SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (LIFELONG LEARNING)

 

 

MINUTES of a meeting held at Palmerston Primary School, Barry on 4th December, 2006.

 

Present: Councillor C.P. Franks (Chairman); Councillor S.C. Egan (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Ms. R.M. Birch, J. Clifford, E. Hacker, Mrs. V.M. Hartrey, F.T. Johnson, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, A.G. Powell, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe, Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson and E.T. Williams.

 

 

Non-voting observers: Mr. G. Beaudette, Mr. T. Cox, Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. D. Griffiths.

 

 

Also present: Councillor A.D. Hampton.

 

 

572            APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

 

These were received from Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch, Mrs. C.V.L. Clay, C.L. Osborne, B.I. Shaw and W.C. Vaughan.

 

 

573            MINUTES -

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 6th November, 2006 be signed as an accurate record.

 

 

574            DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

The following Members declared the nature of their interest, being Governors of schools within the Vale of Glamorgan, it being noted that the Standards Committee on 9th September and 21st October, 2004 and 13th January, 2005 had granted them a general dispensation to vote upon any matters to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee (Lifelong Learning) in relation to matters of a general educational matter in terms of policy, plans, policy frameworks and budgets etc.:

 

Councillors C.P. Franks, S.C. Egan, Ms. R.M. Birch, J. Clifford, E. Hacker, F.T. Johnson, Mrs. V.M. Hartrey, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, A.G. Powell, Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson, E.T. Williams and A.D. Hampton.


 

575            WELCOME -

 

Mr. Middlemiss, Headteacher of Palmerston Primary School, welcomed all present to the school.

 

Mr. Middlemiss stated that he had requested the Council’s Highways Section to erect signs indicating the direction of the school but nothing had been done.

 

Mr. Middlemiss also referred to attempts that he had made to reduce the flow of traffic through the school grounds.

 

It was

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Highways Section be approached with a request that directional signs be erected for Palmerston Primary School.

 

(2)       T H A T consideration be given at a later date to the inclusion of an item within the Committee’s work programme on ways of controlling traffic flows within school grounds.

 

 

576            QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORTS -

 

Access and Inclusion

 

The officer advised that the target in respect of the number of pupils permanently excluded would not be met as a pupil had already been excluded from a school.

 

Nevertheless, Members felt that Headteachers should be congratulated on the low levels of permanent exclusions from schools within the Vale.

 

School Improvement

 

Committee were introduced to the performance monitoring data in respect of School Improvement, the contents of which were noted.

 

Strategy, Planning and Performance

 

Committee considered the performance monitoring data in respect of Strategy, Planning and Performance, the contents of which were noted.

 

Lifelong Learning

 

The performance monitoring data in respect of the Lifelong Learning service was received and noted.


 

577            SCHOOL BUDGETS 2006/07 (DLD) -

 

The following members of the School Budget Forum were in attendance for this item:

 

Mrs. F. Hopkins            -            Headteacher, St. Athan Primary School

Mr. B. Brayford            -            Headteacher, Ashgrove School

Mr. M. Clinch            -            -            Headteacher, St. Richard Gwyn School

Mrs. J. Hayward            -            Barry Island Primary School.

 

Members were advised of the financial state of school budgets in the current 2006/07 financial year, as a precursor to the forthcoming budget process for 2007/08.

 

Members were advised that in terms of overall education and schools’ expenditure, the year on year percentage increases for the Vale of Glamorgan schools in the last 3 years had been above average and within the top few authorities across Wales.  In 2006/07, the net increase in education funding for the Vale was 6.2%.  This was the third highest in Wales and compared to the Welsh average of 4.6%.  The Vale of Glamorgan had always been a consistently high delegator of resources to schools.  In 2006/07, the Vale of Glamorgan delegated at a proportional rate of 81.3% which was the equal highest in Wales.

 

Despite the relatively high proportional budget increase described above, in actual cash terms, schools in the Vale of Glamorgan were relatively poorly off in comparison to schools in other local authority areas and that Vale secondary schools continued to be the lowest funded secondary schools in Wales.  In recent years the Council had consistently spent at around the level of education SSA.  However, the level of education SSA and indeed the total Council SSA for the Vale of Glamorgan, was amongst the lowest in Wales.

 

In 2006/07, the primary school funding per pupil of £2,938 was 3% below the Welsh average of £3,030 (i.e. £92 per pupil) and the secondary school funding per pupil of £3,438.00 was 6% below the Welsh average of £3,671 (i.e. £233 per pupil).  This had informed the budget strategy as developed by the School Budget Forum.  It was also noted that central education costs were the lowest in Wales, some £290 per pupil below the Welsh Average.

