The Scrutiny Committee - Corporate and Resources of Somerset Council convened to discuss several key issues, including budget monitoring, transformation plans, and a review of the council's scrutiny function. The committee approved recommendations for the Executive to consider, focusing on improving financial stability, enhancing scrutiny processes, and supporting workforce transformation.

Whole Council Transformation Plan and Strategic Transformation Partner

The committee reviewed the draft Executive Report concerning the Whole Council Transformation Plan and the appointment of a Strategic Transformation Partner¹. The plan aims to address Somerset Council's financial challenges and improve service delivery through a hybrid model that combines external expertise with internal capabilities. The committee was concerned about the procurement approach, the potential cost of the Strategic Transformation Partner, and the lack of detail in the plan. They requested that the proposed contract award be brought back to the committee for further scrutiny before the Executive makes a final decision.

The committee also emphasised the importance of resident-centric planning and clear communication with members, officers, and residents. They agreed that all transformation initiatives should be presented to the Scrutiny Committee before implementation and expressed concerns about the clarity and accountability of the governance proposals.

Scrutiny Function Review

The committee reviewed the final report and recommendations of the Scrutiny Function Review, which was conducted with support from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS). The review aimed to improve the effectiveness of the council's scrutiny function, ensuring transparency, accountability, and improved public services.

The committee's recommendations included:

• Developing a shared vision of good scrutiny across the council
• Introducing ongoing training for councillors and officers
• Developing a scrutiny protocol to guide the scrutiny process
• Reviewing and enhancing the scrutiny work planning process
• Refreshing the Task and Finish Group Protocol
• Enhancing the process of making impactful recommendations
• Refocusing annual scrutiny reporting to highlight the impact of scrutiny activities

The committee also considered rebalancing overview and scrutiny arrangements, including reducing the number of scrutiny committees from five to four from May 2026.

General Fund Revenue Budget Monitoring Report

The committee reviewed the General Fund Revenue Budget Monitoring Report for Month 2 of 2025/26, which forecast an overspend of £5.456m. Key variances included overspends in Adult Services & Housing, Children, Families & Education Services, and Community, Place & Economy.

The committee noted the recommendations for the Executive, which included transferring the £12.000m Corporate Contingency budget and £3.000m Corporate Risk budget into earmarked reserves and implementing mitigating actions to address overspends. The committee also noted the in-year forecast overspend on the Dedicated Schools Grant² and the total forecast Dedicated Schools Grant year-end deficit.

Workforce Restructure Programme Closure Report

The committee considered the Closure Report for the Workforce Restructure Programme 2024/25, which summarised the background, approach, and deliverables of the programme. The program aimed to reduce workforce costs and streamline the organisation following Local Government Reorganisation. The report outlined the program's outcomes, successes, challenges, and lessons learned.

The committee noted that the program resulted in a reduction of 562.7 full-time equivalent posts and delivered £33.037m in savings. The committee also noted the impact on staff, including the number of voluntary and compulsory redundancies.

Councillor Sue Osborne, Opposition Lead Member for Transformation, Human Resources and Localities, shared the report with the Trade Unions, and their feedback was incorporated into the final report.

Public Question Time

The committee addressed public questions from Councillor Diogo Rodrigues, David Orr, and Chris Mann. Councillor Rodrigues raised concerns about the proposed changes to budget monitoring reporting and the potential impact on transparency and scrutiny. David Orr questioned the transformation contract and the selection of a strategic partner, while Chris Mann expressed concerns about the cost and effectiveness of the Inspiring Innovation plan. Councillor Theo Butt Philip, Lead Member for Transformation, Human Resources and Localities, and officers responded to the questions and concerns raised.

Other Business

The committee approved the minutes from the previous meeting and noted the Scrutiny Corporate & Resources Committee Workplan 2025-26. Councillor Steven Pugsley, Chair of the committee, provided a verbal update on the activities of the Scrutiny Working Group.

Annex A – Public Questions

Councillor Diogo Rodrigues raised concerns about the proposed changes to the frequency and process of budget monitoring reporting, as outlined in the Member Information Sheet dated 22 July 2025. He asked whether the committee would consider making formal representation to the Executive, requesting that budget monitoring papers be made available to Scrutiny before their presentation to the Executive, advocating for the continuation of monthly public budget monitoring reports, and considering whether the proposed escalation process sufficiently safeguards Scrutiny's independence and ability to hold Executive to account.

David Orr posed a series of questions about the £20 million transformation contract with Somerset Council, questioning the incentives for the chosen contractor, the profitability of the contract, and the potential for increased costs and reduced accountability. He also questioned whether the council was repeating the mistakes of past failed transformation contracts.

Chris Mann expressed concerns about the Inspiring Innovation proposal, arguing that it was an expensive and unnecessary outsourcing of council services. He questioned the plan's scope, the potential for conflict between council priorities and contractor profit, and the lack of detail in the plan. He urged the committee not to enter into the contract and instead follow Wiltshire's example of internal reorganisation led by council staff and elected members.