Agenda item

Report of the Director of Finance.

The Sub-Committee received a report which reviewed the progress of those recommendations agreed for implementation from the Revenue Budget Scrutiny Challenge Panel which was reported to Cabinet on 23 April 2015.

The Director of Finance introduced the report and responded to comments and questions raised by Members of the Sub-Committee as follows:

Reference 1 – The work being undertaken does not represent a three year budget as the 2017/18 draft budget referred to in reference 5 is no different to previous budgets in its composition as it is not locked in and lacks business cases.  For example, as the My Community e-purse has no business case and has not been worked through, it is an aspiration and not a budget

A –      It is a three year detailed line by line budget and is a substantial improvement to previous annual budgets with only small MTFS gaps and clear analysis.  All Commissioning Panels were made available to the opposition.

References 2 and 3 – The Corporate Plan was changing year on year and was imprecise without a business case and with no mention of income or expenditure.  How does the Portfolio Holder envisage public accountability of performance of budget against the plan and how will the Council communicate expenditure against budget items and details of unmet savings?

A –      The corporate plan provided a clear basis of the Council’s intentions. Actual spend against budget, variances and the ambition plan, would be monitored and communicated.  The Sub-Committee would receive information on unmet savings during the next financial year and would have the opportunity to ask questions.

Reference 4 – How would Project Infinity be reflected in years 3 and 4 of the budgeting process?

A –      The prerequisite of a three year budget is to be outcome based and the Administration has set out what it wants to achieve.

References 8 and 9 – What are the appropriate tools for collaborative work and when would the training for Members be available?

A –      The Chair requested that a report be submitted to the Scrutiny Leads on the timetable, with a report to the Sub-Committee if appropriate.

Reference 11 – How would funding be freed up to resource early intervention and prevention services?

A –      Early Intervention and Prevention were considered as part of the overall budget.  The Commissioning Panels had received saving proposals on early intervention initiatives such as the reablement service, but these were not taken forward.

References 13 and 14 – Would the officers seek information on the budget-simulation consultation tools developed by London Borough of Redbridge?

A –      The Director of Finance was liaising with her colleagues across London on the use of such tools, information would be sought from the London Borough of Redbridge and the initiative would be included in the Scrutiny Leads programme.

Reference 16 – How could the Harrow Business Consultative Panel seek more meaningful input from various businesses?

A –      The Sub-Committee commented that consultation on business rates required consideration.

Reference 17 – The Sub-Committee was informed that, as requested by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Barry Kendler had reviewed the concerns raised by the Voluntary and Community Sector representatives when giving evidence to the Challenge Panel for submission to the March Cabinet meeting.  The review report was currently with the voluntary sector representatives and an update would be circulated to Members of the Sub-Committee.

Reference 18 – It could be useful to obtain information from the London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminister regarding their arrangements for pre-decision scrutiny.  Scrutiny prior to final documents is a useful tool for example the lack of penalty clauses in contracts as in the Capita contract.

A –      The officers undertook to contact the London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminister regarding their arrangements for pre-decision scrutiny.

The practicalities of incorporating a six month notification of decisions into the Key Decision Schedule was under discussion and the outcome would be reported to the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.