Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marina Ahmad and Councillor Will Rowlands, Councillor Christine Harris attended as substitute for Councillor Rowland.

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions that are not specific to reports on the agenda must have been received in writing 10 working days before the date of the meeting. 

Questions specifically on reports on the agenda should be received within two working days of the normal publication date of the agenda.  Please ensure that questions specifically on reports on the agenda are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 13^th January 2021.

There were no questions

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2019, excluding exempt information, were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny:

The Committee considered the following reports where the Children, Education and Families Portfolio Holder was recommended to take a decision:

Report FSD20095

On 18^th November 2020, the Leader received a report summarising the current position on capital expenditure and receipts following the 2^nd quarter of 2020/21 and agreed a revised Capital Programme for the four-year period 2020/21 to 2023/24. This report highlighted changes agreed by the Leader in respect of the Capital Programme for the Children, Education & Families (CEF) Portfolio. The revised programme for this portfolio was set out in Appendix A and detailed comments on individual schemes were shown in Appendix B.

The Sub-Committee noted that an update on all of the capital projects (including the post completion reports) was scheduled to be presented to a future meeting of the Children, Education and Families PDS Committee.

In response to a question concerning early education for two-year olds, the Director of Education explained that it had been a one-off pot of funding with very distinct criteria attached around enhancing the free entitlement offer for early education for two year olds.  The Sub-Committee noted that the funding had been committed in line with the report that had been presented to the Executive in 2014.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to note and acknowledge the changes agreed by the Leader on 18^th November 2020.

Report CEF20044

The report provided an outline of the final DSG allocation for 2021/22 and an overview of how this would be spent.

The Sub-Committee noted that there had previously been concerns in terms of the sufficiency of the funding received for the High Needs Block which had been part of past lobbying activity.  It was pleasing that over the past two years there had been considerable uplift in the funding received which was very much needed however there remained ongoing pressures on the High Needs Block and lobbying would continue until this was recognised and appropriate funding allocated to meet the ongoing pressures.

The Head of Children’s Services Finance provided an overview of the report explaining that adjusting for the recoupment for High Needs, overall DSG funding amounted to just over £312m.  The Central Block mostly covered the Local Authority central services and continued to receive a contribution from the Council as year-on-year funding continued to be cut.  This year, although funding for the Central Block had increased, £240,000 of this had been the result of an additional grant put into the Block as a result of this, in real terms funding had decreased.  Funding for the Early Years Block had remained static with some additional funding due to increases in the hourly rates payable via the grant.  Funding from the Schools Block was nearly all distributed to schools with a small amount retained for growth funding.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Teacher’s Pay and Pension Grants had been amalgamated into the DSG and this accounted for the majority of the increase in funding.  The National Funding Formula was used to allocate funding to schools.  The Committee noted that at this point there were no particular issues with the funding to schools with some schools still having a minimum funding guarantee.  In relation to the High Needs Block, there were a number of pressures on this block with significant increases in the number of Education Care and Health Plans (ECHP) and these significant pressures would continue.  Challenges in the High Needs Block would continue in the coming years with one key issue being the lack of clarity in terms of funding beyond 2021/22 and whether there would be sufficient funding to meet demand coming through.

In response to a question, the Head of Children’s Services Finance confirmed that in previous years the Local Authority had contributed £1m to the School Central Block as a contribution to the High Needs Block in addition to the £1m that was transferred from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.  The current contribution of £450,000 was in recognition of the decreases in the Central Schools Block that would be implemented over time.

The Head of Children’s Services Finance confirmed that £500,000 would be transferred from the Early Years Block to the High Needs Block as some of the costs covered by the High Needs Block were related to early years high needs services that were being delivered.

In response to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

Report CEF20043

The report considered the Portfolio Holder’s Draft 2021/22 Budget which incorporated future cost pressures and initial draft budget saving options which had previously been reported to Executive on 13^th January 2021. Members were requested to consider the initial draft budget being proposed and also identify any further action that might be taken to reduce cost pressures facing the Council over the next four years.

The views of each PDS Committee would be reported back to the next meeting of the Executive, prior to the Executive making recommendations to Council on 2021/22 Council Tax levels.  There were still outstanding issues and areas of uncertainty remaining. Any further updates would be included in the 2021/22 Council Tax report to the next meeting of the Executive.

The Head of Children’s Services Finance provided an overview of the report explaining that the overall Council budget was balanced for 2021/22 but that there was a deficit increasing into future years.  The report set out the growth and mitigation that would be put in place.  Transformation savings that were being undertaken by the Children, Education and Families Portfolio were also outlined in the report.  The Sub-Committee noted that there was a challenging financial backdrop and as a Local Authority Bromley was as economical and efficient as possible.

The Sub-Committee noted that prior to the meeting benchmarking data for Children’s Social Care Services across London had been circulated to Members of the Sub-Committee.  It was also noted that the Budget Task and Finish Group had carefully reviewed the benchmarking data.

A Member highlighted that the benchmarking data had been discussed at length at the Task and Finish Group.  Having considered the additional benchmarking data that had been provided, and the transformational savings identified by the Department, and the historic overspends on the Portfolio budget, the Task and Finish Group had felt that it would be appropriate to make a recommendation that there was a case to be made for a specific contingency for the Children, Education and Families Portfolio budget.  The purpose of the contingency would be to recognise that there could be unforeseen cases that could cost a lot of money and significantly impact on the budget.

The Chairman highlighted that the report needed to be considered in the context of the services being provided to children and families.  A budget report did not and could not reflect many of the additional services provided by Bromley that may not be provided by other boroughs, such as Staying Put and the support put in place for Care Leavers.  Not all Boroughs provided the services being provided by Bromley which enabled children and young people to have better lives and come out of the care system self-motivated.  In Bromley it was not simply a matter of looking at the bottom line, there was always a balance of quality against cost and this was something Bromley did very well.  Members discussed the benefits of the Caseload Promise which had delivered stability within the Children’s Social Care  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.