Welcome to the
Vale of Glamorgan Council

 

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (LIFELONG LEARNING)

 

Minutes of a meeting held on 30^th November, 2009.

 

Present:  Councillor J. Clifford (Chairman); Councillor Mrs. K.A. Kemp (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch,  C.P.J. Elmore, J.F. Fraser, E. Hacker, C.L. Osborne and Mrs. S.I. Sharpe.

 

Co-opted Member:  Mr. P. Lewis (Parent Governor - Secondary).

 

Non-Voting Observer: Mr. T. Cox (Secondary).

 

Also present: Councillor A.D. Hampton, Councillor Ms. B.E. Brooks and Mrs. J. Hayward (Headteacher Barry Island Primary School).

 

 

630     APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs. V.L. Ellis and Mrs. V.M. Hartrey.

 

 

631     MINUTES -

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd November, 2009 be approved as a correct record. 

 

 

632     DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

633     TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS FOR LEARNERS AGED 16-19 (CALL-IN) -

 

The above matter and associated proposals had been subject to consideration by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 4^th November 2009.  At that time the Cabinet had approved a consultation exercise to be undertaken with relevant stakeholders regarding options in respect of the removal of free transport for students over compulsory school age. 

 

Councillor C.P.J. Elmore had called-in the above Cabinet decision to allow further discussion to take place on the merits of the capital proposals, particularly the effect that this would have on young people in the Vale of Glamorgan and in particular those families on low income.  In addressing the Committee he referred to his surprise at the proposal put forward by Cabinet given the Welsh Assembly Government and Central Government’s existing policy agenda which was to broaden access to 16-19 education provision.  He was particularly concerned that the proposals would have a negative impact on the above policy agendas and that in all likelihood those families on low income the students would be in effect forced to use their Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) to fund future transport costs if the Cabinet proposals come to fruition.  He was also concerned at the possible knock on effects the proposals would have in regards to NEETs.  He further referred to a number of sustainability issues and the implications of these, in particular for students who accessed Welsh Medium provision in the Vale of Glamorgan who would be significantly affected by the Cabinet’s proposals.  He also referenced students who attended Barry College of Further Education who had satellite campuses at Rhoose and at Dumballs Road in Cardiff. 

 

The Director of Learning and Development referred to the proposals as set out in the Cabinet report and stated that these had been considered as a consequence of the wider budgetary issues impacting on the Council and in particular the need to identify efficiency savings.  The report itself was for consultation with the various stakeholders.  The Head of Strategic Planning and Performance stated that it was the original intention of officers to consult on one option however, following consultation with headteachers, specific issues were raised in respect of the implications for schools in the rural Vale.  Accordingly, as set out in the Cabinet report. 

 

Having regard to the concerns raised, it was indicated that the consultation exercise could take account of these and reflect matters in regard to means tested arrangements linked to benefits as in the case that currently applied to accessing free school meals provision.  It was also clarified that EMA as indicated by the Welsh Assembly Government was provided to assist students to cover their costs of further education.  One of these costs as cited by the WAG related to transport.  As for students who were in further education, the cost per student to the Council was £400 per student per year, however when taking into account the full contracted cost of providing transport for students in further education this was £600.  Accordingly the proposals were consulting on contributions from further education students to meet the difference between the two costs.  The Head of Service also clarified that the consultation period would not commence with relevant stakeholders until the New Year.

 

Discussion ensued on other related concerns, in particular it was considered that the proposals were short sighted and were likely to impact on younger members of the community who viewed the Council. 

 

Councillor Brooks (who spoke on the matter with the consent of the Committee) made reference to the significant implications of the proposals if they were to be introduced for Sir Richard Gwyn Comprehensive School given that this school’s 6^th Form provision was based at St. Davids College Cardiff.  The proposals were likely to cause significant hardship for those pupils who would wish to attend the above college in the future, particularly for those students who resided in rural parts of the Vale of Glamorgan.  She was also particularly concerned for the future of St. Davids College given that 65% of the students who attended were from Sir Richard Gwyn Comprehensive School. 

 

Mr. T. Cox referred to the proposals which had been discussed with the Trade Unions but it had been acknowledged that efficiency savings were required to be found.  The implications of identifying efficiencies would need to be carefully considered by the Committee.

