Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 8 October 2026, 7:30pm

Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 8th October 2026 at 7:30pm

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Welcome to the first meeting of the Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

My name is Councillor Melanie Hampton and I'm the chair of the committee.

If we can, I would also like to welcome everybody here today,

and particularly those people who may be watching online are residents, so you're most welcome.

If we can move to item number one, the minutes of the previous meeting, the minutes of the

meeting of the Finance Committee held on the 18th of February, 2026, are before us.

Are we content that I sign these as a correct record?

Agreed.

Okay.

Item number two is the declarations of interest.

So how we've been dealing with this on a number of committees is that we will go through the

of interest tonight, and thereafter at committees

we will accept that they are as they are now,

unless anybody has to bring forward anything else

that happens in the interim.

Members are reminded of their duty to declare

interests relevant to the business being considered.

Are there any declarations of interest?

Thank you very much.

We then move on to questions to the cabinet member.

Now, this is quite a new way of managing committees.

So what we have done is made sure

that we asked everybody beforehand

if they wanted to submit a question.

I had three questions that were submitted.

We will limit this to a 20 -minute session in order

that we have plenty of time and a very full agenda

to discuss the things amongst the committee

that we would all like to discuss.

There were three questions.

I do not feel that mine would be particularly relevant

in the interest of time, so if I can ask

Councillor Richard Jones to ask his question

of the cabinet member.

Thank you, Chair.

As part of the council's challenge

to the government's funding cuts.

The council has surveyed residents to further its challenge under the Sustainable Communities Act.

Could the cabinet member give us an update on what the administration has learned to date

from the responses to that survey?

Yes, I'm very happy to.

So, so far we've had over 11 ,000 responses to the consultation,

with 93 .3 % in support

and 87 .3 % strongly supporting us

making a challenge to the government funding's

cuts through the Sustainable Communities Act.

So that number, which is increasing all the time

because we would rate to every principal

taxpayer, council taxpayer in the borough,

that number which is increasing all the time

would give us a very strong basis

on which to launch a challenge.

That certainly would be helped as well by those that haven't responded or backed that

challenge so far, which is of course the opposition, who have unfortunately refused to endorse

it.

A cross -party challenge to the government on our funding settlement would have a better

chance of success on the grounds that they appear not to approve of that £84 million

cut to our funding.

One would hope that they would support our challenge, but so far they have not.

Dr Metry.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm encouraged by that level of response and as you say it would be great if more residents

could respond.

Given this form is part of this administration's exhausting of legal options to challenge these

government funding cuts, can you tell us whether the previous administration sought to take

any legal action against the government over these cuts?

So I'm not aware of any legal action

that they either seriously considered

and certainly no legal action that was taken.

One of the issues is, of course, that by the time we took office,

we were too late in terms of judicial review

to actually bring a case, because there is a window

for doing so.

We are exploring all potential legal options available to us,

including legal options that may go beyond just what the Sustainable Communities Act

can provide.

But unfortunately there was no evidence of anything from the previous administration

other than the 80 something thousand pounds they had paid to a lobbyist to lobby their

own government without success.

Councillor Sweet, if you'd like to ask your question.

Thank you, Chairman.

My question is about the previous administration's use of reserves in their budgeting process.

Could the cabinet member explain how the previous administration used reserves in that budgeting

process and how under your administration things will differ?

Yes.

So the previous administration was unfortunately using reserves to set budgets.

So it claimed to have a balanced budget.

they were budgets that were balanced on the reserves.

And indeed, in this financial year alone,

those reserves were reduced by 50 million pounds

in order to meet general fund spending.

As things stand, the usable reserves,

those general fund reserves can use

for cancelled tax setting purposes,

have gone down from the 205 million

that the last administration inherited

to a figure that is approaching 100,

will be below 100 by the end of the year.

Indeed, at the end of the year,

year end will be £94 million. Were we to carry on with the policy of not closing the

budget gap and instead balancing the budget on reserves, those reserves would actually

run out within the next financial year. In fact, we wouldn't be able to set a budget

at all in April because there are not enough reserves left to meet the gap that we face.

So we have taken the opposite approach.

We have looked at what we can do

to leave a completely balanced budget

in place in 2030 -31,

where there is no surplus and no use of reserves,

where it's balanced at zero.

And then we have made the proposal

for what a council tax increase would need to be

working back from that balance.

Thank you.

I think that we will then use our time to move on to the substantive papers where

Certainly plenty of opportunity for debate. So thank you very much for that

We're going to come on to our item for now, which is very

Substantive papers. So this is the medium -term financial strategy

Mrs. Mary if I can ask you to introduce this paper

as I think that this would be helpful for the committee to set the scene.

Thank you very much.

Just a point of clarification here.

Are you only allowed to ask questions to the cabinet member if you submit them in advance

or notify them?

Is that the case?

That wasn't my understanding.

Right.

Well, I think we were very clear and we wrote to everybody and explained the situation and

scenario and in fact I sent a message to you Councillor Arnott today to say I was surprised

you hadn't raised any questions.

So this would be limited to the 20 minutes, it would be either or.

I've deferred on the question that I actually asked so that we can spend more time.

This is a very substantive agenda which allows debate over the things that I hope that we

wish to debate and the cabinet member is here to ask the questions but it was

very clear that we did ask for the questions to be submitted. So just to be

clear is this a rule of the new constitution or is it your

interpretation? I'm not trying to be awkward but I'm really not clear. Is this

applied to all committees or just to this committee? Yeah Councillor Arliss I

they've all been slightly different, as I said beforehand,

in that this is a new scheme,

and we're all slightly getting used to it.

I'm old school, I sat out the last four years,

but before that, we always allowed

very lengthy and healthy debate.

This is a new thing.

Council Graham would like to.

Well, I mean, so, it has actually been

Labour chairs on other OSCs that have insisted

on questions being submitted, and indeed didn't allow

questions from administration members unless they had been submitted in advance.

Personally, I'm not head up about questions being submitted, but I think probably the

best thing to note is that the medium -term financial strategy, which also has the spending

review as an appendix, could cover just about every possible financial topic that the opposition

members wish to ask about.

I'm very happy to take questions from them under that item.

I think that this committee has such a wide brief that I believe that your opportunity to ask those questions is within the meeting itself.

That's acceptable to me as long as I won't be limited to the number of questions I need to ask. Thank you.

No, no, no, and I wouldn't do that unless we're here rather too late and then I might hurry you up, committee.

Thank you very much. Mrs Mary, over to you. Thank you, Chair. So this report sets out

the Council's updated medium -term financial strategy and its financial outlook over the

coming years. It explains the scale of the financial challenge facing the Council and

the Council's proposed response. The main message in the report is that the Council

continues to face a significant structural budget gap in its general fund and that's driven by a

substantial reduction in government funding. For one's worth, this is a 40 % reduction in general

grant, which is equivalent to 84 million pounds a year by 2930. There's also an inherited budget gap,

which means that the current year's budget requires the use of 50 million pounds worth

of reserves to balance the budget. There are also continuing demand pressures, particularly in social

care and homelessness and also inflation, and we can see that manifesting itself in

the quarter one monitoring report, which is later on in the agenda.