 

An analysis of school balances was provided at Appendix 3 to the report.  As at the end of the 2005/06 financial year, the aggregate primary school balances stood at £1.726m.  There were five schools with deficits of greater than £10,000 but less than £30,000.

 

In the secondary sector, the aggregate school balances were £0.169m.  There were three schools with deficits between £30,000 and £73,000.  Two of the special schools had deficits of £22,000 and £39,000.

 

For the 2006/07 financial year, three primary schools had approved deficits of between £20,000 and £70,000.  The deficits were all caused by localised pupil number decreases, and all supported by robust action plans for repayment.  However, although not in deficit, a number of primary schools struggled to maintain within budget.  In contrast, there were a number of primary schools with significant surplus balances as at the beginning of the 2006/07 financial year.  The situation was being closely monitored by the School Budget Forum, and it had been identified that schools with surplus balances had £0.803m. of planned committed expenditure.

 

For the secondary sector in 2006/07, three secondary schools had approved deficits of £150,000 in two cases and £176,000 in the other.  These were all supported by robust action plans.  The deficits for two of the schools included significant expenditure for new ICT infrastructure.

 

In 2006/07, the special schools had a projected combined deficit of around £30,000.  There were complex requirements and legislation surrounding special schools, and the LEA was actively working with the special schools to reduce this deficit.  Specific emphasis was being placed on the levels of extra - district recharges.

 

At an aggregate level, it was reported that schools budgets were financially well managed.  However, by the end of the 2006/07 financial year, it was projected that the school balances could drop to around £1.1m. in comparison to the total aggregate of £1.858m. at the beginning of the year.  This was based upon current levels of operational spending.  However, this excluded the planned committed expenditure of £0.803m. referred to above.  These estimates were after allowing for the one off local efficiency grant of £435,000 in 2006/07 financial year.  However, it was difficult to precisely project year-end school balances because financial uncertainty over future budget settlements may cause schools to delay the delivery of planned commitments.  Such uncertainty was a national issue and would be alleviated by the introduction of three year budgets.

 

The Budget forum were concerned that whilst schools had prudently managed their school budgets from the financial perspective, this had been at the detriment of educational and curriculum development in schools.  The Budget Forum believed that pupils in the Vale of Glamorgan were being disadvantaged in comparison with pupils in Wales due to the low level of funding.  The impact of this disadvantage would increase as schools in the Vale were unable to fully fund developments in areas such as ICT, and curriculum development in early years and the secondary sector.  For the 2007/08 financial year, schools needed £3.607m. to cover pay related increases, inflation and other unavoidable costs.  In addition, the School Budget Forum had agreed a strategy whereby if resources permit, then the gap with the Welsh average would be closed for secondary and primary schools in a proportional ratio of 2:1 to reflect the differing current percentage levels below the average.  The School Budget Forum bid for 2007/08 was to close the funding gap for primary by 1% and secondary by 2%.  This would require total growth of £0.972m. comprising £0.348m. for the primary sector and £0.624m. for the secondary sector.

 

The members of the School Budget forum were given an opportunity to comment on the detail of the report.

 

Mr. Clinch referred to the variance between the Average All-Wales funding per pupil and the average funding per pupil in the Vale of Glamorgan of £233 and stated that in the case of his school, this represented a sum of £190,000.

 

Mr. Clinch stated that, over the years, headteachers had become adept at making ends meet.  The most important consideration was what had to be foregone in order that the budget could be balanced.

 

Expenditure on ICT was ‘insatiable’, and was a huge issue in ensuring the budget balanced.

 

The Workload Agreement had huge implications, and many schools were finding it difficult to make ends meet.

 

Mr. Clinch recognised that the Council had made Education a high priority.

 

Mr. Brayford supported Mr. Clinch’s comments.  There were complex requirements and legislation surrounding special schools, and the Council was actively working with the special schools to reduce their deficit.  Mr. Brayford felt that the Council should look closely and critically at the arrangements for special schools and wondered if the Council could continue to support three special schools in their current form.

 

Mrs. Hopkins expressed concerns relating to ICT.  Up to this year, St. Athan Primary had possessed only one whiteboard, although two further ones had been ordered this year.

 

The power of interactive teaching over children was phenomenal, but Mrs. Hopkins had been forced to cut back on IT expenditure.