 

The Vice-Chairman referred to the proposals and acknowledged the concerns raised by the Committee, but reminded those in attendance that the proposals were only for consultation at this time. 

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the Director of Learning and Development be requested to submit a further report to the Scrutiny Committee detailing the findings of the consultation exercise prior to the Cabinet making a final decision on the matter.  The further report to cover matters relating to access to education from rural areas and sustainability issues.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To allow the Scrutiny Committee to further consider related matters.

 

 

634     SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK (DLD) -

 

The Committee were apprised of WAG initiative which entailed the investment of resources in the development of an integrated School Effectiveness Framework.  This Framework was designed to improve the outcomes for children and young people through collaborative tri-level reform i.e. reform at school, Local Authority and Assembly Government levels.

 

The above Framework had wide support within the education community in Wales and the principle of improved collaboration to share and promote good practice with clear structures of accountability was seen as a positive development. 

 

The SEF would essentially encapsulate a statement of moral purpose; to address variation, to align services and resources, to nurture effective partnership working so that capacity was built and service providers direct energy and effort towards a common goal thus securing improved outcomes for all children and young people.  The methodology for SEF to work was that all agencies would be required to work together to secure better outcomes i.e. schools would need to work closer with local authorities who in turn would need to work closely with DCELLS and WAG and would be referred to as a Tri-Level Reforms with the Framework describing at each level the actions to be undertaken to achieve the decided outcomes.  Each element (leadership; working with others; networks of professional practice; intervention and support; improvement and accountability; and curriculum and teaching), when implemented in an integrated way, would contribute to improvement.  The current and planned programmes were to be placed within the Framework, so activities were aligned to serve a common goal and to ensure overall alignment to school effectiveness.

 

In addition to the above the Framework required the development of a professional learning community (PLC) at school, local authority and national levels to build collaborative capacity and engage leaders and practitioners at all levels in meaningful professional debate and learning.  The focus of PLC needed to reflect the following:

 

·     classroom,

·     school,

·     Local Authority,

·     Welsh Assembly Government.

 

The Framework was underpinned by five core themes as follows:

 

·     systems thinking

·     bilingualism

·     high performance culture

·     equality

·     supportive and interdependent.

 

The report also detailed progress to date in that initial findings from Pilot Schools and the work of SEF Associates had been positive and the resulting findings had been shared with relevant schools. 

 

The SEF Associates now form part of the SEF Project Team which had the responsibility for the roll out and evaluation of the initiative.  Reference was also made to work being undertaken by the SEF Project Team including additional key areas of development which were envisaged to be addressed.  Officers were currently working with colleagues within RCT and Bridgend Councils who were tasked to produce a regional plan locally delivered to encompass the aspirations of the SEF.

 

The report also detailed the continuing challenges facing the SEF.

 

Consideration of the proposals raised a number of concerns in respect of the following matters.  The potential loss of democratic accountability but the current good work evidenced through attainment levels and good practice appeared not to be recognised by the proposals contained within SEF. 

 

·     The proposals contained a number of change management issues which needed to be managed and resourced at realistic levels

·     There was concern that the involvement of headteachers in SEF would lead to an increase in additional duties and responsibilities set against existing demands faced by headteachers.

·     There was concern that the proposals implied that accountability would shift to the SEF whilst leaving the statutory responsibility with local education authorities.

·     That governor bodies were unlikely to support additional workloads placed on headteachers. 

 

Having regard to the above and related issues it was

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)   T H A T the progress in the development of the Wales School Effectiveness Framework (SEF) be noted.

 

(2)   T H A T once the exact implications were identified for the Council a further report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

Reason for recommendations

 

(1)   In acknowledgement of progress made to date in regard to the SEF.

 

(2)   To allow the Scrutiny Committee to further consider issues related to the above initiative.

 

 

635  FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME (DLD) -

 

Detailed at Appendix A to the report was a revised draft work programme for the Scrutiny Committee which had been amended as a result of the development of the Education 2015 Strategy.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the revised work programme for the Scrutiny Committee for 2009/10 as detailed in Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

Revised priorities as identified in the Education 2015 Strategy.