And it also shows the need to maintain adequate reserves to ensure financial resilience and

to protect the Council against any future financial shocks.

The medium term financial strategy itself is in the appendix, Appendix A, and that incorporates

the outcome of a spending review that was undertaken over the past few months, and that

was discussed at full council last month. The MTFS suggests a combination of

approaches to balance the revenue budget over the period of the MTFS. It relies

on £79 million worth of ongoing savings, which includes service reforms

and significant demand management where possible, a reprioritisation of the

capital programme which will reduce future borrowing requirements, a controlled

use of reserves which includes 29 million pounds worth of one -off

investment in an Invest to Save programme which will enable the delivery of the

savings that are being relied on and a planning assumption of a significant

increase in council tax using the council tax flexibility that the

government has given us although any formal decision on council tax will be

made later on in the year as part of the usual budget setting process. Finally the

report highlights a number of risks, particularly around homelessness, temporary accommodation,

adults and children's social care, and inflation. But it sets out to root back towards financial

sustainability with delivery depending on successful implementation of the savings,

successful management of demand, and a significant rebasing of council tax in order to close the

budget gap. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you. I think that that set the scene

Now, can I ask the committee when you ask a question that you refer us to the page numbers

so that we can all see, as everybody can see, this is a headache.

Councillor Henson.

Thank you, Chair.

Page 21, Council Tax Phasing.

The new administration have taken a political decision

to increase council tax in the first year

and to front -laid it, resulting in a 188 % increase

in the ones with the preset, 94 % on current council tax.

Overall, this is likely to have a major impact

upon a considerable number of residents,

including those who probably would normally consider themselves to be reasonably well off.

Can I ask what officers have done to provide the new administration with year -by -year modelling

for the new single or 94 % increase compared to a phase increase over two years,

including the effect on reserves, borrowing costs and collection rates.

Thank you.

Mrs. Mary.

Thank you for the question.

Yes, so we've modelled various scenarios.

As you say, there are two years' worth of council tax flexibility given by government.

If we phased a council tax increase of that size over two years,

there would obviously be a significant reduction in our reserve balances

beyond the reserves that are in this paper here,

and that's the modelling that we've provided.

Can you provide that?

That's a very sadistic.

Can you provide whatever you have

provided to administration?

I can provide the, yeah, I can provide modelling, yeah.

Excellent, thank you.

How's your RAM?

And then cancer.

Yes, well, it may help, Councillor Henderson, that we did ask officers to model the opposition

suggestion at the last council meeting and the suggestions in emails from their members

of parliament as best they were able to, given that there is no documentary basis for that

beyond those emails and the claims that were made.

If they'd stuck, as the Leader of the Opposition claimed he would, to the referendum threshold,

which meant a maximum increase of 4 .99 %

in each council year,

then even with their positions on spending

and on investor -save policies,

they would already be unable

to set a balanced budget this April,

and between now and the end of the council term

would be some £400 million adrift.

That is the Labour policy now.

perhaps Councillor Henderson could tell us how that possibly adds up.

Why not and then we'll come back to Councillor Sweet.

I was asking officers to give us the figures for the modelling of the phasing of any Council

tax increase over more than one year. Thank you.

Sorry, could Councillor Canison confirm it is the opposition's policy not to increase

counter -tax by more than 4 .99 % in a given year? That leads to numbers that are £400

million adrift over the course of the Council term. How does that add up?

Councillor Ireland. I'm very happy to answer that. Well, first

of all I need to say that we don't accept the assumptions made in the spending review,

including especially the need to double the council tax next year.

I think it's a pity that you, we think it's a stunt and we think that you know that, we know that

and then when we come to set the council tax next March, lots of people think, not just us, that it won't be as high as that.

We will see. We do have an alternative plan which the leader has outlined, it's on our website.

and we think, well, we know that that would work.

I mean, I think it's important to remember that Wandsworth has zero debt

and we have high levels of reserves, the highest in London, I think.

We left £184 million in debt by your administration

and your plan has a £400 million hole in it.

How do your numbers add up?

I'm sorry, I was trying to answer.

microphone. I'd like to ask the cabinet member do you accept the increase in the council tax,

governing the council tax will have a huge detrimental effect on our residents. Now

we have a petition to try to stop this and we're pleased to say we have over 10 ,000

signatures so far and some people have given us some comments I'd like to quote of you.

So impact on elderly and pensioners, there's a pensioner whose family has lived in the same

house since 1916 and she is absolutely terrified of the prospect of huge increases which will

leave her without enough money to live on.

You know, at 70 years old the increase will cripple me.

Key workers in single income households, as a paramedic on NHS wages, I cannot afford

to pay an increase and will be forced to terminate my housing contract.

The single woman living alone, increases in rent and council tax are unmanageable.

It goes on and on and on.

I think 197 % increase has been quoted.

Doubling our council tax is unfair.

It's despicable.

It shouldn't be allowed.

What would the cabinet member like

to say to those residents about his plans?

How would you like to answer some of those?

Well, the first thing I would say

is that those residents should join us

in responding to the consultation

and challenging the funding cut from the Labour government.

And the opposition's refusal to join with us and work together

to try to improve the funding situation

is leading to this hole that therefore puts us in that position.

Now, we have identified that the outgoing administration,

the Labour administration, was targeting 45 million in savings.

We have identified £79 million in savings.

That is more than is currently raised in council tax.

Unfortunately, that still leaves us £143 million adrift

of the budget gap by the time we get to 2030 -31.

That £143 million is more than the council's entire payroll.

We could have no staff and not close it.

Now, the question for Councillor Ireland is if she thinks

that council tax shouldn't be increased in this way,

which is exactly what Labour, Hammersers and Fulham are looking at,

according to Cabinet papers out in the last week,

they're looking at an increase of 150 % in council tax

because they are in a very similar position to us

in terms of financial pressures and long -term gap.

If she thinks that any increase above the referendum threshold

is unacceptable, what is she going to cut?

What services is she going to remove?

And how, given the statutory responsibilities of the council?

I would like to ask Mrs. Merriert a question.

So, Mrs. Merriert, I would like to ask you,

as leading the officer team,

what advice you had to give to the current administration

following your modelling.

Thank you.

So, the modelling that we did back in February, actually,

we've extended that modelling forward,

and we've updated some of the figures in there.

As Councillor Graham said, we've updated our savings figures

and we've updated some of our demand pressures,

which weren't, I think, fully reflected in the figures in February.

Without an increase in council tax above the referendum limit,

the council's budget just does not balance.

And the fact that the government has given us that flexibility,

it's there to be used and if we don't use it,

we will not be able to fund the median term

financial strategy.

It's not political in any way,

this is just factual from officers.

Now, Councillor Sweet has been waiting,

so Councillor Sweet, over to you,

then Councillor, Councillor Jones,

and then we will come back to the Labour group.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'd actually like to ask a different question,

just following up on something Mrs. Mary has said.

Can you just set out for someone new to the committee like me what the obligations are on the council when it comes to setting the budget?

Thank you, so the council not officers the council

Which is full council has a statutory duty to set a balance budget and that will manifest itself in the March council meeting

So at that council meeting all councillors must be able to set a budget that's balanced

the definition of balance is that the following year's budget, so 27 -28, would be fully funded.

