Agenda item

The Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Breckon CC, has been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report provided by the Director of Corporate Resources, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the 2024/25 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position as at the end of Period 6 (the end of September 2024).  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

i.                  Whilst in year pressures had been managed well, there was still uncertainty around how the long-term gap, approaching £100m by 2027/28in the current MTFS would be addressed. The Capital Programme had been revised in June 2024 and current projections suggested this was still on track.  However, an emerging risk of a possible overspend of £3m on highways maintenance was a concern.

ii.                The delivery of savings and demand management in Adult Social Care was welcomed.  These had helped the Council’s current overall budget position. 

iii.               The biggest risk facing the Council continued to be the growing deficit on the High Needs Block element of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).  Whilst there had been a commitment made by the new Government to look at this further, no detail and no timelines had been confirmed. 

iv.              Though not yet confirmed, it was expected that the statutory override that allowed local authorities to carry a deficit on its DSG grant budget without requiring a Section 114 notice would be extended.  A Member questioned what would happen if this was not so extended.  The Director advised that many authorities would be forced to declare themselves bankrupt.  The County Council, whilst in a better position than many other authorities, would need to allocate a large proportion of its reserves which were set aside to cover various items, to offset the HNB deficit This would then impact on future financial resilience.

v.                The new Government had announced as part of its budget an extra £1billion in high needs funding to help address SEND deficits across all local authorities.  This formed part of the overall £2.3 billion planned increase in school funding for 2025-26.  It was not yet clear how this funding would be allocated and whether this would be targeted towards those authorities with the greatest deficit.  It was not therefore known how this might benefit Leicestershire.
 

vi.              Children’s social care residential provision was an area of increasing concern given the high costs involved for a relatively small number of children.  A member commented that the market was clearly failing in this area with companies profiting from local authorities.  It was noted that the Social Care Investment Partnership (SCIP) transformation programme aimed to deliver a number of children’s residential care homes which the County Council would operate.  Two such units were now operational and several more should be operational over the coming year.  The Director emphasised that there would always be a need for a mixed approach given the complexity and varying needs of some children that required specialised support.

vii.             It was noted factors outside the Council’s control hindered delivery of the SCIP programme.  The Director explained that planning permission first needed to be obtained in respect of an identified property, the home then completed ready for occupation and a manager recruited before the this could be inspected and certified for use by Ofsted.  Only once this process had been completed could the Council begin to hire the staff needed to operate the home.  

viii.           The Chair of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee provided assurance that this Committee received regular updates on transformation work taking place within the Department to address both SEND pressures and regarding delivery of the SCIP programme. It was suggested, however, that despite the recent announcement of further funding, without a full, national review of the SEND system, it was unlikely that budget pressures would be resolved in the foreseeable future.

ix.              A Member questioned if the Council had done robust research into possible alternatives to section 20 care orders (an order requiring the Council to provide accommodation for children in need in their area) and if so, whether, given the costs involved, this should be further revisited.  The Director undertook to liaise with the Department and to provide a detailed response to this suggestion after the meeting.
 

x.                Members were reassured that the £2.5m acceleration payment to the contractor in respect of the Melton Mowbray distributor road was not additional spend over budget.  This was simply bringing forward works to ensure progress following previous delays caused by poor weather earlier in the year. The Director reassured Members that officers were in regular contact with the contractor to ensure the project remained on budget so far as possible.  However, project costs were based on a number of assumptions and there would therefore always be an element of risk. 

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the update on the 2024/25 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position as at the end of period 6 (the end of September 2024) be noted;

(b)  That the Director be requested to liaise with the Children and Family Services Department regarding research undertaken into possible alternatives to section 20 care orders (an order requiring the Council to provide accommodation for children in need in their area) and whether there was merit in this being further revisited.