Agenda item

(a)       That the details of the Provisional Local Government Settlement and the impact on the budget forecast for 2018/19 be noted;

(b)       That the Stage One Budget proposals as set out in Appendix A be approved;

(c)       That the remaining stages of the budget process and timescales be noted; and

(d)       That the approach to the Provisional Settlement consultation be approved in accordance with the outline response to WG suggested in the presentation.

The Chief Executive and Corporate Finance Manager presented an update on the Council Fund Budget forecast for 2018/19 following the Provisional Welsh Local Government Settlement announced by Welsh Government (WG).  Members’ views were sought on a response to WG and to the Council’s portfolio business plan proposals which were presented for formal adoption.

Amongst the key outcomes from the announcement, it was reported that a number of specific grants were now included in the Settlement and the impact of a new responsibility for homelessness prevention was being assessed for which no additional base funding had been provided.  Further information received since the Provisional Settlement highlighted a reduction in the Education Improvement Grant and Single Environment Grant as areas of concern.  The overall effect had increased the previously forecasted £11.7m budget gap to £13.6m and could be further impacted by a projected £1.1m Council Fund overspend in 2017/18.

The portfolio business plan options with a value of £3.1m had been endorsed by Cabinet and reviewed by the respective Overview & Scrutiny committees with no objections raised.  The main topic of public interest was the proposed introduction of charges for garden waste collection which was not one of the Council’s statutory services.  Details were available in the report to the forthcoming Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting.  Resilience statements for each portfolio showed the majority of service areas at an Amber risk rating, reflecting the risk of failure prior to entering Stage 2 of the process.

Timescales for the budget process were set out to enable the Council to approve a balanced budget to meet its statutory duty.  More challenging options for Stage 2 totalling around £6m-8m would be considered by Members at an informal workshop prior to seeking approval at the next meeting, to allow for early implementation and focus on remaining options at Stage 3 in the New Year.

Whilst some informal representations had already been made to WG on the Provisional Settlement, Members were asked to agree a corporate response to make the case that both WG and UK Government should recognise their own responsibilities for better funding to meet the needs of local government in protecting services, as was the case for the Health service.  As a reminder of the representations made to WG, copies of a letter previously sent to Mark Drakeford AM were circulated, highlighting the national impact, the importance of making a collective case and the need for Flintshire to receive sufficient funding to deliver its mandatory services.

Draft response to the Provisional Settlement

The Chief Executive asked Members to support the following draft response to WG which had been informed by discussions throughout the budget process:

That:

·         the Settlement is inadequate for the Council’s needs;

·         the Council re-supports the case made on 22 August as set out in the letter to Mark Drakeford AM;

·         the Council supports the three specific asks under consideration in Stage 2 - ICF funding ringfenced for the next three years, the £100 per week domiciliary care cap and 50% of the Apprentice Tax Levy paid by the Council to be returned to sustain the existing scheme;

·         the latterly announced reductions to specific grants - Education Improvement Grant and Single Environment Grant - be reversed by WG irrespective of the UK Settlement;

·       additional funding is needed for the whole of local government as per the WLGA and Flintshire case made in the letter to WG;

·       Flintshire is at particular risk due to its low funding base as shown by the set of resilience statements;

·       WG Ministers and senior officials are invited to meet with Flintshire urgently to review our special case - to be facilitated by the WLGA;

·       if additional funding is not to be given to local government at a sufficient level for Flintshire under the distribution formula, then a strong evidenced based case be made for Flintshire, as a high performing Council with social responsibilities, to be awarded a specific supplementary funding package to assist in reaching a balanced budget for 2018/19 due to the risks to Council services and governance.

The Chief Executive thanked Members for contributing to the campaign to raise awareness of the complexities of the financial position and conveying the significance of the matter to the public.  Public engagement events currently being undertaken across the County had been well received although turnout had been low.  In responding to councillors and officers asking what they could do personally to help make the Council’s case for fair and adequate funding, he asked for care in campaigning.  Whilst initiating/supporting local campaigns and petitions was one way to help, if the campaign or petition aligned to the Council’s position then colleagues (including officers) should be free to make a personal decision to lend their support.  Their support was for the campaign message and not necessarily for the initiator. So if the initiator was, for example, a political party or a trade union, where support was simply given for the campaign, this should not be read as endorsement for the party or the union.  It was important that this distinction be made clear in campaigning to protect impartiality - particularly for officers.

In moving the recommendations put forward by the Chief Executive, Councillor Aaron Shotton spoke about alignment with the objectives of the Council Plan and the challenges in identifying proposals to balance the budget.  Whilst every attempt was being made to protect services, it was inevitable that the pressures would results in real impacts.

This was seconded by Councillor Attridge.

Councillor Heesom said that he conditionally supported the Stage 1 proposals but raised strong concerns about the prospect of Stage 2 and the impact of any further increase to the budget gap.  He said that resources were not evenly distributed and that the impact of structural plan elements on communities, which had previously been raised, had not yet been acknowledged.  He felt that there were critical issues in the resilience statements which had not been adequately addressed through the Overview & Scrutiny process, for example investment for the Youth Service and small rural schools.

The Chief Executive gave a reminder that Overview & Scrutiny committees reviewed their own work programmes which enabled them to take an active role on issues within their remit, for example the item on garden waste charges.  In response to further comments by Councillor Heesom, he clarified that the Council would continue to provide the large majority of its current services directly, provided that performance and value for money were maintained.

Clarification was given to Councillor Peers on the Waste Strategy and the restructuring of teams in Corporate Property Maintenance and Design & Project Management Services.  On the suggestion to merge Organisational Change into one portfolio to achieve savings, the importance of retaining these as two separate work projects was highlighted to support the digital and building strategies.

On Flintshire Connects, the Chief Officer (Community & Enterprise) provided details of plans to re-designate posts and review opening hours, particularly in Mold and Buckley as the facilities with the lowest footfall, to achieve efficiencies.

The Interim Chief Officer (Education & Youth) said that the proposal to reduce the Council’s funding for nursery education provision to the statutory minimum would achieve minor savings and present a cost pressure for schools.

Councillor McGuill raised concerns about the impact of 20% business rates imposed on charities and groups such as the Scout organisation, which could also affect groups with Community Asset Transfers.  Whilst the Chief Executive shared the concerns, he said that if the Council was to meet this cost, this would result in an additional budget pressure.  A hardship fund was available to help with specific cases.

In response to a question from Councillor Carver, the Chief Officer (Community & Enterprise) provided information on options being developed for 2019/20 to offer a broader range of services as part of the Registration Service.

On being put to the vote, the recommendations were carried.

The Chief Executive confirmed that a copy of the response to the Cabinet Secretary would be shared with Members, together with his response to the previous letter of the Council (22 August).

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the details of the Provisional Local Government Settlement and the impact on the budget forecast for 2018/19 be noted;

(b)       That the Stage One Budget proposals as set out in Appendix A be approved;

(c)       That the remaining stages of the budget process and timescales be noted; and

(d)       That the approach to the Provisional Settlement consultation be approved in accordance with the outline response to WG suggested in the presentation.