The medium -term financial strategy sets out that next year, but also the three years hence beyond

that. And as part of our value for money opinion from the auditors, they will look at that medium -term

financial strategy and assess whether the council is able to set a budget for next year, but also

consider its overall financial health in future years.

So the immediacy is the next year's budget,

but there is also an obligation on the council

to be able to fund its medium term

financial strategy beyond that.

May I just follow up on that?

Thank you, thank you very much

for explaining that very clearly.

I think it's so important in our discussions tonight

and over forthcoming meetings to start from that point.

I'm a bit concerned that the Labour opposition council

there's a jumping straight to the 94 % figure

when I think we should be spending time as a committee

understanding what the reasons are behind the need

to increase council tax substantially.

There's no doubt that figure is going

to be very difficult for a lot of Wandsworth residents.

I think we can all agree on that point.

But we're in this situation because of some very bad

decisions that have been made both locally and nationally

by the opposition party.

I may just ask one more question while I have the microphone.

Clearly, a lot of the decisions rely

on what we would do with the reserves,

or what the opposition would have

done with the reserves in their time as well.

Can you just set out in your professional experience

what a prudent level of reserves actually would be?

Thank you.

Yes, so this is quite a difficult question to answer in specifics because there is no set figure,

and I've been asked this question a number of times over a number of years. There is no set

prescribed formula for the level of reserves. So it's all about the environment in which we are

operating and the risks that we face and the median term financial strategy, I think,

clearly sets out the level of risk. And actually, what we've seen over the past few years is an

escalation in those risks, and those risks

that we've been highlighting have been seen,

and you can see that through the previous year

in particular and the current year,

we are seeing those risks manifest themselves.

So we've had significant inflation over the past few years,

and that continues to be a risk for us.

And in fact, the inflation estimates

that we've been relying on in the forecasting

hasn't been enough, and we've seen that already.

So that risk is starting to see,

We're starting to see that in the current year already.

The demand pressures around social care continue,

and homelessness is a significant risk at the moment.

One of the biggest risks that we've had in the past

that has now been mitigated, actually,

is the level of government funding.

That is no longer an unknown risk,

because we know what that settlement is.

That's a three -year settlement.

We absolutely know what those figures are

for the next three years.

So for the first time in a number of years,

I'm able to actually put in some figures

and have some recognition that they might not change.

Unless something fundamentally changes

in the government's approach,

those figures will stay where they are.

So the reserves all have to be kind of set

in the context of the level of risk that we're in.

I would say that in the time that I've been looking

at the numbers and been in charge of the numbers,

this is probably one of the most risky environments

that we've been in because of those demand pressures

and because that inflation that we've experienced

has been baked effectively into the base budgets.

The modelling in here, even with the council tax increase

that's been modelled, reduces the reserves down to a level

that I think is the lowest it should be.

I mean, I would feel more comfortable

if the reserves were higher,

but it settles at around, I think, 76 million.

Any lower than that, and I think we would definitely

be exposing ourselves to an uncomfortable level of financial risk.

Which means that we've got very little margin at present.

Councillor William Jones, and then I will come back to you.

Thank you, Chair.

I mean, it should go without saying that absolutely nobody wants to raise the council tax at the

levels that seem to be required now, not least a cohort of Conservative councillors that

have a legacy of making this borough famous for its low council tax policy.

But we have to deal with the financial inheritance we've received responsibly.

We're also hamstrung by the fact the previous administration didn't take the timely legal

action it could have, because we are now out of time to judicially review at least next

year's funding settlement.

So the cuts for next year are coming without an option for this council to just review

it. But I want to ask the opposition spokesperson, if I may, about a comment she made a moment

ago. She said she didn't accept the assumptions in the spending review paper. Well, can I

take her back then to the assumptions in her paper, which was the March council tax setting

paper, which came to this committee in February, and then it came to the council tax setting

meeting in March. It was endorsed by the cabinet member. It had her recommendation and forward

on it, in Appendix F of that paper, that showed a budget gap of $137 million, which, without

any use of reserves, implied a 178 % increase in the council tax. It was also larger than

the council's then -projected reserves that stood at $116 million. So does she stand by

the assumptions in her own paper from March.

This is a scrutiny committee, and I think we should remind people that it's our job

to ask the questions and your job to answer them. But I do stand by those, but it's a

very common feature of a medium -term financial strategy that it's projecting four years into

the future and almost always we inherited a budget gap from you in 2022 for instance

which we closed. And also I'd just like to make the point it is a one -off investment

that's true but our transformation programme we had a target cost saving of 45 million

pounds. Now you're quoting 79 million but you're spending 29 million to achieve that

so that brings that down to 50 million. I know it's a one -off and you've also added

additional costs to the budget that we proposed. So I don't think what you're doing is going

to achieve much more savings than we were planning. But have I got the floor now? Can

I ask a question, please? Okay. Have your follow up.

Hello, Councillor Richard Jones. Thank you. Well, first off, I'm grateful for

the honesty of Councillor Ireland, who's just said that she does stand by the assumptions

in her March paper.

Those assumptions were 178 % increase in the council tax.

So at least we have that on record.

But I do want to move on to the constructive part of this.

Which is...

Those are, I don't like to interrupt,

but just to be clear, those are projections.

We set a balanced budget.

Now we also had difficulty with your government,

with their kamikaze budget, which added in two years,

I think 25 million pounds to our costs.

And that's what we were dealing with.

I think in the four years that we were in administration,

84 million pounds was added to our costs through inflation.

A great deal of that was to do with your government.

So returning to her assumptions,

which implied a 178 % council tax increase.

She also mentioned the 45 million

that they had projected in efficiency savings.

Of course, there weren't delineated efficiency savings

at that point.

The 45 million figure was simply a target.

I went pressed on it.

The then chief executive said at committee

that there were no realised tangible savings.

That was a broad figure to get us going.

Those were his words.

But if you now have savings plans,

please let us know what they are.

I mean this, bring them to committee.

Let's see the cost of detail.

We haven't seen the cost of detail.

The leader of the opposition didn't bring any costings

at the last council meeting.

The independent member has asked to see those in writing.

That request has been declined,

but apparently there's a meeting

where he might be taken through the figures

that no one's seen.

My request to Councillor Ireland is,

please bring these figures to the next meeting in December.

Put it on the agenda.

We'll go through them line by line.

I'm sure we can agree on some of those savings because that's what we should be doing. We should give the undertaking

Once again the leader can speak for himself. He's made our plans very clear. He will be attending cabinet next week. I understand but

Now no no no I'm doing the purpose of this committee. I I am going to intervene here

This is an overview and scrutiny committee

and we have a very large agenda,

and we are going to stick to the papers.

From now on in, we've had a certain amount

of letting off steam.

We are now going to stick to what this is,

and we have offices here to answer questions,

and occasionally the cabinet member may stay in,

so pop in, but if we can stick to that,

I would be most grateful, okay?

So, perhaps we'll end a question for officers, perhaps?

I'm fine, thank you. I had a briefing with Mrs. Mary, very helpful.

Councillor Cook.

If I can bring it back to practical matters for a minute. Can I make a point of clarification

before I move on? You earlier talked about people responding to your request and the

other side becoming involved. I think there's an assumption there that the

people that we were quoting in response to our petition might not have responded

to the paper that you put out but that's an assumption they probably have.

