Present:-

Corporate Services

Brazil (Chairman), Ball, Boyd, Colthorpe, Edmunds, Gribble, Hosking, Julian, Knight, Owen, Rowe, Westlake.

People s

County Councillors

Councillors Randall Johnson (Chairman), Barisic, Biederman, Connett, Dewhirst, Hannaford, Hannan, Hosking, Mathews, Rowe, Sanders, Sellis, Squires.

Primary Parent Governor

Ms D Fontana

Place

Councillors Moulding (Chairman), Ball, Bowden, Clarance, Edgell, Hill, Hook, B Hughes, Owen, Way.

Health Wellbeing

Councillors Westlake (Chairman), Boyd, Brook (from 1145hrs), Chugg, Clarance, Colthorpe, Diviani, Gilbert, Greenslade, Gribble, Morse, Sellis, Wragg, Wright.

Attending in accordance with Standing Order 25

Councillors Barker, Clatworthy, Croad, Davis, Foggin, Hart, S Hughes, Leadbetter (from 1108hrs), McInnes, Parsons.

Apologies

Councillor Radford and Mrs C Mabin (Additional Member for Educational issues, People s Scrutiny).

COUNCILLOR BRAZIL IN THE CHAIR

*1/16 2016/17 Budget

(Councillors Barker, Clatworthy, Croad, Davis, Hart, S Hughes, McInnes and Parsons (Cabinet Members) attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(1) and spoke to this item at the invitation of the meeting).

(Councillor Foggin attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(1) and spoke to this item).

Members noted that, in line with previous practice, the proposed budget for 2016/17 was to be subject to a collective scrutiny exercise at this joint meeting of Scrutiny Committees, providing an opportunity to comment on proposals for the Council s Budget in its entirety, following the earlier consideration of proposed service budgets by the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

The meeting was first reminded of the views of Members and Officers expressed at the Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee held on 22 January 2016 relating to the likely level of the public health grant - which had then yet to be announced by Government and which was now not likely to be announced before the beginning of February - on the implications of that late notification for determination of the budget by the Cabinet and Council.

Members reiterated their concerns and disappointment at this state of affairs noting, further, that as the public health grant had still not been announced prior to this meeting the public health budget would necessarily therefore be submitted direct to Cabinet and thence to full Council for examination and scrutiny. In line with the Council s Budget Framework, relevant Scrutiny Committees were asked to comment on service proposals by the date of the Cabinet meeting fixed to consider the proposed budget for 2016/17, namely 12 February 2016 and, given the continuing uncertainty, there were no plans for any special meeting of the Health Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee before that date.

The meeting then considered and had regard to the views of individual Scrutiny Committees which had previously examined relevant proposed budgets to identify any specific issues or areas of interest that might be considered at this joint meeting or for incorporation in any final recommendations to Cabinet and Council; such consideration having followed the earlier circulation of a briefing on the impact of the provisional settlement to all Devon Members of Parliament and all Members of the Council complementing the Report of the County Treasurer (CT/16/1 - text only | pdf CT/16/1) relating to the settlement and the setting of spending targets for 2016/17 considered by the Cabinet on 13 January 2016.

In addition to the Reports of the County Treasurer and relevant Officers and the detailed budget proposals considered by Scrutiny Committees in the current cycle (CT/16/4 - supplementary information CT/16/4), (CT/16/5 - supplementary information CT/16/5) and (CT/16/6 - supplementary information CT/16/6) the joint meeting now also had before it a summary of issues and/or observations identified by those Committees, as summarised below, to inform discussion of any single, co-ordinated response or set of recommendations the meeting might wish to submit to Cabinet and the Council on the overall implications of the budget proposals, if desired.

The Reports referred to above outlined the provisional financial settlement made by Government within the current year and the spending targets set by the Cabinet for Place, People s and Corporate Services (excepting public health considered separately as indicated above) providing for inflation, commitments and service prioritisation reductions, reflecting the different pressures and influences faced by those services. The announcement of the final settlement and Council Tax Regulations was expected at the beginning of February 2016.

The aforementioned Reports had also advised that whilst it had been widely anticipated that the provisional settlement would only provide figures for one year with subsequent consultation on changes to grant distribution methodology, the Government had instead introduced changes in this year and beyond and had provided grant figures for individual Authorities over a four year period from 2016/17 to 2019/20. While the latter change was to be welcomed it was noted that the impact of this revised grant distribution methodology was that Shire Counties would, collectively, lose funding in 2016/17 and moreover, within the allocation to County Councils and Upper Tier Authorities, there had been a further re-distribution with funding flowing from Councils with a higher tax base to Councils with a lower tax base; it was thought that this was to compensate those Authorities dealing with Adult Social Care pressures who would raise less income from a 2% precept. The settlement had also confirmed that Councils could raise Council Tax by an additional 2% to help cope with the costs of adult social care, over and above the normal maximum 2% increase that could be levied before triggering a referendum.

