Issue - meetings

As detailed in the recommendations.

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance advised that the report would be dealt with in two sections.  Firstly to consider the formal response to Welsh Government (WG) on the Provisional Settlement.  Secondly to consider the impacts on Flintshire. 

The Head of Finance introduced the first part of the report which provided details of the Provisional Welsh Local Government Settlement 2014/15 which had been announced by WG on 16 October 2013.  The consultation period on the Provisional Settlement was open until 20 November 2013. 

Full details were provided on the aggregate external finance (AEF), the damping mechanism (Floors), the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA), transfers into the Settlement, Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS), highways improvement – local government borrowing initiative, protection for schools and social care, specific grants, unhypothicated grants, capital settlement and the consultation period.

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance proposed the following key points be included in the formal response to WG:

·         The financial challenges affecting public finances were recognised

·         Recognised that WG’s resources had reduced and WG had made policy choices about how to allocate across public services in Wales

·         The settlement was not going to change; the intention was to work with the Settlement rather than against it

·         The financial plans for local government had been changed drastically in a short period of time

·         Proactive and realistic national public relations were needed on the gravity and impacts.  WG needed to share responsibility for the local impacts which would follow

·         Longer term budget planning was needed at a national level.  Unlike Health who had 3 year plans, local government had one year of actual budget certainty and one further year with a broad outline which meant that the authority could not realistically plan in that operating environment

·         There needed to be a rounded and collective review of the sustainability of the Welsh budget as a whole (including the affordability and benefits of the universal services), not at individual sub-sector level which made thinking for the public services as a whole disjointed and could bring unintended consequences

·         Any further changes to the Settlement needed to be transparent and communicated from the outset as some of the detail had not met expectations e.g. Council Tax Reduction Scheme and prudential borrowing for highways

·         The need for the availability of capitalisation was high for local government to meet the costs of easing workforce reductions

·         The need to be creative over income generation, charging and new models of working with the best practice advocated by peer organisations

·         The proposed review of specific grants had to be ambitious and concluded quicker than proposed.  There should be a presumption that all specific grants were withdrawn and included in the Settlement unless there was a proven case for their retention as an exemption.  Local government should be judged on its performance outcomes and not constrained through tight financial controls

Following a question, the Head of Finance explained that at the time of writing the report it was believed that the Settlement included protection for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116