Trying to bring it back to practical on this, what I wanted to know is so we're

going to be page seven, I think.

Article number 15.

Just for reference, really.

What I wanted to know is what the rationale was

between services that you considered

viable versus unviable.

Mrs. Mary.

I'm not sure I've found your paragraph could you give me the number again please?

I think you said 15.

Yeah my apologies 13.

Thank you.

For clarity, what was the question?

The question is what's the rationale between surfaces that you've considered viable versus

unviable?

I can't.

Can you hear?

Yeah, you know I can hear.

I just can't quite see on that 13 page 7.

Our sentence.

The last sentence.

30, a carpetality.

A carpetality.

So with lower priority or no longer viable, schemes start to do storey shapes.

Mrs. Murray, are you happy?

Are you there?

Have you found it?

Yes.

Councillor Cook, that's a paper later on the agenda, so if I can defer the answer, I'll

find the answer and then, yeah, thank you.

Councillor Cook, are you happy with that?

Yep, that's fine.

Thank you.

Councillor Sweet.

That's sweet.

A question from Mrs. Mary.

Page 39 has a line.

This is the revenue general funds assessment.

It has a line called exclude previously assumed savings, 13 million per year over the period.

Can you just explain what those previously assumed savings are and how reliable they

are?

Yeah, thank you.

So when the budget was set back in February, March, at that point, we had identified some

savings for the current financial year, so for 26 -7, and they were relied on.

We also, at that point, relied on an increase in the level of savings that would be generated,

and that equates to the 13 million that you see there.

As mentioned earlier, the detail of those savings wasn't necessarily known in full at

that time.

So they were assumed when we relooked at the budgets in the summer, they were assumed to

be at risk.

We have then removed them and replaced them with the detailed list of savings that we've

now identified as part of spending review.

And presumably that's a movable feast.

I know the cabinet member has a quick response to one of the questions.

Yes, well, it's just on the suggestion that we were implying that people that have responded

to a petition might not have responded to the consultation.

I mean, part of the reason for that is that by putting out a petition rather than promoting

the consultation or even mentioning the consultation, they're not hearing about the consultation.

In fact, they're reading something that tells them that instead of needing to respond to

the consultation to make the case to government that they've just stopped the cut, all of

this council tax increase is unnecessary.

So I think it is a disincentivizing thing,

but I'm glad that Councillor Cook believes

that people should respond to her consultation.

I hope that she will respond to the consultation,

but that then does beg the question

as to why the opposition refused to engage with it.

One thing that I wanted to bring up,

Mrs. Merry, I think that Councillor Henderson

would like that modelling,

and I just wanted to make clear

that you will be able to give that to him.

I think that we would, in fact,

I think we would like to, as a whole committee,

see what that modelling is.

I think that would be really helpful.

Are you happy with that?

Yeah, thank you.

Prevention versus savings.

So essentially, the contents of page 16 to 18.

Very often, when people make cuts to services,

and there may be reasons for that from time to time.

Perhaps those services aren't actually needed.

But sometimes the cost, unintended consequences,

result in other costs occurring elsewhere in the budget.

So how will the council demonstrate

that the reductions in expenditure

do not increase future costs on homelessness,

adult special care or children's services.

Because certainly the type of increase

we're talking about will certainly impact

some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Thank you, Councillor Henderson.

So I think on homelessness,

the reduction in costs that we've assumed

aren't about cutting services,

they're about reducing the level of temporary accommodation use.

So I don't see that as a reduction in service,

because a reduction in TA is effectively

an increase in sustained tenancies and people not

becoming homeless, either because we've prevented

or we've early interventioned in a way that

has reduced the risk of them being homeless.

So I don't see that as a cut at all.

In terms of social care for adults and children,

there have been detailed reports that

to each of those OSCs, and they've discussed exactly those points.

So rather than me giving an answer in detail on that,

I would suggest that they're probably the better place to answer those.

Councillor Henderson.

Thank you.

In terms of homelessness, I was actually thinking so much about

the temporary accommodation of the challenges

there in terms of costs.

And suddenly we would have a commitment

to try to drive down those costs.

So that aspect of the overall budget, I'm fairly certain

we would support depending on how it was done.

Well, I was thinking more of in terms of people who,

quite frankly, just simply can't pay the council tax

or indeed are suffering from reduction in other services

is actually finding themselves homeless

or in a similar state.

What problem modelling has been done

to try to assess that?

Or what future modelling will be done

to try to assess it?

Thank you.

Chair Chen.

Thank you.

So, sorry, if I take the question to be linked to

how would an increase in counter -tax impact on

The tendency sustainability, I think is that, okay, thank you, sorry, that's a slightly

different question.

I misinterpreted the first one.

We have done, we haven't done, I mean, modelling in terms of the financial impact is quite

difficult because we haven't seen an increase of this size in ones of before.

What we have done is we've strengthened our council tax arrears and debt recovery teams.

We've increased our financial inclusion officer teams and we've transferred a significant

amount of resource to tenancy sustainability and council tax account sustainability.

So we'll be helping people where we can. And we will always say this, the best route to financial

safety is engaging with us. If people engage with us, we will help them with their

their rears and their tenancy sustainability, either in the private or in a social rented

sector and we will work with people on their accounts and we go to the extent of helping

people to budget.

We get people linked into benefits that they are not currently claiming that they might

be entitled to.

So all those services will continue and as I said we have boosted our resources in that

way.

I think the cabinet member has a...

To some extent you can see what the impact might be for people on low incomes by looking

at other boroughs around us who already charge much higher levels of council tax. The fact

is that if you are in a position where you're on a limited income or on benefits, you don't

get more money by living in Lambeth or Merton, but you have to pay more council tax now,

indeed more than it would be even after an increase as large as 94%. Now, the adjustment

of getting from one to the other is a very difficult thing. That's precisely why we're

trying to make sure we have generous council tax reduction scheme in year one

and we try to increase the number of people who are helped through that. So I'm

not trying to downplay the problem of transitioning from one to the other but

in terms of what the impact and what that means for people, well what it means

is what it's like to live in Merton or Lambeth and the fact is this is what the

government intended. It's a current Labour Treasury Minister who described

the tax in this borough as artificially low and said that our low tax was a product of

a Tory funding system which he was proud to have reformed it and to enforce us to increase

council tax. So if Councillor Henderson thinks that this policy of the government to force

us to increase council tax is going to drive up homelessness, why didn't his administration

publicly oppose it?

Why is he still not opposing that cup?

Why is he refusing to campaign on it?

Mrs. Merrick, could I ask a question

that I think is very relevant

to tonight in the paper we're looking at?

My understanding is that central government

has imposed significant additional cost

with the temporary accommodation

and additional features,

am I correct in that assumption?

Yes, so I think what you're referring to is the cost of homelessness to the council and

the impact of increasing homelessness where the government's funding does not cover our

costs effectively.

So as homelessness and temporary accommodations increase, the net cost of the council has

significantly increased, not least because the subsidy that the government

gives councils doesn't cover the cost of providing that service. Thank you and

that's factual. Councillor Ireland.

