Issue - meetings

(CSP: MEC and MEC1)

Purpose: To inform Members of the provisional financial performance of the Council for 2016/17 .

Resolved:

·      to note the outturn position and that the service specific risk funds would not be called upon, due to under spends in other areas across the Council.

·      that the budget movements processed in year and detailed in Appendix E had been reviewed.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which set out the provisional financial outturn of the Council for 2016-17.

Councillor Graham Jones introduced the report and explained that the provisional revenue outturn was an overspend of £7,487 against a net revenue budget of £116.8m, which equated to 0.006% of the net budget. Councillor Jones also reported that 95% of the 2016/17 savings programme was achieved in year.

Councillor Jones felt that these were commendable achievements during difficult financial times. This was particularly so when considering the difficulties being experienced by some near neighbour local authorities. By way of an example, Councillor Jones referred to Reading Borough Council whose provisional outturn was an overspend of £7.3m.

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated her pleasure at the underspend reported for Children and Family Services. This was particularly commendable when considering that the service had undergone an improvement journey. A number of measures had been implemented successfully in order to achieve this, whilst still meeting demand. There had therefore been no need to utilise the service risk fund.

Councillor Doherty added that there had been a reduced need for agency staff in the service and therefore cost, with the use of agency staff having reduced from 29% to 12% of the workforce. Placement costs had also been well managed.

Councillor Lee Dillon referred to Adult Social Care. He noted that the overspend in this service had reduced from Quarter Three and this was partly due to client care packages not commencing as previously forecast. He queried whether this was due to some clients having a less acute need than originally anticipated.

Councillor Dillon also noted that there had been less use of direct payments and queried whether there was a need to educate residents on the use of this funding to encourage them to make use of it.

There had also been a lower demand for carer support. Councillor Dillon queried whether this was due to the needs of residents being less complex or whether there was a stricter assessment process in place for this support.

In response to these points, Rachael Wardell explained that a high cost scenario was forecast for care packages. Actual costs became clearer towards year-end and some lower cost packages had been achieved. It was also the case that not all packages would continue for a full year as, sadly, some clients died.

Direct payments were discussed with clients as part of social work reviews when consideration was given to the expenditure of this funding and whether the needs of clients were being sufficiently met. This was alongside seeking to encourage independence of service users.

Rachael Wardell agreed to explore with the service whether there was an identifiable reason for the reduced demand for carer support and to confirm that in writing, but confirmed that the service did take steps to ensure carers were made aware of support available.

Turning to the Education Service, Councillor Dillon noted that savings had been achieved in Property due to a reduction in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8