To comment and agree recommendations as set out in the Cabinet report.

The Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning highlighted from the report summary that the Adult Social Care Levy would be kept at £74.74 for a Band D property. Funds from this Levy and other grants had brought in £20.7million for adult social care over the past five years, while there had been a total spend of £21.4million in the same timeframe. The summary also set out that some proposed efficiencies had been identified in children’s and adults services; however, it was more difficult to predict from one year to the next where service demands would be in adult social care, compared to children’s services, due to a constantly changing demographic. Members were informed however that the proposed efficiencies would not have any detrimental impact on frontline services.

Members were told that £900,000 of the demography pot was available to adult and children’s services to offset any increased level of demand which could not be met from the base budget. This was also to account for the fact that the areas with the biggest increases in demand, for nursing placements and mental health placements and provision, were becoming increasingly expensive due to a volatility in the market for providing services. This demography pot sat with the Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning, rather than Achieving for Children or Optalis.

Cllr Yong asked for clarification on which budget head the £2.1million New Homes Bonus would go to, as she wanted more information on who the new homes would be provided for. Cllr Yong stated that she hoped they would go to key workers. The Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning said she would confirm and report back to Members.

Responding to a question from the Chairman, the Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning stated that efficiency savings in provision of home care would not have any impact on the delivery of the service, nor have any impact on residents. The contract worked in such a way that providers were incentivised to encourage service users to be ‘reabled’ – i.e. to become independent and provide support for themselves following discharge from a healthcare setting – as quickly as possible. Work was being carried out with health colleagues to avoid delayed transfers of care, as keeping patients in a hospital or other healthcare setting was more expensive than enabling them to return to their own homes as early as possible. For example, there was a move away from insisting that all assessments be carried out in a hospital. Members agreed that it would be useful to have a presentation on the impact of this work at a future meeting.

Cllr Yong stated her belief that there needed to be a culture shift to make people aware that a care home was sometimes the most appropriate setting for an elderly relative. She said that people were often reticent to put their older relatives into a care home because of the costs involved, even though they may not be capable of looking after themselves in their own homes any longer. The Assistant Director – Statutory Services accepted that this would take a big change in attitude. However it was possible for care providers to use a Care Protection Order in cases where a person was particularly at risk if they were to remain without care in their own homes. This was done on an individual, case by case basis.

Members were informed that the overall budget had been set taking into account the fact that the Adult Social Care Levy could not be increased this year, due to the level of increases that had been imposed in the previous two years.

The Chairman noted the increase in income for adult social care listed in appendix B of the main report. Members were informed that this was due in part to an increase in the number of people who had been assessed as being able to afford to pay more for care placements, and the overall increase in the number of people accessing Council services. Part of the decrease in the Optalis contract was also due to pension clawback from Optalis when staff left the organisation who had previously been TUPE transferred.

The Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning said that if there was a surge in demand for services then officers would look to see what other efficiencies outside those already identified could be made, but adult social care services would not be precluded from using the Council’s reserves. However this would only be done if there was clear evidence that this was the only solution, and efficiencies could not be made from other budget heads.

The details of the savings summary were noted by Members in Part II of the meeting.

Members thanked officers for producing the budget report and for providing reassurances that the budget could be met.

It was

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Panel noted the report and approved the:

i) Detailed recommendations contained in Appendix A which included a base council tax at Band D of £961.33, including a 2.99% increase of £27.91.

ii) Adult social care precept to remain unchanged at £74.74.

iii) Fees and charges contained in Appendix D.

iv) Capital strategy in Appendix G.

v) Capital programme, shown in Appendices H & I, for the financial year 2019/20.

vi) Prudential borrowing limits set out in Appendix L.

vii) Business rate tax base calculation, detailed in Appendix P, and its use in the council tax requirement in Appendix A.

viii) Deputy Director and Head of Finance in consultation with the Lead Members for Finance and Children’s Services to amend the total schools budget to reflect actual Dedicated Schools Grant levels once received.

ix) Delegation to the Deputy Director and Head of Finance and Lead Member for Finance to include the precept from the Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority once the precept was announced.