Agenda item

To consider the proposed revenue and capital bids for Children’s and Adults Services.

The presentation pack and the Children’s Services bids are to be sent out as “to-follow”.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 115 to 142 and supplementary agenda pages 3 to 52, which set out the proposed revenue and capital bids for the Adult’s Services and Children’s Services Directorates.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey (Executive Member for Finance), David Hare (Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Services), Prue Bray (Executive Member for Children’s Services), Graham Ebers (Deputy Chief Executive (Director of Resources and Assets), Matt Pope (Director of Adult’s Services, and Helen Watson (Interim Director of Children’s Services) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

The Executive Member for Finance stated that there was a predicted revenue shortfall of £4m for the next financial year, and a predicted shortfall of £14m in the capital budget.

The Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Services stated that there was uncertainty as to whether the service could deliver on proposed bids at predicted spending levels taking into account inflationary pressures, however every effort was being made to help address Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) overall financial situation. Forty percent of WBC’s revenue budget was spent on adult social care, whilst a two percent increase in adult social care led to an approximate one percent increase in council tax. Growth within the service was continuing, however every effort was being made to keep this under three percent, which was half of the Local Government Association’s inflationary pressure guide. It was excellent that we could pay the living wage to staff as this would reduce loss of staff to other sectors and industries including supermarkets, however this too placed additional financial pressures on the service. Additional pressures had been realised since the pandemic, and people who were not eligible for support were being signposted to appropriate organisations. Some bids would require to be revisited as a result of the recently announced Autumn Budget.

The Executive Member for Children’s Services stated that there were two halves to the overall service, education and children’s social care. There was unprecedented demand for special educational needs (SEN) related services, whilst issues including the war in Ukraine and new arrivals from Hong Kong were placing pressures on school places, which had contributed to 500 in year admissions. Budgeting for Children’s Services had not already been realistic, with regular overspends for example in home to school transport (HTST). There had been an increasing number of applications for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), which had previously trended at low levels within the borough. There were not enough SEN places within the Borough, which contributed to increased costs in provision of HTST. There were a rising number of complex cases being presented in addition to rising levels of unaccompanied asylum seekers, which was set at 0.7% of the Borough’s child population, which for Wokingham was 28 children. Some school years had no available places within the Borough, and there were 327 more children than there were places for next year. Whilst some children would move out of the Borough or attend independent schools, this was usually expected to be around 120 children. The service was struggling to find drivers to transport children to school, whilst agencies were now trying to sell teams of social workers which was very expensive. Absolutely every effort was being made to avoid a reduction in early intervention and early help services. There were two bids relating to SEND sufficiency, however it was uncertain if either would be achieved. Addington School were scheduled to run Farley Hill School as an early years settlement. There had been 115 children in care during the last financial year, whereas there were now 145. Unaccompanied asylum seekers had risen from 12 to 37, whilst agency rates had risen from 14.7 percent to 23 percent, including educational psychologists.

During the ensuing discussions, members raised the following points and queries:

·         Was the £2.3B national investment to schools’ capital or revenue money, and would this be paid out by WBC? Officer response – This was believed to be revenue support though this had not been specified, and if so it would sit in the DSG and be passed on directly to schools;

·         Were WBC in a better or worse position as a result of the Autumn Statement? Officer response – Early estimates suggested that the position was about neutral, with the ability to increase Council Tax and increases Adult Social Care Grant being positives and increased living wages being a financial negative for WBC. At this stage, it was difficult to ascertain how much of these pressures would be passed on to WBC;

·         In relation to bid ASC 1, Demand Management, would this be primarily investing to save or additional use of the voluntary sector? Officer response – This would be a combination of the two methods. It was key to know the growing needs of the Borough and to invest in the voluntary sector to help pick up some of the work. This would lead to less growth via provision of earlier support to enable people to be independent for longer at a lesser total cost;

·         In relation to bid ASC R2, Learning Disability Review, what was the reason for Wokingham being such an outlier in this area? Officer response – There was no one clear answer to this issue, and a number of interrelated factors were likely to contribute towards this;

·         This year’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) detailed a total budget of approximately £43.76m, whilst bid ASC R1 stated a total budget of approximately £44.9m. Where had the £1.2m come from, how was it spent, and how confident was the service of achieving the proposed £1.2m saving for next year? Officer response - £1m had been saved during this financial year, and if these savings had not been made then £1m would have to be added to the total budget. Any savings identified would be placed against growth bids to reduce the overall growth, in an attempt to ‘flatten’ the demand curve. There were still some concerns regarding the recent Autumn Statement, which could impact on the service sticking to the agreed budget. The budget setting process for next year had been unprecedented in terms of budget movement;

