Minutes:
It was explained that although the pressure was on all four blocks, the DSG should be seen as one overall block when reporting to the DfE. In the Autumn, following further meetings with the DfE, it might be necessary for Forum to consider some transfers between blocks.
It was confirmed the Plan was a public document which could be shared with schools.
Michael Jarrett explained that, due to challenging circumstances the Section 114 had been served on Friday 2 July, before the DfE had chosen to step in. It was one of the highest Section 114 Notices ever to have been served. SBC’s Chief Executive had issued a response, making plans clear as to where savings were to focus including the sale of buildings and assets to offset budget pressures. There was now a moratorium on all spending, a process had been introduced for placing orders and Expenditure Control Panels had been set up in all five Directorate areas. A business case would be required for any spend, apart from areas deemed vulnerable. There were five Directors who would rotate across the group in order to ensure objectivity. All grants and financial amounts coming into SBC would be subject to some level of scrutiny in line with the Section 114.
There were currently approximately 360 staff vacancies at SBC, with the majority filled by temporary staff. These roles might need to be frozen in the short to mid-term, with any requiring supporting business cases. The Council was unable to approve anything unless it had been cleared by the panel which would meet three times a week.
It would not be possible to offer support services as it had in the past and some would have to close, with SBC only being able to meet statutory requirements. Some contracts had been immediately stopped as of Friday 2 July and it would be necessary to change how Children’s Services were offered.
A meeting was scheduled for Thursday 22 July with full Council and lead Members in order to discuss financial assurances to the auditors and to deliver a plan which would satisfy the requirement to remove the Section 114: if not, it would be necessary to apply for another one. There would be a great deal of partnership working, including discussion with Schools Forum.
It was confirmed the Council would communicate with schools prior to September and share the implications of cost savings on services, enabling schools to make plans. It was explained that all work was being carried out based on worst case, mid-case and best-case scenarios. More would be known in mid-August when there was more information available about capitalisation.
It was further confirmed that EHCPs and similar requests would be made to a Director Control Panel, but children would still be entitled to EHCPs etc going forward. Cases would need to be rigorous. Although Child Protection services were statutory, spend would also have to go through the Control Panel. A member commented that they could foresee an increase in tribunals which would be costly, and it was acknowledged this was a process which had to be followed: the child would continue to come first. There was an assurance SBC would do all they could to support vulnerable children. A forward agenda plan was to be issued.
The Chair thanked Michael Jarrett for being so transparent about the situation and Forum asked to be kept fully appraised of the situation.
The meeting returned to the running order of the agenda: