Note to: Councillor T K Thornber CBE

From: Chief Executive - Colin Hinxman

Reference: PR9K/CH

Telephone: 7343

e-mail [email protected]

LEADER'S DECISION DAY - 31 JANUARY 2006

This note is to draw your attention to some observations by the Policy and Resources Scrutiny and Select Committee on the Policy and Resources Revenue Budget - Item 6 on your Decision Day agenda.

The Committee did not feel that they were in a position to offer advice on the Revenue Budget as fully as they would have wished, because there was insufficient information or evidence on several items to enable them to make sound recommendations. In general there was insufficient detail in the papers to enable them to take a fully informed scrutiny view of several of the proposals (focussing primarily on those under the Chief Executive's department heading, e.g. communications, older persons publicity) and requested that in future years they should have `earlier sight of more detailed reports'. They requested that the mechanisms for feedback to the Policy and Resources Scrutiny and Select Committee be considered; they would like some means by which the Leader responds to the various points made explaining how they have been taken into account, and where not followed, why not.

However they felt that there were several areas of concern which they wished to draw to your attention and asked you to take them into account before you reach a decision. The specific points are referred to below by reference to the paragraph number.

7.6 Older Persons' Well-being

The use of a one-off £85,000 carry forward in addition to the £100,000 recurring spending, making £185,000 in all in 2006/07, on the "well-being of older people team" be critically examined, with a view to restricting spend to £100,000 in 2006/07 and transferring the balance direct to Adult Services;

7.9 Promoting Hampshire

A similar point, the Committee were concerned at the creation of an additional post costing £55,000. The Committee did not feel that there was sufficient information to explain the need for the post. How cost effective will it be and what arrangements will be in place for its impact to be monitored? Is it really temporary or is it likely to become permanent?

7.10 and 7.11 External Funding and Economic Development

Once again what evidence was there that an additional post would further increase the income and what arrangements would be put in place for monitoring?

7.12 Older Persons' Communications

The £50,000 additional funding for older persons communications be critically assessed with a view to either requiring that the communications team re-prioritise work within the existing budget to deal with this, or if this should prove impossible, to drop this proposal in favour of providing the £50,000 directly to Adult Services to provide services rather than publicise them;.

7.32 Community Safety Officer Service

The Committee takes the view that there is a need for a fairly fundamental scrutiny of the role carried out by the County Council's accredited Community Safety Officers, with particular reference to their inter-relationship with proposals to expand the numbers of Police Community Safety Officers. It is understood that Hampshire Police Authority have approval for 540 community officers with grant funding but that recruitment is likely to be difficult and grant funding would not then be obtained on any vacant posts. It could make sense to transfer ACSOs to the Police Authority in order that they can claim grant on them. There needs to be some review as to whether the two are complementary or whether there is likely to be duplication and therefore unnecessary cost.

Paragraph 9

The Committee point out that paragraph 9.1 refers to an increase in staff of 19 and paragraph 9.2 to an increase of 6. They draw attention to the fact that the total net increase is therefore +25. The Committee was concerned that here was not even a line of explanation as to the need for each group of additional staff outlined in 9.1.

The common theme from all the above is that there needs to be a more systematic way of scrutinising new policy initiatives and appointment of additional staff. A brief summary at this late stage in the budgetary process means that there is insufficient information available to evaluate whether the initiatives, costs and additional staff are worthy of support.