 

Regulations coming into effect in 2008 would require a ratio of adults to children.  This would require the adequate levels of finance to ensure that schools met this statutory requirement and could possibly have massive implications.

 

Mr. Clinch also referred to the phenomenal rate of change that had affected the Education Services over the past five years and expressed the view that the rate of change over the next five years would be even greater.

 

Having heard the comments of the Headteachers, Members appreciated just how ‘close to the bone’ had been recent cuts to the service.  The report had reflected what the service needed in order to keep going.

 

The Director commented on the budgetary problems within the Council’s Social Services which had been referred to by Elected Members.  The details within the report, and the comments of the Headteachers had demonstrated that the Education Service was in no position to solve the financial problems within Social Services with so many schools operating at a near deficit level, failure to meet the unavoidable costs in schools would lead to teaching workforce redundancies.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Training reminded Members that the Council was spending at SSA for education, as awarded by WAG.  The report before Members had illustrated the disparity between Welsh and English school funding.  Nevertheless, it was the case that the Vale pupils were achieving the highest GCSE results in Wales.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T further consideration of the report and the comments of the members of the School Budget Forum be made later in the meeting following consideration of the initial revenue budget proposals for 2007/08.

 

 

578            INITIAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2007/08 (DFICTP) -

 

Scrutiny Committee were advised of the progress on the 2006/07 capital programme for the period ended 31st October, 2006 and considered the initial capital proposals for 2007/08. 

 

Appendix A to the report detailed progress on the capital programme as at 31st October, 2006. 

 

Council on 12th October, 2005 had given Cabinet the authority to withdraw a budget from the capital programme if the scheme was not contractually committed within 18 months of being included in the capital programme.  If this happened, a new bid would have to be submitted as part of the coming years budget setting process to reintroduce the scheme into the capital programme.  The following schemes remained contractually uncommitted 18 months after approval and a proposal for the way forward had been made against each scheme. 

 

Accommodation for Cogan Hall Farm - this budget had been allocated to accommodate an increase in pupil numbers, as a result of the Cogan Hall Farm housing development.  The required work, at various schools, had now been identified and would commence during the Easter and summer holidays 2007.  It had been requested that the £150,000 be carried forward into 2007/08. 

 

Nursery Units - a total budget of £650,000 had been allocated for a three year period, commencing in 2005/06, for a review of nursery units.  There had been a range of technical difficulties and the projects were now due to commence in 2007/08.  The budget was required to enable the Council to provide the necessary school places and it had therefore been requested that the budget be carried forward to future years. 

 

With regard to the 2007/08 capital programme, the Welsh Assembly Government had announced the provisional 2007/08 General Capital Funding.  The provisional allocation for 2007/08 was £8,175,000, which was a £297,000 increase over the current year. 

 

In addition to funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, the Council would finance part of the capital programme from its own resources e.g. Receipts and Reserves. 

 

Appendix B to the report detailed the indicative 2007/08 Lifelong Learning Capital Programme.

 

An indicative asset renewal budget of £800,000 had been included for schools.  This constituted an unearmarked general provision.  In addition, specific bids had been received from Lifelong Learning, which had been classed as asset renewal.  Due to the inclusion of a Miscellaneous Buildings Asset Renewal Budget in Policy, these schemes had been shown in Appendix C to the report as an unsuccessful bid. 

 

Two schemes were currently planned to be funded from next years Asset Renewal Budget.  Cabinet had been requested to approve the allocation of the budget for these schemes at this early stage to enable work to proceed within the planned timescale. 

 

·        St. Athan Primary Cladding - Phase 2 - it had been proposed that this scheme be funded from the Education Asset Renewal/School Buildings Improvement Grant budget.  Design work would be funded from this years programme and tender acceptance was planned for January 2007.  This would enable works to commence during the Easter holidays.  It had been requested that £302,000 be approved from the 2007/08 budget and £800,000 from 2008/09, to allow the scheme to be undertaken within the planning timetable. 

·        Gwaen y Nant/Oakfield Roofing - it had been proposed that this scheme be funded from the Education Asset Renewal/School Buildings Improvement Grant budget.  Design work would commence this year and tender acceptance was planned for March 2007.  This would enable works to commence during the summer holidays.  It had been requested that £200,000 be approved from the 2007/08 budget and £5,000 from 2008/09, to allow the scheme to be undertaken within the planned timetable. 

 

In addition to the capital bids shown in Appendix B to the report, Appendix C included capital bids received that had not been put forward for inclusion in the 2007/08 programme.  The Corporate Asset Management Group had prioritised schemes that fell within their remit. 

 

Council on 12th October, 2005, had approved the School Investment Strategy.  It approved that the School Development Budget be increased by £500,000 in 2007/08 and £1 million from 2008/09 onwards.  These budgets changes had been included in Appendix B to the report.  The Council also approved that the £9 million one-off School Building Improvement Grant of £1.4 million of existing useable capital receipts be utilised for the School Investment Strategy.  These budgets had not been included in Appendix B to the report.  Approval had also been given for capital receipts generated by schools to be ringfenced for the investment strategy up to £6.5 million and that unsupported borrowing of up to £7.3 million could be undertaken.  MACE were the successful consultants who had been appointed as external technical advisors and a report had been presented to Cabinet on 20th September, 2006 outlining their recommendations.  The consultants were undertaking further work, which was due for completion by April 2007 and the capital programme would then be amended.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the initial budget proposals be noted.

 

 

579            INITIAL REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 2007/08 (DFICTP) -

 

Committee considered the initial revenue budget proposals for 2007/08 for those services which formed part of the Committees remit.

 

The Councils budget was determined largely by the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) settlement set by the Welsh Assembly Government.  A provisional settlement had been announced on 25th October, 2006 with details of the final settlement expected in late November/early December. 

 

The Council was required, under statute, to fix the level of Council Tax for 2007/2008 by 11th March, 2007 and, in order to do so, would have to agree a balanced revenue budget by the same date.  To be in a position to meet the statutory deadlines and the requirements for consultation as set out in the Council’s Constitution, much of the work on quantifying the resource requirements of individual services needed to be carried out before the final RSG settlement was notified to the Council. 

 

For 2007/08, the Council’s provisional standard spending assessment had been notified as £181,045,000, a headline increase of 5.8% over the unadjusted 2006/07 figure.

 

The Council had been provisionally advised that for 2007/08, it would receive from WAG, RSG of £107,041,000 and Non-Domestic Rates of £29,117,000.  Together these sums constituted the Council’s aggregate external finance which represented an increase of 5.2% over that received for 2006/07 and was not of an assumed 1% efficiency saving.

 

WAG had announced that the Council would provisionally continue to receive a Deprivation Grant of £167,000 and a Performance Grant of £1,239,000.  These were both unhypothocated grants (i.e. they were not earmarked for particular services). 

 

The amended original budget was compared with the estimated outturn for 2006/07 as shown below:

 

Lifelong Learning

2006/07

 

Amended Original

2006/07

 

Estimated Outturn

Variance

 

(+)Favourable

(-) Adverse

 

 

 

 

Education and Schools

78,832

78,712

(+)  120

Libraries

2,234

2,501

(-)  267

Lifelong Learning

1,878

1,998

(-)  120

Human Resources

0

0

0

 

Learning and Development - a saving of £12,000 on Education and Schools arising from a lower than expected inflation increase on the renewed large contracts such as school transport together with staff vacancies within the Education Department had been used to off-set the overspending on Lifelong Learning Job Shop Extra (£10,000) and the Training and Heritage Skills Centre (£110,000).  The adverse variance on Libraries (£267,000) was due to the costs of the new library.

 

Cabinet had approved the budget strategy and timetable for 2007/08 on 19th July, 2006.

 

The budget strategy for 2007/08 had outlined that:

 

·        In order to establish a baseline, services should prepare initial revenue budgets for next year based on the cost of providing the current level of service and approved policy decisions.  This meant the cost of price increases and pay awards should be included. 

·        Increases to budgets approved during the course of a financial year could restrict the freedom of the Council to allocate its resources to priorities during the following budget cycle when it was aware of all the competing demands.  Consequently:

-       supplementary estimates would only increase the base budget if the Council had given specific approval to this effect.  Increases met by virement within a year would not be treated as committed growth

-       Directors should find the cost of increments and staff changes from their base budget unless the relevant specific approval had been given for additional funding

-       the effect of replacing grant from outside bodies that had discontinued would not be treated as committed growth.  In addition, before any project or initiative that was to be met either wholly or partly by way of grant may proceed the exit strategy must be approved

-       certain items of unavoidable committed growth would continue and these include the effect of interest changes and the financing costs of the capital programme, increases in taxes, increases in levies and precepts charged by outside bodies and changes to Housing Benefits net expenditure. 

-       services would be expected to identify and achieve recurrent efficiency savings equivalent to 1% of their budget.

·        The eventual level of Revenue Support Grant settlement that made up the bulk of the Council’s funding would be influenced by WAG expectations for efficiency savings in local government as set out in their “Making the Connections” document.  As such, it was envisaged that the costs of service development would need to be met from within the respective services from the efficiency savings that they identified: in addition works may need to be prioritised within a service to meet any priority demands.  Services had therefore been asked to identify any burgeoning revenue cost pressures. 

 

A summary of the overall base budget for 2007/08 was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  This had been arrived at by adjusting the 2006/07 budget for items such as inflation. 

 

Inflation amounted to £0.532 million of which £325,000 related to pay awards and £207,000 for general price increases.

 

Committed growth of £0.509 million related to the following:

 

·        Libraries

Cost of accommodation at Town Hall/Library - £509,000.

 

A list of 2007/08 costs pressures as identified by the service was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

 

Having considered the report, and the earlier comments of the members of the School Budget Forum, in relation to the report on School Budgets 2006/07. it was

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the contents of the report be noted with concern.

 

(2)       T H A T the comments of the members of the School Budget Forum be endorsed.

 

(3)       T H A T Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) and Cabinet be provided with a copy of the School Budget report prepared by the Director to reflect the views of the School Budget Forum and advised of this Committee’s concern at the need for the Council to provide the Education Service with adequate resources as part of the 2007/08 budget settlement.

 

(4)       T H A T the Budget Forum strategy to close the gap with the Welsh Average, should resources permit, for secondary and primary schools be supported.

 

 

580            MATTER WHICH THE CHAIRMAN HAD DECIDED WAS URGENT -

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the following matter, which the Chairman had decided was urgent for the reason stated, be considered.

 

 

581     CALL-IN OF CABINET MINUTE NO. C2773 (1) AND (3) - RESTRUCTURE OF THE LIFELONG LEARNING SERVICE - EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SECTION -

 

Urgent by reason of the need to consider the call-in within the required timescale

 

Cabinet approval was sought on 22nd November, 2006 to restructure the employment training section of the Council’s Lifelong Learning Service in order to reduce potential overspends in financial year 2006/07.

 

The number of clients referred to the programmes and the value of funding for the delivery of the contracts had been reduced significantly, particularly during this financial year, to such an extent that there was currently an adverse variant of £53,000 on the profiled budget, with a potential overspend of £115,000 by the end of the financial year if this issue was not addressed.

 

Submissions had been made to secure additional contracts, but there had been no notification of any success to date.  One of the reasons for the financial difficulties facing this section was the reduction in job seekers requiring support in the Vale of Glamorgan.

 

The Council had been informed by DELLS that its work based learning contract would not be renewed as the available client base was insufficient to generate the income necessary to ensure effective and high quality support.  In future, these needs would be met locally through the VGTA provision at Barry College.

 

In order to secure the operational and financial viability of the remaining contracts, the following was recommended.

 

1.            deletion of one trainer/assessor post on the Vale Training Services establishment.

 

2.         the deletion of one projects supervisor post on the New Deal establishment.

 

3.         the closure of the Holm View coffee shop with two potential staff redundancies.

 

4.            discontinuation of Job Shop Extras ICT training programmes with the potential of two staff being made redundant (subject to redeployment).

 

5.         the termination of the lease arrangement of Job Shop Extra’s premises in Penarth.

 

Cabinet had,


 RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the proposals detailed in the report, within the establishment of the Employment Training Section of the Lifelong Learning Service be approved.

 

(2)       T H A T those displaced employees be supported under the provisions of the Council’s Redeployment Policy.

 

(3)       T H A T the Director of Finance, ICT and Property and the Director of Legal and Regulatory Services be instructed to proceed with the termination of the lease for Stangate House, Penarth.

 

(4)       T H A T a further report on progress be submitted to Cabinet in January 2007.

 

Cabinet Minute No. C2773 (1) and (3) had been called-in ‘To consider the report and to examine whether the VGTA provision at Barry College would be adequate compensation for the loss of provision in Penarth.’

 

Members were advised that the number of clients referred to the programme had fallen significantly, one of the reasons for this being the transfer of the work of the Penarth Job Centre being transferred to Cardiff.

 

The service generally was not now well used, particularly in view of Barry College running a similar service and it was projected that the position would not improve.

 

Following discussions on the proposals, it was

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be noted.