I do have a question actually. My understanding is the local housing

allowance was frozen since 2011 and that's not the current government is it?

although it was unfrozen for a short while,

and the obligations on councils to accept responsibility

for homelessness was part of the Homelessness Reduction Act,

again passed by a previous Conservative government,

not by this current Labour government.

Is that correct?

So, local housing allowance 2011 is applied

to temporary accommodation subsidy,

and you're right, the Homelessness Reduction Act in 2017

extended the statutory duties for councils to consider earlier prevention.

Councillor Ireland.

I have a question for the cabinet member, but just before that I think it was mentioned

that the transformation programme target of 45 million might not be realistic.

My understanding is, and I think the Director is sitting there, but definitely with my conversations,

not only was it achievable, but it was probably on the low side.

Now, when the previous Chief Executive spoke like that, I should imagine it was because we were still developing the business plans,

which have been developed over the summer, so it's dependent on that.

And also, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that we are disincentivizing residents to respond to your consultation.

Can you have written to every resident in the borough,

and really, we've got 10 ,000 people to respond to ours?

Is it over 300 ,000 in the borough?

But my question is for the cabinet member.

Councillor Ireland, we did agree that we were supposed

to give the cabinet member questions.

If it's talking about the paper and he comes in,

that's fine, but we can't change the rules now.

So we are here to talk to officers and the cabinet member may pop in.

So we are not changing the rules, please.

Okay. I'd like to ask...

I'm very happy to take her question, so she's happy to take mine.

I want us to stick to the OSC. We are doing it this way.

I'm sorry. This is an important meeting and we are going to stick to the rules.

I accept that. So I apologise once again for Mrs Murray.

I do have a question for you then, if that's okay.

It appears from reading the medium -term financial strategy

that there's a theme here of making cuts to services and they seem to be mostly

even if not intentionally it's the underprivileged who will suffer the most

I mean council tax everybody accepts is a regressive tax but doubling it is

going to have an awful effect on them and also the council tax that we will

discussing the revisions to the council tax reduction scheme later but again

cutting or abolishing the 100 % discount, again, that will affect disabled people.

Access for all, the cuts that are proposed there later on in the agenda,

you know, again, that will disproportionately affect a lot of poor residents,

definitely in my ward.

And, you know, what you're planning to do with the Roehampton regeneration scheme,

Again, any cuts there will disproportionately affect many of our poorer residents.

Sorry, can I try on?

Which page are we on? I did ask we could have a page.

This is a general theme on the MTS.

Oh, I'd rather we stuck to the pages, but do carry on.

Well, I think anyone that's read that will understand.

It's the general theme I get from reading the medium -term financial strategy and the proposals.

It's all in the spending review.

And freezing the ones with grant funds for four years, which is the same as abolishing

it, isn't it?

So really...

Councillor Arnn, could we have a question, please?

Okay.

So I'm just wondering about the wisdom of doubling council tax and at the same time

cutting grants to the voluntary sector whose help is likely to be needed more than ever

by our residents, particularly the ones that are suffering with the cost of living crisis?

I'm not sure that that would be a fair question to ask any officer. So, cabinet member, but

as I said, I want to stick to the papers and to the OSC and page numbers, please.

Yes, well, I'd say, first of all, she said that the 45 million was perhaps, you know,

something that would be easily reached and they could go further, but it seems that every

that we've actually proposed and put forward, she opposes.

On access for all, it's not actually a cut,

because it wasn't in your budget.

You had no money in your budget to fund the access for all

or borough sanctuary programmes.

They were coming out of reserves,

and there was no budget beyond

what had been allocated for reserves.

It was never in normal budgets,

even though you seem to regard it as day -to -day spending.

In this meeting, you are opposing millions of pounds worth

of savings and efficiencies,

which would mean that instead of a 94 % increase,

it would actually have to be much higher.

And this is what I don't understand in your position.

You had, of that 45 million, only identified 7 million.

If we don't want to have to freeze the Wandsworth Grants Fund,

we don't want to have to do these things,

we're doing these things to limit the amount

that we are being forced to increase council tax by.

Were we not doing these things,

then the increase would need to be larger.

And as she noted, it's a regressive tax,

and therefore the impact on some of those who are poorest

would be greater.

But she can't tot up tens of millions of pounds

worth of things that she actually thinks ought to continue being spent

and then say that the council tax increase,

which assumes those are savings,

is actually unnecessary or too large,

because what that would mean is to balance the budget,

it would have to be an even bigger increase to council tax.

Now, I am going to bring us back to the purpose of this meeting.

We have had a lot of debate that has drifted away.

We are going to be on page numbers.

We are asking questions.

And Councillor Sweet was next, followed by Councillor Richard

Jones.

But as I said, we are going to stick to the rules on an OSC

committee.

I would like to respond because some things

that the cabinet members are factually incorrect.

So, Councillor Ireland, we are going to stick to an OSC meeting

where we have a page number, we are talking general terms,

we are spending a lot of time,

we have a lot of things to get through,

and I know that your side has some very difficult,

demanding, specific questions to ask of officers,

and we will proceed that way rather than he said, she said.

Councillor Sweet.

I just wanted to bring us back to the paper to challenge some of the points that Councillor

Ireland made earlier about the impact on vulnerable people because it just doesn't seem accurate

if we look at pages 41 to 44 for example.

I think it's very clear in the paper that the savings are from doing things like reducing

the number of children entering care.

That's page 42.

Page 45, implementing a series of programmes

to empower residents to stay independent for longer.

Page 41, the council is committed

to maintaining strong performing children's services

and will take decisions related to the care

of vulnerable children with appropriate sensitivity.

I actually read this paper and thought,

gosh, this administration has gone out of its way

to make sure that the savings do not impact vulnerable people.

Thank you very much, Councillor Sweet for that.

Councillor Richard -Jones?

Thank you.

Taking us back to the paper again, I mean the...

And if we could have a question.

Well, page 20, for example, outlines the various assumptions in the budget gap.

One assumption discussed tonight is the previous administration's transformation programme.

We had the claim from Councillor Ireland that there were business cases ready to go amounting

to 45 million pounds.

Just a question to the Executive Director of Finance.

Were there fully costed savings plans that amounted to 45 million pounds at May of this

year?

So the business cases were still in progress at that point, and as Cancer Island said,

they were being worked on over the summer.

So we're in a better position now because time has given, we've been given time to finish

those business cases.

Some of them are in significant amount of detail.

But yeah, back in February and May, we were still working on them.

Now, I am minded that we have got an awful lot more to get through, so I hope that we

can keep the questions brief because I think we need to move on.

Councillor Henderson.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, can I say I am pleased that the current administration is carrying forward

our policy in relation to children's services and our social services in trying to reduce

to demand through preventative processes.

So that has been in train for a very long time,

Councillor Sweet, but I am pleased nonetheless.

You are continuing to pursue that.

My question, which so far hasn't been addressed,

relates to the recommendations on page five.

Councillor Ireland talked about the Wandsworth Grants Fund.

The other aspect of the recommendation, 3C,

is to end the Borough of the Sanctuary programme.

My question is, and I think it's more of a political question

rather than a question to officers,

what precisely is the rationale behind that? Thank you.

