Agenda item

To consider a report of Leader of the Council and the Executive Councillor (Corporate, Customer and Community Services)

At its meeting on 15 July 2014, the Executive received a Medium Term Financial Forecast that indicated a budget reduction requirement of £22.453m for 2015/16, and forecast a cumulative reduction requirement of £39.419m in 2016/17, rising to £64.5m by 2018/19. In response to those forecasts, and in line with its previous deliberations and statements of intent, the Executive agreed the strategic framework for Investing in Stockport (IIS), a single programme of sustainable growth and public service reform in the Borough over the medium term.

At its most recent meeting on 12 August the Executive brought forward a set of proposals informed by the strategic framework and designed to address the budget reduction requirement.  Executive Councillors agreed that there should be a report to all scrutiny committees in the next cycle outlining the proposals relating to each committee’s remit.  Confirmation of which proposals fall within the remit of which Committee is provided at Appendix 1.

The business case working papers that were made available to the Executive Councillors accompany this report have been updated to include additional information in relation to the potential risks and impacts associated with the proposed changes.

All scrutiny committees are being requested during this cycle of meetings to comment upon the approach being taken by the Executive to address the need to make substantial savings over the next two years, and the specific proposals brought forward for consultation.

It is recommended, therefore, that the Scrutiny Committee comments upon both the overall approach being taken by the Executive and the specific proposals detailed in the accompanying documents, where they fall within the remit of that Committee.

Officer contact: Steve Houston / Laureen Donnan; 0161 474 4000 / 3180 or email: steve.houston@stockport.gov.uk or laureen.donnan@stockport.gov.uk

The Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) submitted a report Leader of the Council and the Executive Councillor (Corporate, Customer & Community Services) (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the Executive’s proposals to respond to the Medium Term Financial Forecast considered by the Executive In July 2015. At its meeting in August, the Executive endorsed for consultation a set of proposals, in accordance with the Investing In Stockport strategic framework, that sought to respond to the required budget reductions but also to target investment to ensure the best outcomes for residents in the Borough.

The accompanying documents to the report provided further detail on the following Investing In Stockport proposals:-

·         Preventative Commissioning Strategy

·         Integrated Prevention and Safeguarding Children and Family Services

·         0-25 SEND Review

·         Learning Disability Review.

The Executive Councillors (Children & Young People) and appropriate project leads attended the meeting to present the proposals and to answer questions.

The following comments were made/issues raised in relation to the following Proposals:-

·         It was commented that the role of partners needed to be recognised in much of the activity under discussion.

·         Concerns were expressed about whether the proposals were over reliant on the contribution of voluntary and 3rd sector organisations and whether sufficient consideration had been given to the risks associated with these organisations being unable to deliver services due to restricting access to resources. In response it was stated that it was necessary to review current a range of commissioned services, including those provided by the 3^rd sector, to avoid duplication, ensure a focus on outcomes and ensure good value for money. Future commissioning would need to deliver integrated packages of support and this would require a transformation in the way the 3^rd Sector worked. There were also opportunities to work with those voluntary groups who received no funding.

·         Concerns were expressed about the achievability of reducing care placements by 20% and the impact should the target not be met. In response it was stated that the aim was to reduce the reliance on expensive short term placements through a new approach, since in many cases the child would return to their home in the short term so it was hoped to find more effective community based solutions. It was emphasised that there were a range of options being explored for a range of issues, but that where intervention was needed the Council would do so. It was also stressed that the Council did not have the option of not transforming and that all services would need to ensure they could operate within the financial constraints.

·         Clarification was sought in relation to the risk of claw back of capital costs by the Department for Education in relation to children’s centres. In response it was stated that further focussed consultation would be undertaken before the development of firmer proposal on the future configuration of children and family centres, but that many existing centres were accommodated within existing facilities, such as libraries, so there were minimal if no capital costs associated with some of these. It was also emphasised that the targeted work co-ordinated through children’s centres and the wider Integrated Children’s Service would remain.

·         Concerns were expressed that reducing the reducing availability of short breaks would lead to an increase in more costly interventions when families went into crisis. Clarification was also sought on the risks around possible legal challenge. In response it was stated that while there was a statutory requirement to provide short breaks, how tis was delivered was not prescribed in law, and that the proposed changes would affect those with the lowest level of need. It was explained that recent national investment in this area, including ring-fencing of resources, had proven ineffective, but that it had raised expectations. It was important to promote independence and to ensure families were providing opportunities for themselves. It was stressed that respite care would remain and support would continue to be provided for those with acute needs. In respect of legal challenges, it was stated that legal challenge was an increasing risk across a range of activities in part because of an increasing litigious society, but that there was confidence that these proposals would be developed so as to minimise the risk of legal challenge.

·         Clarification was sought on what impact personal budget may have on short breaks and similar services, and whether this would cover siblings. In response it was stated that the new Education, Health and Care Plans did include a personal budget element which may cover care, and that it was important to enable young people and their carers to make choices about their care, not simply to provide services at them. Support would also continue for young carers.

·         Clarification was sought on the legal responsibilities for schools referenced in the proposals relating to the renegotiation of Service Level Agreements (SLA). It was stated that these references to SLAs were related to the buy-back of MOSIAC services where these agreements did not cover the full costs of the service, and to Universal Information, Advice and Guidance, about which there was a statutory requirement for schools to provide. Were schools meeting the actual costs of providing the universal element of this service would allow the Council to provide more targeted services and support for those at risk of becoming not in education, employment or training. Councillors responded by suggesting that the references to statutory requirements in the document be more explicit.

·         It was commented that preventative measures to prevent children being taken into care should be supported and the aspiration to do this was welcomed. It was also commented that in so far as possible, children placed in foster care should be place with in-house provision.

·         Clarification was sought on the Workforce Development staffing costs contained in the accompanying document. In response it was stated that this include three full time staff and other non-staffing costs which was used to provide highly specialised training and support for front-line staff.

·         Concerns were expressed about the impact of the reduction of staff in the Early Years Foundation Service Improvement team on ensuring quality non-school early years settings, particularly child minders. In response it was stated that there was confidence that the reduction in staffing could be managed while maintaining quality support, using a range of partners and opportunities, such as schools.

·         Queries were raised about the impact of personalisation/ personal budgets on SEN Transport and the proposals contained in the report. In response it was stated that the starting point for the Review was to encourage independence wherever possible which was in turn the underlying aim of personalisation. It was recognised that the process of change in this area needed to be handled carefully.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to the reduction in provision of the Education Psychology Service, in particular the risks to fulfilling the Council’s statutory responsibilities and whether the new SEND system would not result in increased demand and expectation from parents. In response it was stated that there was scope for the schools to work more effectively to integrate pupils into the mainstream school community and support through outstanding teaching and differentiation. It was stated that visits from the Educational Psychology Service  to schools would remain at three for primary and six for secondary if the criteria was met and the opportunities to buy-back from the service would remain. Other funding streams would also be available to support this work, such as the Team Around the Child. It was emphasised that the most vulnerable will still be supported.

RESOVLED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the Corporate Director for People be requested to provide further information and clarification in relation to:-

·         The total capital costs for the Children’s Centre programme

·         Total number of in-house foster care placements offered by the Council

(3) That the Democratic Services Manger be requested to make arrangements for a presentation at a future meeting from Stockport Homes  in relation to their activity with children and young people.

(4) That the Service Director (Children’s Safeguarding & Prevention) be requested to submit a report to an Annual Report on Looked After Children to future meetings.