The targets for each service area, as set by Cabinet earlier that month were subject to different pressures and influences. The People s Services budget was 316,118,000 - providing for inflation and commitments of 36,052,000 and required budget savings of 19,876,000. The Place budget of 93,934,000 included inflation and commitments at 6,111,000 with required budget savings of 9,506,000 and removal of previous one-off spending of 540,000. Corporate Services budgets totalled 33,486,000 including inflation and commitments of 1,705,000 and required budget savings of 4,935,000.

Members noted that the Leader had previously affirmed that the target budget now proposed was predicated upon the assumption that the Council would be asked to agree to raise Council Tax by up to the maximum permissible (i.e 3.99%) including the additional 2% precept for Adult Social Care which the Cabinet had already confirmed it was minded so to recommend.

The Leader of the Council commented on this being the seventh year in a row where the Council had been required to set a budget with reduced funding levels and that, in the current public sector funding regime, it was becoming more and more difficult to achieve the reductions required. This budget had, in his view, been the hardest to formulate to date and a number of Members present acknowledged that the proposed budget was probably the best that could have been achieved and that it was difficult to see what else could be done.

The Leader also outlined the strong representations he had regularly and consistently made to Devon s Members of Parliament about the difficult choices being faced in Devon. He welcomed the observations of Scrutiny Committees which would be taken into account in formulating a budget for consideration by Cabinet and the County Council, acknowledging in particular the comment on the need for greater clarity of the retention of Business Rates. In so doing he also intimated that if necessary the Council would be recommended to agree that any underfunding in specific areas (i.e public health ) would be met from reserves and that, conversely, if any additional monies were made available under the settlement then consideration would be given to additional funding for drainage works in light of extreme weather events and winter pressures.

Cabinet Members also spoke of the difficulties in delivering budgets with below average levels of funding especially in relation to demand led services, protecting the most vulnerable or at risk and ensuring resilience of services and while expressing their gratitude to all staff involved in both preparing budgets and actually delivering services also exhorted Devon Members of Parliament to press Devon s case for increased funding.

In considering the issues and/or observations identified by individual Scrutiny Committees set out below and the further examination at this meeting, Members acknowledged that proposed service budgets sought not only to strike a balance with and between statutory and non-statutory functions, but to respond to pressures and demands upon services and the roles and contribution of partner organisations in the delivery of services, cognisant at all times of the impact of the Council s actions and expenditure on the residents of Devon and users of services.

The specific issues and/or observations previously identified by individual Scrutiny Committees were as follows: namely

People s Scrutiny Committee

welcoming the increase of the People s Services budget and particularly that for Children s Social Work and Child Protection;

recognising the continuing challenge of containing spending within budgets against the statutory duty to meet the needs of the most vulnerable especially where those needs are difficult to predict and a market similarly influenced by external pressures;

endorsing concerns expressed elsewhere at the impact of the late notification by Government of the provisional settlement upon budget preparation and time for effective scrutiny by the Council of proposed budgets and also for schools themselves with the final Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) not likely to be announced until the end of March 2016;

that Cabinet should be satisfied that there will be no repeat of the previous years experience where the level of projected savings was probably too great to deliver while also providing necessary improvements in quality at that time and that current strategies and plans to maintain and consolidate those improvements will be more accurate and confidence therein is not misplaced;

recognising that the volatility of markets - particularly in relation to Adult Services - could create difficulties for the Council going forward in the light of the obligation on it to ensure future market sufficiency for care services; assurances given at the meeting that current forecasts and proposed budgets were as accurate as possible and sufficient based on data available at the time those were prepared were to be welcomed; acknowledging also the consequences of any change in that position;

the potential impact of reduced funding from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) for Protection of Adult Services for 2016/17 through the Better Care Fund on service delivery by the Council and equally the uncertainty of any impact of the Success Regime on funding and services commissioned by the CCGs and the implications for pooled funding in future years;

recognising any increase in Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) that may flow from the new national funding formula and the f40 campaign for increased funding for rural schools may reduce the impact on the Council s budget;

the continuing need across Adult and Children s Services for enhanced partnerships within the Council and beyond - working with CCGs and NHS providers to ensure a coherent, integrated approach to service delivery and a common approach to assessing and identifying need prior to any formal assessment of need by the Council against eligibility criteria.