And we are here to talk about a financial crisis

and how we can save money, so I think it's important to frame that.

Councillor Graham.

Yes, well, twofold.

One, that programme wasn't funded.

There was no budget for it.

There was no budget for it

in the Labour administration's last budget.

Therefore, to continue funding it in the way that it had been,

it would have been necessary to have found additional money,

additional spending,

which would have meant a higher council tax increase,

and we didn't feel that that could be justified.

It does not mean that we are not doing anything in that area.

We are not providing services that relate to things

of which that programme touched on,

but we will not be funding the programme that we inherited.

I think that the commitments around it are,

because it's a national scheme and accreditation and so on,

are quite politicised,

and actually I don't think they are particularly unifying.

I think there is a political agenda behind it,

which is not one that the current administration shares,

albeit that we want to have a generous and supportive

circumstances for refugees,

just as in the borough's long history.

So it is something that we could not afford to fund

and didn't feel we should fund in the circumstances of the cut

that we have faced from the government.

Quick sub.

Quick sub entry.

will you then bring forward a paper

on what precisely you are going to do in this area?

Because unless I'm mistaken, this is about the only place,

certainly in the medium -term financial strategy paper,

where the borough sanctuary is actually mentioned.

So, quite simply, will you bring forward a paper

explaining what you are proposing to do?

Thank you.

Well, this is the Finance Committee

under cabinet member for finance, so it's not my paper to bring forward. I'm sure we will clarify

what our policies and arrangements are around these issues as what would be expected and that

that will be clarified as we move forward. Councillor Ayler, this will be the last question.

Again, sorry Mrs Mary, my understanding that the borough sanctuary scheme was at least part funded

from government funding for Ukraine refugees, is that correct?

Yes, and that's a statutory duty, so that continues under the revised proposals.

Committee, so if we can turn to the recommendations on page 5.

Three.

Oh, three.

Recommendations?

That's yours.

Sorry, I'm above my pay grade.

How very rude of me.

So the recommendation is the report

to the Financial Overview and Scrutiny Committee

is for information and comment, of which we have had plenty.

Any findings, views, or recommendations

arising from their review of this report

will be reported to CABANA in conjunction

with its consideration of the paper.

Those are our recommendations.

We would like to propose an amendment if that's possible, please.

Amend away.

So looking at the...

Councillor Arlen, do you have it in writing for me and for...

Squid will do it. Can I read it out?

All right, I'm dyslexic.

Okay. Sorry, I had IT problems. Couldn't get the internet.

So, looking at item 3, bullet point B.

If it would assist, I think you're trying to amend the cabinet paper.

What you have to amend are the recommendations on page 3.

You're trying to amend page 5.

My mistake has arrived as well.

Thank you.

Is that still appropriate then?

On my amendment, I would like to propose an amendment to...

The ones with the Grant Fund will have been suspended for six months next month,

and we would have been frozen for six months.

We would like to review the effects of the freeze

and also proposals to ameliorate the detrimental effect of the freeze.

So we would like us to not wait four years,

and I know that it says elsewhere in the paper that it will be reviewed, but we would like

an urgent review because it has been frozen for six months.

I think I understand where Councillor Ayman is coming from, but obviously the Wandsworth

Grants Fund receives ad hoc requests for funding from charities that vary over time and can't

be predicted. So I'm not quite sure how we're supposed to review that impact in more than

very general way. And I mean the impact will be that that is one source of funding that

was previously on a discretionary basis and under both administrations in the past, prior

to 2022, absolutely something was there, something the last Labour administration inherited,

to provide additional source of funding. That additional source of funding won't be available.

But the extent to which charities are not able to draw on that and can draw on other

things for schemes that we don't yet know about because they haven't been applied for.

That's not easy or even possible to assess.

I think there's a degree of confusion here because this is very much only a recommendation

and an amendment doesn't really quite work.

I just wanted to add to what the cabinet members said.

I think the sort of review that I understand that Councillor Arlen is proposing is sort

of needle in haystack stuff because, you know,

what the grant fund allows is for somebody

to apply for a grant and numerous types,

you know, under both labour administrations

and external administrations, those grant applications

were refused because the criteria were quite rigorous,

they were quite demanding.

And so a review would have to look in quite forensic detail

to the counterfactual of what the charities

or what the charities were, what their application

would have looked like and how a hypothetical committee would

have judged each application.

I mean, that's essentially enormous resources.

I'm not actually sure what light that sort of exercise

would actually cast.

I can definitely give you some examples of.

I think we're really straying away from this.

I'm not convinced that the amendment quite

works with the recommendation.

But if we want to just take a vote on the amendment

as it is, and then perhaps we can move forward.

I think otherwise we could be going around in circles.

Councillor Anderson?

But just for my understanding then,

the reviews that are mentioned in the paper

that will be reviewed within the next four years,

how is that going to be done?

We are going around in circles.

I mean, I think to my mind, I think,

the part of your suggestion that I think is unworkable

was the urgent review.

I mean, you can take a longer term, more general view

of a sort of a scheme like this, and you might get something

meaningful out of that.

But an urgent review of a very particular scheme like this,

I think, is not going to get results

that are going to be at all useful to the work

of the council.

OK.

If we can please move on.

I believe that the recommendation here,

we either agree or we don't.

You want to change it.

I don't want to.

I would vote against your sort of amendment or not.

Councillors, how do we go on this one?

I don't think we should be.

I think there is an amendment at the moment.

Right, okay.

I just, I think we've got ourselves in a muddle.

This is a recommendation.

We've listened to your views.

It's been taken back.

The cabinet member will take this to cabinet.

They will discuss it.

Can we move on?

Noting it in the papers.

Are we all in agreement for that?

Thank you.

Now, committee, it was important that we spent time on that last agenda item, but we have

a lot of other things to talk about, and there are other things that we all want to talk

about.

So, I am going to reiterate that what we are going to do is we are going to do this as

an OSC.

We have offices here.

we are going to ask questions,

and we have page numbers, okay?

So, we are now moving to the

General Fund Capital Programme update.

We're not going to have an introduction on this.

I think it is what it is,

and I propose that we go straight into questions.

Are we all happy with that?

Councillor Sweet.

Thank you, Chairman.

Just as a principle for how we discussed this paper,

can you just clarify, Chairman,

A lot of this, if not all of it, has been discussed

that the committees that are most affected

by certain capital changes.

Do you want to limit us to particular lines of questioning

rather than jumping into specifics

that might belong better in another committee?

I accept your view and I understand that.

However, I think we are probably adult enough

to be able to discuss the things we want.

As I said, I want to be very, very clear.

I think we wafted off the point on the last paper.

So I accept your point.

And shall we say, I will be mindful of that if we wobble.

Would you be happy with that?

Of course.

Well, may I ask a question about page one?

Of course you might.

Page 116, items F and G, I was very curious about.

So item F relates to the reductions identified

in relation to lighting.

I think really important that we maintain lighting

around the borough to ensure people feel safe.

I was though surprised that some units

are still not operating with LED.

Can we just get a bit of clarity on that

and why that would generate a reduction

in capital spend, even though we're proposing

to presumably spend capital on doing the conversion

of units to LED.

And then item G, which is about Queenstown Road South

of Battersea Park Road.

