Apologies were received from Mr P Box, Mrs L Brazewell, Mr J Chapman, Mr J Docherty, Mr T Edwards, Mrs A Jackson, Ms T Kneale, Mrs J Rees, and Mr A Shaw.

There were none.

Mr R Leece and Mr C Lewandowski declared an interest in the section on de-delegation in agenda item 5: Report of the Budget Working Group.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the report of the Budget Working Group on the following matters: DSG Funding Settlement 2014/15, Schools Block Expenditure, Analysis of Funding Gap; Options to balance the Schools Budget; PFI costs; Broadband Costs; De-delegation of Trade Union Facilities Funding; High Needs Top-up Payments; School Exit Payments; and School Balances.

The Forum considered the report of the Budget Working Group on the following matters:  Dedicated Schools Grant funding settlement 2014/15, schools block expenditure, analysis of funding gap; options to balance the schools budget; PFI costs;broadband costs; de-delegation of trade union facilities funding; high needs top-up payments; school exit costs and school balances.

The Vice-Chairman introduced the report on behalf of the Chairman of the Budget Working Group (BWG).  He reported that Mr Shaw had wished to remind the Forum of the difficult financial position faced and the BWG‘s recommended approach that changes should be introduced on a phased basis to allow schools time to plan.  He had also requested that his thanks be conveyed to the High Needs Group and the Schools Finance Manager for their work.

The Schools Finance Manager presented the report, commenting on each section of the report in turn.

The first recommendation in the body of the report related to the allocation of the balance of the DSG underspend for 2011/12 which had been discussed by the Forum a number of times, most recently in May 2013.  This recommendation was considered first, rather than fourth as set out in the printed recommendations in the agenda papers, because the balancing of the budget was dependent upon the underspend being allocated to support the 2014/15 budget.  The Schools Finance Manager noted that in choosing to allocate this sum funds would no longer be available in future to assist schools with deficits.

In relation to dedelegation of Trade Union Facilities funding, the Schools Finance Manager reported that since the publication of the report the Department for Education (DfE) had published the outcome of its consultation exercise on this matter and its response.  The DfE had also published non-statutory advice on trade union facility time in schools.

The Forum’s attention was drawn to page 8 of the non-statutory advice which stated that, “To enable schools forum representatives to decide what is best for their schools, the local authority should provide clear information in advance about how funds will be spent and how the service will benefit schools. Schools forum members should seek the views of the schools they represent before the decision is taken.”

The Schools Finance Manager circulated a paper on how funding for Trade Union Facilities had been allocated for 2013/14.  He reported that the amount of expenditure proposed for 2014/15 was in line with the level of expenditure envisaged by the DfE.  He also noted that in the budget consultation undertaken by the Authority in the autumn of 2013 a clear majority of respondents had supported continued dedelegation. 

In response to a question about the impact of the recommended option to balance the schools budget on the vulnerable groups of pupils the Schools Finance Manager referred to the consideration by the BWG set out in paragraph 20 of the report and the BWG’s view that various funding changes meant that the recommended option would not have an adverse impact on vulnerable groups.

RESOLVED:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

To consider 16-19 provider representation on the Forum and to review the current 14-19 Partnership representation.

The Forum considered the requirement in new Regulations that there must be at least one 16-19 provider representative on the Forum. 

The Regulations also removed the requirement that the Forum’s membership should include at least one representative of the 14-19 Partnership.  In consequence the Forum also reviewed the need for the two 14-19 Partnership places currently on the Forum.

The Forum concluded that it would be useful to continue to have representation from the 14-19 Partnership.  It was accepted that the size of the Forum should not be increased.  It was therefore proposed that the Forum’s membership should include one representative from the 14-19 partnership and one representative of 16-19 providers.

RESOLVED:

(a)       to recommend the inclusion of one representative of the 14-19 Partnership within the Forum’s  membership; and

(b)       to recommend the inclusion of one 16-19 provider representative on the Forum.

To consider the Forum’s work programme.

The Forum noted its Work Programme.

The following meeting dates have been scheduled:

Monday 17 March 2014 9.30 am

Friday 16 May 2014 9.30 am

Noted.