Health Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee

concern at the late announcement of the public health grant and the potential impact of any reductions on service delivery and suggested that when the grant was announced the Cabinet should make further representations to Government through Devon s Members of Parliament, if necessary and as appropriate.

Place Scrutiny Committee

recognising that many of the reductions which appeared in the proposed Place Budget were either the full year effect, continuation of or arose from savings strategies or policy decisions adopted in 2015/16;

welcoming the net increase in budgetary provision for Waste Disposal Recycling and Economy Enterprise which supported basic tenets of the Council s policies around recycling of waste and economic development in the County;

the continuing need to take advantage of and maximise all sources of external funding for schemes at a time of reducing budgets and organisational change; recognising the need to concentrate such activity on schemes that support the Council s strategic objectives;

acknowledging the continuing representations made to Government to secure adequate resources for Highway Management and Maintenance to secure a safe highway network, particularly in rural areas.

Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee

supporting the need for the Council to raise Council Tax by the maximum possible amount permissible under the provisional settlement (i.e.3.99%); acknowledging that to do otherwise would be to detrimental to services and service users;

acknowledging the inherent risks in the Corporate Services budget, which was necessarily predicated upon the levels of service required to respond to the needs and demand of People and Place (reflecting the challenge of delivering considerable budget reductions, the transformational change taking place across the Council and increased operational demands) and the assurances given previously upon the adequacy of the proposed budget;

the Committee s grave concerns at the latest indications that the public health grant may not now be known until the beginning of February or later which could impact upon the Council s ability to determine the budget within the current timescales; reiterating that those concerns should be conveyed to Devon MPs and also to the Chairman of the Select Health Committee, Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, in view of the potential detriment to health services [Members having also been exhorted to themselves make representations to MPs direct]

Individual Scrutiny Committees had asked also for further reports on a number of matters arising from the above issues, to enable those Committees to examine or review those in more detail, namely:

that the Children s Standing Overview Group monitor closely the delivery of Early Help mechanisms, including family group conferencing and focusing on teenagers which it is anticipated will lead to fewer children entering care, to ensure these expectations are delivered (People s Scrutiny);

that recognising the risks illustrated by the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care Health Services, a review be undertaken of the Council s planning for and possible interventions to ensure market sufficiency for care services and appropriate quality standards, and actions to monitor trends and service delivery to identify any potential budgetary impacts, including the needs and demands of providers and take-up of places in both the private and public sector (People s Scrutiny);

the impact upon Arts organisations of the cessation of funding by the Council, as previously agreed, and on the outcomes of the previous agreements and the steps taken by organisations to secure alternative funding (Place);

the effectiveness of ring and ride schemes and potential for funding of such schemes, in light of evidence gathered during recent consultations on public transport support (Place);

action being taken by the County Council and Officers to prevent flooding in the County and the ability to mitigate contributing factors (Place).

In addition to the aforementioned, further specific matters or issues identified or raised at this meeting included:

the demands on staff and resources of the Council in delivering the proposed budget against the background of major changes in service delivery and the corresponding need to raise awareness of where there could be limitations, now or in the future;

the ability from 2017/18 for the Council and Scrutiny Committees to examine 3 year budgets, looking more strategically across services rather than focussing as now in individual service areas;

the need for Members to be made aware in more detail of the impact of proposed budget reductions set out in the Savings Strategies referred to in the Reports now submitted, to assist them in better communicating those decisions to the public;

the desirability of maintaining a school crossing patrol service in Devon for the safety of Devon children; and

the re-establishment of Neighbourhood Highways Teams.

The Reports now before the Committee referred to the Impact Assessments for the 2016/17 Budget, across all service areas, which had been circulated for the attention of Members at this meeting and previous Scrutiny Committee meetings examining the budget, in order that Scrutiny Committees not only had access to all necessary equality impact assessments undertaken as part of the budget s preparation but could have regard to and be satisfied that those assessments, risk assessments and projections were adequate and the evidence supported the assumptions made in the formulation of the budget, to meet the Public Sector Equality Duty imposed upon the Council under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. That Assessment recognised that with the majority of savings strategies having been agreed in the 2015/16 budget there were few new proposals put forward for 2016/17. Moreover, and acknowledging that the preparation of Impact Assessments was necessarily a dynamic process and that individual assessments for specific proposals might necessarily have to be developed and updated with time, Members of the Council must have full regard to and consider the impact of any proposals in relation to equalities prior to making any decisions and any identified significant risks and mitigating action required.