 

 

636  LIFELONG LEARNING REVENUE BUDGET 2009/10 (DFICTP) -

 

The Scrutiny Committee was informed that the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) at its meeting on 3^rd November 2009 had requested further information seeking clarification of the causation of the failure to meet efficiency targets which could potentially result in £96,000 overspend resulting from the failure to meet efficiency targets.  That Committee sought clarification as to the reasons for the overspend.

 

The Director of Learning and Development, having regard to the above, considered it prudent to report the same information to the Scrutiny Committee (Lifelong Learning) to apprise Members of the reasons relating to the above overspend which was due to a delay in receipt of anticipated additional grant from WAG and changes to payment timescales of new employment contracts

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard to the Lifelong Learning revenue budget be noted.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To ensure that the Lifelong Learning revenue budget was appropriately monitored and the implications for the projected outturn for 2009/10.

 

 

637  INITIAL REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 2010/11 (DFICTP) -

 

The Council was required, under statue, to fix the level of Council Tax for 2010/2011 by 11^th March, 2010 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 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 is notified to the Council.  The Council's Standing Spending Assessment (SSA) represented to the WAG's view of the relative resources required to provide a standard level of service in each local authority in Wales and its primary use was to allocate RSG to these authorities.  For 2010/11 the Council's provisional SSA had been notified as £202.381 million. 

 

The Council had also been provisionally advised that for 2010/11 it would receive from WAG, RSG of £119.159 million and Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) of £33.002 million.  Together, these sums constitute the Council's Aggregate External Finance (AEF).  The AEF represented an increase of £3.475 million, which was equivalent to 2.4% over that received for 2009/10.  The provisional settlement included additional resources of £106,000 in respect of new responsibilities for Learner Travel.

 

The Improvement Agreement Grant (IAG) would be in the sum of £1.252 million.  The IAG was an unhypothocated grant and was not guaranteed to receive the full amount of the Improvement Agreement Grant as this was determined on the basis of attaining relevant agreement targets. 

 

WAG had advised the Council of transfers from and to the General Settlement and these were detailed in Paragraph 7 of the report. 

 

The following table compared the amended original budget with the projected outturn for 2009/10 and took account of the necessary transfers to the original estimate for the same period as detailed in Appendix 1:

 

 

It was reported that the projected outturn for Education and Schools was for a surplus of £81,000 which would be used to offset a projected overspend in Lifelong Learning.  The Vale’s Special Schools recoupment income was £321,000 over budget and reflected the volatile nature of the Additional Needs budget.  £241,000 of this income had been offset by additional expenditure on Learning Support Assistants due to increased service demand and a further £40,000 in relation to the Pupil referral Unit.  The forecast of School Transport was for an underspend of £194,000 but could change by year end due to fluctuations in specialist placements.  Savings accruing by the year end would be transferred to Education reserves.  £500,000 provision had been made to meet the costs of financing the School Investment Strategy and this amount would be transferred to the School Improvement Strategy Reserve given no payments had been made to date.  A one-off reduction in the rateable value of schools within the Vale in the amount of £464,000 would also be transferred to the School Improvement Strategy Investment Reserve.

 

Catering Services was projected to outturn on budget.

 

The Budget Strategy for 2010/11 required all Directors to make the following provisions:

 

·        In order to establish a baseline, services should prepare initial revenue budgets for 2010/11 based on the cost of providing the current level of service and approved policy decisions. This means the cost of price increases and pay awards should be included as provided for in the 2009/10 Medium Term Financial Plan.

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

·        Supplementary estimates will only increase the base budget if Council has given specific approval to this effect. Increases met by virement within a year will 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 has been given for additional funding.

·        The effect of replacing grant from outside bodies that has discontinued will not be treated as committed growth. In addition, before any project or initiative that is 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 will continue and these include the effect of interest changes and the financing cost of the Capital Programme, increases in taxes, increases in levies and precepts charged by outside bodies and changes to housing benefits net expenditure.

·        Services will be expected to identify and achieve recurrent efficiency savings including (but not restricted to) those identified in the 2009/10 Medium Term Financial Plan For Public Protection and Private Housing totalled £126,000.

