Agenda item

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Finance and Assurance, which had previously been considered by Cabinet on 11 December 2014.

Following a brief overview of the report by the Director of Finance and Assurance, Members asked the following questions and received responses from the officers:

·                    Where was the underspend on the Emergency Relief Scheme (ERS) from?  (para 4)

The Director advised that this pertained to Council Tax Support and was allocated to Environment and Enterprise to aid people to find employment.  He undertook to circulate information as to the success of this initiative.

Q -       Could more detail be provided on the unspent grant carried forward from 2013/14 for Public Health within the Council’s ring-fenced reserve?  (para 29)

A -       The aim was to allocate the sums transferred from central government in accordance with the grant conditions to further public health outcomes.  The previous year grant had met some leisure costs to improve health.  Although certain health objectives such as in connection with drugs and sexual health were appropriate, others were less prescribed.

Q -       What was the allocation for Headstone Manor in the capital programme for? (para 59)

A -       The officer undertook to flag this up for the Lead member when meeting with the Corporate Director.

Q -       What was the delay in charging for parking at Harrow Leisure Centre and when would the consultation with users take place? (para 9)

A -       The responsible officer was no longer employed by Harrow Council. The aspiration was for 1 April and it was thought to be on the consultation website.

Q -       The shortfall in salaries for the Public Realm Integrated Service Model (PRISM) had been met through vacancies.  What was the impact on service provision of the Divisional Director vacancy and, if there was not an impact, was the post required?  Was the post at the correct level and was the restructure correctly specified? (page 32, items nos 0.11, 0.12 and 0.13)

A -       As the starting budget had been understated, savings from a reduction in posts had enabled management to balance the bottom line.  The officer stated that he was unaware of any diminished service.  The post might have been subsequently deleted, it could be a vacant post which competent officers had absorbed and achieved savings for the Council.

Q -       The information suggested a continuing overspend on Continuing Care and Ordinary Resident cases.  (para 13)

A -       The responsibility for payment of the Continuing Care bill between the Council and the NHS was unresolved and work was being undertaken to determine the issue.  There was the view that the remainder of the business risk reserve would need to be appropriately drawn down by the end of the financial year.

Q -       Would the large increase in the use of interims in Targeted Services be offset by staff vacancies and had market factor supplements been necessary? (para 31)

A -       Due to an increase in demand, some caseloads were larger than the Council would wish. Recruitment was problematic and, due to the duty to young people to create interims, it was offset elsewhere.  It was thought that the staff vacancies were at a more senior level and use was made of the Adoption Reform Grant which was ringfenced.

The Sub-Committee was advised that it was a national issue and MFS had been successful.  Recent successful recruitment campaigns and work across London on recruitment of newly qualified staff had resulted in the difficulty now being mainly at senior practitioner level and above. Work was also being undertaken at regional and national levels.

Q -       How does the Housing General Fund and B&B costs compare to a year ago?  Was there an increase in numbers and, despite the introduction of rent capping, were incentives to let bidding up rents and having implications for private tenants?

A -       There were difficulties in containing costs due to the increase in the number of people presenting for B&B. The budget had assumed a reduction of two families a week but  in general up to two additional families a week had applied. The Council was working in a challenging situation and trying to be flexible and inventive.

Q -       What was the position regarding Capita on the re-profile of the Mobile and Flex project payments and was the list of slippage complete? (para 61)

A -       There were a number of significant projects being delivered by Capita where payments were being withheld as work had not been done or was not to the Council’s satisfaction.  It was noted that the Capita financial year finished on 31 December 2014.  The officer undertook to confirm how many projects were not being implemented and to identify which ones were the responsibility of Capita, an example being the Public Realm scheme for £100k re litter bins which were on hold.  It was agreed that the delays had a severe impact on services which needed to be managed as efficiencies through technology would have been factored into savings.  The items detailed in paragraph 61 were in addition to those in paragraphs 65 and 66.

Q -       The Chairman referred to previous statements regarding a culture of allowing slippages in capital expenditure whereby only 60% of the original budget was spent.  Was there a drive in the organisation to make the capital programme more meaningful as the public had expectations that projects would proceed?

A-        The planning process was now 6 years instead of 4 and changes in procedure to start expenditure in April were under consideration.  The largest element was the School Expansion Programme and issues could arise to delay from one financial year to the next.  The situation was improving from 73% in September to 60% currently and the forecast for, the 31 December report was 30%.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise had an appraisal objective of 85%.  With regard to schools, the position was clearer and agreed prices for contractor meant that price and delivery were known.

Q -       What is the status of the pay award? (paragraphs 35 and 42)

It was advised that all negotiating boards had concluded except for Chief Executives and Chief Officers and with Soulbury in September.

Q -       What is the pay increment increase?

A -       About 40% of staff were at the top of their grade. Increments, as a rough percentage, were 2.5 – 3% of salary.  New starters commenced at the bottom of the grade.  Further information was requested on increments paid for the last couple of years and that expected for the following year.

Q -       Was the deletion of the support for community festivals of £48k one post?  (page 38)

A -       Yes, including national insurance and pension contributions.

Q -       Is the budget for the cost of tree root claims against the Council steady from year to year?

A -       This could vary as one claim could be significant and was influenced by prolonged drought or wet weather.  The Council had invested in more proactive pruning and provided a robust defence of the Council’s position.

Q -       How would the saving for library volunteers be realised?   (page 38)

A -       The officer undertook to provide information.

Q -       The affect of Council Tax bad debt on housing provision.  (page 43)

A -       The officer undertook to provide information.

Q -       A comment on the £88k underspend on revenue was requested.

A -       The officer advised that this was expected to be significantly less in 2014/15.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.