areas had been protected from savings.

·         Members were informed of plans to reduce the number of Looked after children, by promoting permanency out of care and independence, which would deliver cost avoidance and reduce further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 618.

In attendance for this item:

Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education

Director of Education, Early Years, Inclusion and Pupil Place Planning, WCF

Education Engagement Manager, WCF (EEM)

Chief Executive/Principal, The Shires Multi Academy Trust (the Principal)

Headteacher, Upton upon Severn C of E Primary and Pre-school (the Headteacher)

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. The CMR for Education and the Director of Education had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on school attendance. The Director of Education introduced the report and made the following main points:

·         The Department for Education (DfE) published guidance in 2022 on ‘working together to improve attendance’. There was currently a concerted effort by schools, the local authority and regulatory bodies to understand the experience of attending school from a child’s perspective and how attendance could be improved. The Panel had been provided with two case studies from Worcestershire to give an understanding of the activity in this area.

·         Attendance was recorded for both morning and afternoon sessions within schools. The Director explained that there was a focus on CYP who were missing for more than 10% of school and this was known as ‘persistent absence’. Meanwhile, where a CYP missed 50% or more of school this was classified as ‘severe absence’. Current figures showed that 18,000 CYP had persistent absence, this being an improvement on previous years, however it was noted that there were an additional 12,000 CYP who were near to the 90% level. The numbers of those having severe absence had risen by 200 to a figure for last year of 1,809.

·         In general, overall attendance had improved compared to last year, although it was still at a lower level than pre-pandemic levels. The Panel were assured that significant efforts were being made to improve the attendance performance levels, including schools working directly with families to understand specific issues and support them. 

·         The Principal provided feedback on the 6 schools within the Trust. It was explained that it had been a difficult shift to get students back into school following the pandemic. Attendance was viewed as a priority for the whole school leadership team, thereby ensuring it’s focus across the whole of school life. Each school worked within a framework, which included focussing on CYP with attendance around the 90% rate, building relationships with individual families and making use of praise and reward initiatives. The Panel was advised that through this approach the Trust had seen some success and currently had low levels of persistent absence. Attendance of disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND were their most challenging areas, with anxiety and mental health being significant issues. Additional resources and support were being directed to improve this situation. The Principal advised that the NHS would support the school where appropriate and that two schools in the Trust were currently part of a pilot programme providing support with health issues, which was going well. Some parents were cautious around the health and wellbeing of their children and building relationships was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 619.

The Panel reviewed its work programme.

Members discussed the fact that they had not been able to scrutinise the draft budget effectively at today’s meeting, owing to the fact that at this stage they did not have full details available to them to be able to do so. They highlighted that the WCF final contract price and a full list of all the savings plans for WCF, including an indication of how they would be achieved, were required for them to be able to carry out their role.

The Panel agreed that the Interim Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager be asked to liaise with the Council’s Chief Finance Officer and the WCF Interim Director of Resources setting out the Panel’s request for the outstanding information and that a further meeting of the Panel be arranged in advance of OSPB for the that information to be considered.