The Leader and Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees also paid tribute to the efforts of all staff in producing viable budgets for 2016/17 to enable the Council to deliver services to those in need at a time of continuing change and in a period of austerity.

Public Participation

No member of the public had given notice of intention to speak to or make representations at this meeting on any matter relating to the proposed budget, as provided for in the Council s Public Participation Scheme.

Following further discussion and deliberation:

It was MOVED by Councillor Greenslade, SECONDED by Councillor Connett, that the recommendations before the meeting be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

"(j) that Devon MPs be invited to a budget building exercise at 9.00am on Friday 12^th February and their deliberations be reported to the Cabinet when it considered the budget for 2016/17 at 10.30am on the 12^th February "

The motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.

It was then MOVED by Councillor Brazil, SECONDED by Councillor Moulding - having indicated their willingness to accept further amendments proposed by Councillor Wright and Councillor Hannaford - and

RESOLVED

(a) that the Scrutiny Committees note the Government s provisional financial settlement and the spending targets determined by the Cabinet on 13 January 2016: expressing concern nonetheless at (i) the continuing scale of reductions being imposed on local authorities, (ii) the consequences of those reductions upon the ability of Councils to meet the needs of its citizens and (iii) the barriers to effective planning and scrutiny of proposed budgets occasioned by the unwarranted delays in announcing the settlement figures and details of the Council s grants and allocations;

(b) that while welcoming the Government s new 4 year funding deal and the degree of assurance and certainty that obtains from having indicative settlement figures for four years, the Cabinet/Council should nonetheless

(i) continue to press Government for a fairer allocation for Devon in the second and subsequent years of the new 4 year funding regime, recognising more accurately the impact of providing services in a rural area; and

(ii) seek greater clarity through the LGA on the impact of the Improved Better Care Fund and on the meaning of 100% Business Rates Retention and any additional responsibilities or constraints likely to be imposed upon Councils in respect of the latter and upon the required Annual Efficiency Plans ;

(c) that the County Council be urged to take advantage of the opportunity to raise Council Tax both by an additional 2% to help cope with the costs of adult social care and the maximum of any other increase permitted (i.e 1.99%) to safeguard the Council s budgets to the fullest extent possible; recognising that, on balance, the Council would be failing in its duty if it were not to take all advantage of all opportunities open to meet the needs of the most vulnerable;

(d) that the strongest possible representations be made, publicly, to Government both direct and through MPs and the Local Government Association over its failure to provide Councils with full details of the local government finance settlement (including all relevant and related grants, particularly the public health grant) in good time for Councils to make considered judgments over future budgets and meet their statutory obligations to determine a budget and not place Councils under unnecessary pressure with a consequential risk to services: suggesting also that while the position for 2016/17 may be irretrievable such a situation should not occur in future years;

(e) that the specific observations of individual Scrutiny Committees and those made at this meeting (as set out above) be also commended to Cabinet in finalising its recommendations to Council;

(f) that the Cabinet needs to satisfy itself that the budgets prepared on the basis of its approved targets are indeed sufficient to meet the demands placed on those services and that the apportionment of resources as between People, Place and Corporate Services is appropriate;

(g) that, acknowledging the options and/or alternatives discussed and identified in the proposed budgets and in the accompanying Reports and Impact Assessments referred to above and recognising also that this is a dynamic process, Scrutiny Committees again re-iterate the need for Cabinet to satisfy itself that all Assessments continue to be updated and are complied with and that the evidence gathered during this budget preparation exercise and any subsequent engagement processes supports the proposed way forward;

(h) that Cabinet ask Devon MPs to speak and vote against the Finance Bill (if the provisional financial settlement for Devon is not significantly improved); and

(i) that if the budget settlement is better than expected, consideration should be given to allocating additional funding for drainage works (alongside any other competing demands).

*DENOTES DELEGATED MATTER WITH POWER TO ACT

The meeting started at 10.00am and finished at 12.02pm

Notes: The Minutes of this Committee are published on the County Council's Website at: All Members of the Council had been granted a dispensation to allow them to speak and vote in any debate on the setting of the Council Tax or Precept or any fees and charges arising therefrom as a consequence of simply being a resident of or by virtue of being a resident of or a land or property owner in the administrative County of Devon, or by being a parent or guardian of a child in a school on any matter relating to school meals and school transport or in relation to the setting of members allowances The Impact Assessments referred to above are available at: https://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/published/budget-setting-201617/