 

The Directorate was currently working towards meeting the following savings targets for 2010/11 as identified in the Medium Term Financial Plan:

 

	Efficiency       £’000	Other £’000	Total           £’000
Learning and Development	1,310	231	1,541

 

A summary of the overall base budget for 2010/11 was detailed in Appendix 2.  This had been arrived at by adjusting the 2009/10 budget for items such as inflation, unavoidable growth and it reflected a greater proportion of recharges falling on the General Fund of £347,000.  Matters relating to asset rents, FRS17, Deferred Government Grant and recharges had been deducted from individual Service Budgets to produce 'base estimates'.  Budget transfers / adjustments had been made to reflect transfer of functions and responsibilities between services.

 

The figure for inflation (£1.401m) related to general price increases, teachers’ pay award (2.3%) and non teaching staff in schools (1%).  No allowance was included for pay awards for other staff.

 

A list of 2010/11 cost pressures had been identified and were detailed in Appendix 3.  These were not set out in order of priority and totalled £5,162 million for the Directorate.  For the whole authority cost pressures totalled £9.443 million, some would need to be met for some services.  They excluded the cost of redundancies, which may be incurred in order to maintain the budget within resources available.  These costs, however, could be significant. 

 

In order to provide Members with sufficient detailed information on service budgets, cost centre analyses were set out in Appendix 4 including other relevant financial information i.e. Budgetary, Income and Expenditure etc.

 

Representatives of the School Budget Forum had been invited to attend the meeting in order that the Committee receive their comments on the above budget proposals.

 

Mrs. J. Hayward, representing the views of the School Budget Forum, conveyed the aspirations of the Budget Forum and referred to the Education 2015 Strategy which was now in place and work was ongoing regarding its progression however sounded a note of caution that appropriate funding had to be available to deliver this.  She referred to the Council’s previous commitment to move towards funding to its Indicative Budget Allocation (IBA) and the budget proposals as presented gave a bleak outlook and reminded the Committee that Vale schools were chronically underfunded.  On an all Wales basis primary schools were ranked 16 out of 22 Local Education Authorities with secondary schools ranked 21 out of 22.  In alluding to the Schools Budget Bid this had identified an increase of 4.84% in order to stand still.  However when efficiency savings were taken into account the minimum uplift schools required was 3.83%.  However in acknowledging that a high percentage of funding was delegated directly to schools, schools were facing a number of pressures on a number of fronts and these were as follows.

 

Secondary

·         14-19 transformation - increased pressures had continued in this area and Post 16 funding continued to present considerable problems.  There were pressures on schools to collaborate and to introduce more courses at both Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5.

·         New courses at GCSE, AS and A2 level - pressures had increased steadily since last year and more and more new courses were being delivered and current levels of funding were insufficient to sustain current levels.  Additional work for teachers had resulted as a consequence of the new moderation working which was closely linked to Key Stage 4.

 

Primary

·         Foundation Phase - this initiative had been rolled out over Year 1 and Year 2 classes however concerns remained regarding overall funding of the initiative and there were considerable variations in the effect on schools

 

All       

·         Training - reference was made to the General Teaching Council for Wales reduction in funding and also to proposed cuts in the Better Schools Fund.  This was particularly critical given the timing when all staff, teaching and non-teaching, were facing greater demands to adapt to new initiatives and working practices.

·         School Building Funding - there was insufficient funding available centrally. 

 

In addition to the above matters Mrs. Hayward alluded to additional pressures that had impacted on schools during the year:

 

·         the new Estyn Inspection Framework which would take effect from September 2010

·         the Self Evaluation Framework which was to come on stream in the near future and related funding issues

·         ICT entitlement would require significant capital investment given that equipment currently available in schools was having a negative impact on the teaching environment as the equipment was inferior to pupils’ IT equipment at home.

 

In conclusion Mrs. Hayward reiterated that the Council needed to demonstrate a commitment towards funding up to the IBA level and to jointly work together with the School Budget Forum to agree a joint strategy to address the current underfunding of Vale schools.  There was considerable concern within schools regarding possible redundancies as a consequence of funding constraints.  This was particularly relevant given rising pupil numbers.

 

Mr. T. Cox shared the concerns raised by Mrs. Hayward and also referred to increasing pupil numbers in the Vale of Glamorgan and referred to the sustainability of the Education Service as reaching a tipping point.  He referred to the high staffing costs within the Vale of Glamorgan and the potential of redundancies as a result of the budget settlement were a real concern when set in the context of rising pupil numbers.   His view was that the Council should move towards meeting the WAG IBA level given that there was significant problems for secondary schools within the Vale of Glamorgan and any proposals to cut the Education Service was a retrograde step.

 

Discussion ensued with the Committee raising matters in respect of the available reserves that schools retained, the number of schools which currently had a deficit and the potential implications for other services within the Lifelong Learning Directorate in the event that the requisite efficiency savings could not be found within the Education Service.  The Director of Learning and Development referred to the fact that statutory key functions were currently being met and that the whole of the Education and Lifelong Learning service was being efficiently run.  However, he reminded the Scrutiny Committee that funding available per pupil for central Education Services in the Vale of Glamorgan was £400 below the Welsh average which represented circa £8 million reduction.  He also acknowledged that efficiencies had to be found and referred to the Council’s current budget strategy.  All options were being considered including efficiencies within school transport as cited in the previous report on Transport Provision for Learners Aged 16-19. 

 

All Scrutiny Committees were being consulted on the Initial Revenue Budget Proposals with the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) being the lead Committee.  Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) was to consider the budget proposals at its meeting on 1^st December, 2009 prior to forwarding a composite response to the Cabinet, the Members of which would make their final budget proposals no later than 24^th February, 2010.

 

Cabinet's final budget proposals would be considered by Council at its meeting held on 3^rd March, 2010.

 

Having regard to the above and related issues it was

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the amended original budget for 2009/10 as set out in Paragraph 8 of the report and the initial budget proposals for 2010/11 be noted.

 

(2)       T H A T the cost pressures detailed in Appendix 3 to the report, including the views of the School Budget Forum as indicated above, be forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) for further consideration.

 

(3)       T H A T Directors be requested to take necessary steps to ensure a balanced budget for 2009/10 and to identify measures to achieve their saving targets for 2010/11.

 

Reasons for recommendations

 

(1)       To facilitate monitoring of the budget.

 

(2)       To allow further consideration of education funding issues.

 

(3)       To ensure a balanced budget and measures to achieve savings targets.

 

 

638     INITIAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2010/11 (DFICTP) -

 

Appended to the report were full details of the progress on the Capital Programme as at 30^th September, 2009.

 

On 13^th October, 2009 the Welsh Assembly Government announced the provisional 2010 / 11 General Capital Funding.  It was noted that provisional allocation had increased marginally by £7,000 to £8,209,000.  The final settlement was expected to be announced by January 2010 but was not expected to vary greatly from the above figure. 

 

Cabinet, on 13^th February, 2008, approved that the Director of Finance, ICT and Property in consultation with the Cabinet Member responsible for finance be given delegated authority to transfer supported borrowing between General Fund and the Housing Capital Budget as appropriate.  As in 2009/10, WAG had been requested to transfer the sum of £280,000 supported borrowing from General Fund to the Housing Revenue Account in 2010/11 in order to fund the level of Council property Disabled Facilities Grants. 

 

In addition to funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, the Council would finance part of the Capital Programme from its own resources e.g. Capital Receipts and Reserves.  Set out in Appendix B was the proposed 2010/11 Capital Programme for Public Protection and Housing.  This detailed the General Capital Funding and internal resources required to fund these proposed schemes together with other Scrutiny Committee schemes totalling £16.603 million (net).  In addition to the above the report also detailed the analysis of net funding required for the indicative 2010/11 Capital Programme and the analysis of net funding required for the indicative 2010/11 Housing Capital Programme and these were as follows:

 

Analysis of Net Funding Required for the Indicative 2010/11 Capital Programme	£'000	£'000
General Fund Resources from Welsh Assembly Government
Supported Borrowing	5,889
General Capital Grant	2,040
		7,929
Council Resources
Capital Receipts	2,616
Reserves / Leasing	5,728
		8,344
Net Capital Resources		16,273

 

The table below detailed the Housing Capital Funding and internal resources required to fund the proposed schemes.

 

Analysis of Net Funding Required for the Indicative 2010/11 Housing Capital Programme	£'000	£'000
General Fund Resources from Welsh Assembly Government
Supported Borrowing	280
		280
Council Resources
Housing Capital Receipts	0
Housing Reserves	50
		50
Net Capital Resources		330

 

Appendix B also included allocations already approved by the Council.

 

An indicative Education asset renewal budget of £800,000 was set out in Appendix B for consideration. This constituted an un-earmarked general provision. Some of the specific schemes in the unsuccessful bids listed in Appendix C could be funded from the asset renewal provision.  Specific asset renewal schemes would be reported to Cabinet before April 2010 for approval and the bids included in Appendix C will be considered at that time.

With regard to Capital Bids for 2010/11 it was noted that due to the anticipated reduction in future capital funding for 2010/11 onwards and to review historic priorities it had been decided that those budgets previously included in the indicative future Capital Programme should be withdrawn, other than those schemes which were contractually committed by the end of March 2010.  Officers had been asked to re-bid for those sums that they still regarded as high priority as part of the 2010/11 bidding round.  As a result of this exercise there had been a very high number of bids received this year.

 

The Sustainable Development Working Group was consulted on the capital bids submitted by services and their comments were subsequently considered by the Capital Asset Management Group when prioritising submitted schemes.  The four areas of sustainable development were considered as part of the process and these were detailed in the report.

 

Consequently, the Sustainable Development Group identified schemes for which there was particular support or concern.  It also highlighted schemes which, if approved, they would like to consider in more detail following completion of a sustainable development checklist.  The Sustainable Development Group's comments were summarised as follows:

 

Scheme	Comment
Asset Renewal Programme (All Services)	Implementation important (Check list required).

 

The Budget Working Group had prioritised bids based upon the recommendations of the Corporate Asset Management Group.  The method of prioritisation used was based on the Council's Capital Investment Strategy.

 

In addition to the capital bids identified in Appendix B, Appendix C detailed capital bids received that were unsuccessful and had not been put forward for inclusion in the 2010/11 programme.  There were also certain schemes for which funding had been reserved but not included in the Capital Programme as yet and these were also detailed in Appendix B as reserved schemes at nil budget at the present.  Some of these schemes included match funding for grant bids that had not yet been approved.  Should such grants be approved then the scheme would be included in the Capital Programme, together with the reserve Council funding.

 

Discussion briefly ensued in regard to future Welsh Medium provision and related proposals considered at the Cabinet meeting on 18^th November.  The Committee was informed that these proposals were dependant on WAG funding availability and were linked to over capacity issues.  It was also acknowledged that increasing pupil numbers in English Medium education would also lead to additional provision.

 

As in the case of the consideration of the Initial Revenue Budget Proposals reported earlier in the agenda, similar arrangements were in place for the Scrutiny Committees to pass their comments to the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) who would, on behalf of all the Council's Scrutiny Committees form a response to the Cabinet. 

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the amended 2009/10 Capital Programme for the period ending 30^th September, 2009 and the Initial Capital Programme Proposals for 2010/11 be noted and referred to the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) for consideration.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

In acknowledgement of the budget proposals and to allow the matter to be further considered.

 

 

639     TRACKING OF RECOMMENDATIONS (DLPPHS) -

 

Members were advised of the progress in relation to uncompleted recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee during the financial year 2008/09, details of which were appended to the report.  Also appended to the report at Appendix A and B were 1^st and 2^nd Quarter uncompleted recommendations.  In addition, progress was also detailed against each of the recommendations and where further action was required to ensure the required action was taken to confirm those actions which were now considered to be completed.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the following actions detailed as completed in the report be accepted:

 

27 July 2009 Min. No. 255 - Community Strategy Review recommended
(2)  That the Chairman write to the Lifelong Learning Department of Cardiff University expressing concern at the decision to withdraw funding for extra-mutual activities.	Letter sent - Completed
Min. No. 256 - Swine Flu - Education Preparations recommended
That the arrangements in place be noted and a further report submitted to this Committee in September.	Report submitted to Committee on 5th October, 2009 - Completed
20 October 2008 Min. No. 461 - 14-19 Learning Pathways recommended
(2)   That a further report on the Learning Centre proposal, detailing revenue and governance arrangements and conditions of grant, be brought before a future meeting of Scrutiny Committee	Report submitted to Committee on 16th March, 2009.  Due to WAG funding announcement the Learning Centre option would not be progressed as part of the initiative.  Completed

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To ensure that recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee are progressed to completion.