It says safety cycling improvements will continue

to be delivered within a lower budgeted sum.

It'd be great if we could understand, please,

what those safety improvements will be

and why they're deliverable within a lower budgeted sum.

I think you answered your question.

These are very specific.

I'm not sure Mrs Mary or her team might be able to answer those.

I can answer a general point about the street signs and the LED lights.

We've looked at the phasing of the programme that was already approved

in February and revised effectively the assumptions around how often

and how soon units need to be replaced.

There's obviously an offsetting saving

in terms of the revenue impact of changing to LED.

It's a large programme, so it's one of those things

where you get range things on a kind of a test and replace

kind of programme rather than doing it all at once.

In terms of Queenstown Road,

the traffic engineers have revised the scheme,

but they still consider it to be a scheme

that delivers safer cycling in that area.

but they can do that for a lower sum.

Oh, sorry.

Do you mind if I answer Councillor Cook's question now?

Because actually this is the list, Councillor Cook.

Sorry, when you asked earlier which schemes were deemed to be viable and unviable

that have been taken out of the programme,

it's page 116 and 117 that list those schemes.

The ones in particular that were deemed to be unviable are 5B.

So one's a town centre, the one -way system.

There was funding in the programme for a scheme to improve the traffic flow around the town centre.

And that was an unviable scheme. TfL have just consulted on a revised scheme that the council doesn't feel does what it needs to.

So that was definitely deemed to be unviable.

and we also had some budgets around pocket parks

and sports pitch that just didn't have any detailed schemes

behind it that were deemed to be viable.

So that's why they've been taken out.

Thank you.

If I may say in public, how very lucky we are to have you

with such a huge depth of understanding.

So I think we would all like to say thank you very much.

That was a very detailed answer to a question.

So well done you

answer Ireland

Just a couple of questions here. I think you might have asked it slightly so again page

116 it would be helpful to know which one of these schemes has been cancelled and which have been postponed if you know

but really I'm looking at a so looking at the net zero decarbonization

carbonisation strategy that's saving the 20 million and the Wandsworth

environment and sustainability strategy 8 .2 million big figures and I'm

wondering if if you give us an idea of what impact this will have on the

council's climate commitments and on our carbon reduction targets and also this

is a technical question really, my understanding is that these funds were

to make adjustments to buildings that are leisure centres and schools so in

general fund and so I'm interested to read that the money will be released in

order to reinvest in the council's housing stock which is of course HRA so

I'd like to understand what's going on there thank you. It's quite a lot of

questions. Yeah thank you so the funding that was in the programme didn't have any

identified schemes attached to it which is why we've removed the funding and as

the comment says there if other schemes are identified then they would come

forward at some point in the future so in terms of how it would impact on our

decarbonization I think because there weren't any detailed plans the answer is

at this point not. The comment about the housing stock is I think it's an

interesting one and actually you're right that that probably shouldn't be

So I will double cheque that in case it is a grant that we can apply.

I will cheque that.

Thank you.

I think Councillor Graham has a point on that.

It is a broader point as well.

All of these things, there is not the capital there to spend without borrowing.

Therefore, although we are trying and indeed have succeeded in bringing the anticipated level of borrowing down

for the Council.

By keeping schemes like these,

and certainly some of these others within that fund,

that would increase the need to borrow,

increase the amount that then needs to be paid

in debt interest, and that then adds

to the financial pressures based within

the general fund and the HRA.

So one of the things here is not suggesting

that these are bad ideas, or that we wouldn't have wanted

to take them up and develop them further.

It is that when there is nothing attached to them at the moment or they haven't been

taken forward, to take them forward would entail additional borrowing, additional debt

interest.

That is not something that we think is financially responsible at this time.

Councillor Henson, I am minded that I think that probably there is going to be quite a

lot of debate on item 6.

So just bear that in mind.

Shall I get in that page on month six, items E, the All -Mistake renewal, Port Hood Place.

Perhaps I have to say that the New Hampshire residents would be extremely disappointed

to hear that this is being cancelled, especially at this fairly early stage.

I appreciate 82 % vote in favour of the consultations

and the ordinary may not greatly impress

the current administration,

but it demonstrated very strong feelings

from people who've been living in quite inadequate

housing conditions,

largely as a result of underinvestment

over a period of 44 years.

But what actually does surprise me

of this particular decision is, by my reckoning,

it will take a good four to five years

before we even actually get around

to looking at a Portsmouth place.

I'm tired of accepting that Lock A should be the priority,

but we can see now,

it just seems to be completely performative,

and frankly, a serious kick in the teeth

to very many people who are actually looking

to the ordinary renewal plan

as a means of improving their housing.

I think the cabinet member would like to respond to that.

Well, I mean, it's two points, really.

One is that we are in danger of falling into Council

Squeak's point of litigating within the Finance Committee

things that are really much better debated at length

in the relevant committee, like the Housing OSC.

But the second, this isn't about stopping things

within relation to Block A or those particular community uses.

It's about co -location.

So that instead of spending, in this case,

for two different things that you just spend for one

and have some crossover between the two,

the fact is that the funding was not there

to pay for all these things within the plans we inherited,

and we do need to try and find those savings

to avoid additional borrowing.

Councillor Richard Jones.

Thank you, Chair. I've got two quick questions.

First, on page 117, paragraph M, I was delighted to read that £30 ,000 of NSL funding is being

found to support the initial works of the John Archer statute. These plans went on ice

over the last four years. Great for the committee to have an update on how that scheme is being

brought back to life.

I think that's an extremely positive thing.

Secondly, and it's on page 125,

totter down street pedestrianisation.

So there's a remaining 10 ,000 pounds

in the capital programme this year

for just consequential tidying up works.

But I think in total, something like a million pounds

has been spent pedestrianising totter down street.

And yet, by the end of the last administration,

economic activity on that pedestrianised part of the street

had practically dried up, which I thought was

an appalling return on investment actually.

So I'd be really interested to know what plans there are,

if there are any, given the investment

of the last administration, to restimulate

economic activity on that stretch of Totterdam Street.

Yes, so I will, I'm not the best place

to talk about Totterdam, so I will leave colleagues

of mine elsewhere in the cabinet

to clarify unless officers are able to.

But on John Archer,

it was one of the things that we were disappointed about

was when we were in opposition,

was not seeing those plans for a statute progressed.

I think this is something that we can now

get cross -party support around.

The 30 ,000 pounds will not pay

for the whole statute, unfortunately,

but it will allow a proper fundraising campaign

to be put together with proposals that will actually attract that sort of funding from

others to get that statute up and going.

I certainly was something that I announced at the event to mark the end of the borough

of culture here, and labour counsellors afterwards were coming up to me with competing bids for

where the statute might be placed.

So I'm hopeful that this is now something that can be taken forward on a cross -party

basis and we can finally get the statue that John Archer deserves.

And Councillor Graham, can I ask that you take to the relevant cabinet member the question

about Totterdam and the economic stimulation?

Obviously, we are committed to our town centres and to try and make all of these things work.

say it's not that we, and certainly as a teaching counsellor, I want to make sure that those

things are going forward.

I will definitely take that away and make sure it's a decent answer.

So as I said, mindful that we probably want to have a really good discussion on six.