·         Had the number of agency staff within Adult Social Care reduced over the past 4 years? Executive Member and officer response – The service had managed quite well against a national backdrop of a shortage of social workers and occupational therapists. This was partly a national workforce issue and partly an issue of ‘stop-gap’ funding which meant that workers could only be recruited temporarily as the funding associated with then was on a temporary basis. There were many more jobs than there were qualified workers, and filling posts often came down to rates of pay. Wokingham was doing quite well in terms of use of agency staff and retention rates compared to some of our neighbouring authorities. In addition, a relocation offer was also available in addition to car parking, however the bottom line was that the service could not afford to offer ever increasing rates of pay;

·         Could some of the efficiency savings being proposed have been implemented earlier? Officer response – Efficiency saving had already been implemented, and the savings being proposed were the savings against new people using the service;

·         Could more detail be provided in relation to bid ASC R7, Optalis Review? Executive Member and officer response – This was about carrying out backroom tasks efficiently and effectively. Optalis had introduced a system of making sure that workers were in the right place at the right time via an electronic registering system, which would lead to future savings;

·         In relation to bid ASC C3, Mosaic Modernisation, why were implementation costs being proposed when the system had been in use for 7 years? Officer response – This was about ensuring that our systems were up to date, utilising the latest addons to ensure compliance. The implementation costs were the project costs to facilitate installation of these addons. There were only a limited amount of systems available to ensure statutory compliance, none of which were perfect, and it was therefore a necessity to purchase addons to keep up to date. Part of the implementation would be to prepare for future charging reforms, whilst the providers were very aware of attempts by Local Authorities to group together to seek reduced costs which could lead to increased charges;

·         It was noted that most Covid-19 restrictions had been removed from care homes in the Borough, and the focus was now on good infection control procedures for which there was some funding available;

·         In relation to bid CS R7, Placements – LAC Charging Policy, would this be a standard charge? Executive Member and officer response – The £50k saving was a notional figure, and it was hoped that this could be avoided. Any charge would be on a case-by-case basis, whilst pressures across the service were necessitating any possible back office efficiencies;

·         Members had received comments from a number of headteachers regarding increases in behavioural difficulties since the Covid-19 pandemic. How was any support for these increases being reflected in the budget? Executive Member and officer response – Schools were trying to prevent escalation, with additional support offered from SENCOs. Colleagues in health were key partners, and work was underway to look at how additional therapies could be offered to deal with some big challenges post-pandemic;

·         In relation to the corporate transformation programme, it was noted that proposed savings included the policy process, travel training, route optimisation, and contract tenders and suppliers. The policy was tightened last year, which had made a difference but there was still a significant overspend. If there were enough SEND places in the Borough then the overall cost of transport would be significantly reduced;

·         How would the repeating trend of increasing overspend in the home to school transport budget be reversed? Executive Member response – Where eligible, some parents were offered direct payments in place of taxi provision, whilst travel training was key in reducing spending requirements. Travel training was sometimes resisted by parents who felt that their child needed protecting and therefore needed to be picked up, but it was important to encourage children to be as independent as possible. Route optimisation was also underway, whilst being careful that changes to routes did not upset other children. Options could be explored to sell spare seats on commissioned services, whilst looking at ticket costs compared to neighbouring Local Authorities;

·         Were WBC responsible for unaccompanied asylum seekers who left care to go to University? Officer response – This was an interesting point, and a written answer would be provided;

·         Was the service confident that new SEND schools would be fully utilised, as many pupils may already be settled at other schools. Executive Member and officer response – The new SEND school in Winnersh has had no issue in being fully allocated. Some parents would prefer their child not having to travel as far to school, whilst others may be attracted by a new build school. Any placement had to be bespoke for each child, and the absence of a long journey may balance off the need to settle in at a new school for some children. Conversations would be undertaken with individual families regarding potential placements at new schools;

·         Was there potential of staff reductions to address budget concerns? Executive Member response – The issue of the budget had not been ‘bottomed out’, and there was no desire to reduce staff numbers, especially as it was not in the best interest of the service. Vacancies were being held where possible, whilst the impacts of other factors were yet to be fully understood. Many vacancies on the WBC website were related to schools which did not come out of the WBC budget, whilst other posts were service critical;

·         How were we ensuring that budgets spent in collaboration with trusts were fair and equitable? Executive Member response – School’s Forum had scrutinised these budgets very closely, whilst the primary and secondary federation were also involved in the budget setting process. Work with trusts had to be done on a partnership basis.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, David Hare, Prue Bray, Graham Ebers Matt Pope, and Helen Watson be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      A written answer be provided as to whether WBC was responsible for unaccompanied asylum seekers who left care to go to University;

3)      Changes to bids, know as lockdown 2, be presented to the Committee at a future meeting.