Have we got any more questions?

And again, I go back that the recommendation is very much, it's basically just noting and

Obviously, this is all minuted, so those minutes will be going up to Cabinet for discussion.

Are we happy that we agree to that and move on to six?

Thank you.

So, if we can now move on to item number six, the culture, leisure, and future concession

scheme.

We have all read through that,

and I think we have a number of offices.

I think that we felt that a quick overview

of this would be helpful for the report.

Which...

Thank you very much, Mr Alexander.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, a quick overview is...

Sorry, could you introduce yourself and your role?

So, Tom Alexander, Assistant Director

for Culture and Leisure, and part author of this report,

as it was a collaborative piece.

So, just to set the scene a little bit,

this is not a direct replacement

for the Access4All scheme.

This is about looking at what we can do specifically

around the culture and leisure offer

in the borough of the Access for All scheme,

you'll remember covered other services

like bereavement and fishing licences

and all sorts of other interesting bits and bobs.

I'll hand over to my colleague to explain

a little bit about the background to that.

What we're doing here is trying to set out

something which we think works for

the new leisure contracts which went live

in October last year.

It is proving so far to be financially very positive

and also try and enlist the help of other partners

who we feel should be contributing more towards

the health and wellbeing of our residents.

I'm Sarah Connor, Director of Strategy Communications

and Climate Change for Wandsworth Council.

I'm conscious of time so I'm not gonna give an overview

of the Accessible Programme if that's okay

because I'm mindful that we've had reports to the Finance Committee about it and about its impact.

Wonderful. Thank you very much for setting the scene. So I think if we can just go straight into

questions. Again, page number and relevance to the paper, please.

Councillor Cook.

More of a comment really than a question.

So in general, based on the access for all scheme, we feel that the proposed replacement

is actually inadequate.

so we'd call on you to bring back the access for all scheme?

On what basis? Just bring it back or do we have some more specific detail?

So the transfers and the changes that are currently proposed to be made to the access

for all scheme will mean that it's limiting some provision. So I was given an example earlier on,

is that there is, for example, on the Alton,

although, Councillor Ireland, you might want to explain that,

but on the Alton Estate, there's a community centre

that, under the access for rule schemes.

Do you want to, am I okay to explain, or would you rather?

No, I think you just got a bit confused.

Oh, okay.

So there are services, for example,

hire services that will no longer be discounted.

There are schemes that people could access such as leisure centres, etc.

A lot of this will be reduced from my understanding.

I think the cabinet member has a response for that.

Yeah, I'd just like to ask Councillor Cook, if she wants to spend more money on this area,

how much she wants to spend and how she would fund that spending?

Well, I think that's possibly, you talked about working cross -party.

perhaps that's something that we should be able to sit down together and work out.

Unfortunately, we've not had access to scrutiny or been able to discuss

any of these future forward moving plans with you.

So if you would like to provide that opportunity, I'd most welcome it.

Well, I mean, I appreciate she wasn't the council at the time,

but the last Labour Council set a budget

which did not allow for access to all to be funded.

There was no budget for it ongoing from next April.

No money had been identified.

So I'm not convinced that her own party

was going to take this forward.

And if they were, and if they are now

inclined to do that, that is money that has to be paid for.

It's basically saying you want a higher

than 94 % counter -tax increase.

Mr Alexander, could I bring you in?

I specifically asked a question about the additional costs

that this had and also the usage.

and I think it would be very helpful to our discussion

if you could summarise that for us.

Sure, yeah.

I mean, our total usage tends to hover around 3 .6,

3 .8 million over the course of a year

across all of the ledger sites.

Of that, if you take the last two years,

it was about 1 % that usage was access for all.

This isn't the wider scheme, this is just the ledger side.

and I think we calculated that had a cost

of about 87 ,000 to the council.

And we saw an increase of about 1 .8%,

so 2 .8 % in total for the last full year,

but that had a cost of about 217 ,000 to the council.

So you can see that a fairly small percentage

increases in terms of the cost.

Yeah, so the take -up was perhaps not as much

as you wanted, but a significant increase in cost.

Thank you.

So which is relevant to the question

is where is that money coming from.

So that is not for you to answer.

I think that's just a statement for me.

Well, Oscar, supplementary?

No, I think that's OK.

I think that's OK, but I would still go back

to what I'd suggested before.

And I think if we could perhaps sit down and work

across party on these things,

because the poorest people in the borough

are being affected by this,

and this is about social mobility.

And if we reduce that,

you know that has massive knock -on effects,

just coming from the perspective of working in charities

and working with people that do have less

to move forward with.

So if you would keep that in mind,

that's all I would request, thank you.

Thank you very much, and that will be minuted.

Councillor Sweet.

Thank you, I want to try to avoid asking

very detailed questions on items,

but I have to say I am struggling a little

to follow pages 161 to 163, which

lists the reported take -up of access for all offers.

Can the officers just explain, to take a few items,

am I correct in thinking this means

that the council has been subsidising people

to have free access to the part in the park,

in Battersea Park, Secret Cinema, Wandsworth Pantomime.

I think some of these, if I'm correct in this,

people, residents should be quite surprised to know

that the council has been subsidising those items.

Can I just cheque, I've understood, thanks.

So you are correct, Councillor Sweet,

in terms of the access for all funding

was used to provide discounts on

and putts in the park, and also to provide

a limited number of tickets for access for all residents

to things like the Secret Cinema,

ones with Pantomime and other shows

that were part of London Borough of Culture.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Alan Jones.

Thank you, Chair.

It follows on from Councillor Sweet's question,

but also Councillor Cook's comment about social mobility,

because I think the council should be mindful

about how it can increase social ability in the borough.

But a lot of these subsidies seem to me

to have a very poor link, if not any link,

with social ability.

I don't see how subsidising a putt in the park

does enhance social ability.

And one of the reservations I always had about access for all

was that there wasn't a rigorous link demonstrated

between the money that we put behind certain concessions

and the social value or the social ability that

was generated from that.

So I'd be grateful to obviously comment on

what they think that link looks like

under the revised scheme.

Mr. Alexander.

Thanks.

So, I mean, if you take the table you're referring to,

I mean, it's a considerably shorter list,

so we are narrowing in on things like the leisure centres

and the sports centres and sports pitches, hire, et cetera.

And we are trying to make sure that we are

providing access through various types of

concession schemes and fees and charges,

which will help with mental wellbeing,

physical wellbeing and social connectedness.

And that won't include certainly the examples

that you've mentioned specifically.

We are working with other contractors,

so GoApe would be an example where they might

continue to offer a discount, but again,

that wouldn't be as part of the previous access for all.

scheme, that would be because they chose to, because they thought that was something that

they should do.

Thank you very much.

And I think the detail is helpful, which is why I asked the question.

Councillor Penderson.

And then Councillor Ireland and then Councillor Sweet.

Thank you.

And in part, to answer the Councillor Richard saw James's point, if you look at page 169,

and the third paragraph is on the equality impact

and needs assessment.

And it quite clearly states that the people who had used access

from membership include children, young people,

disabled residents, women, black residents, Muslim residents,

and residents experiencing financial hardship.

In fact, elsewhere in the papers,

it indicates that those people who have

other examples of access for the ball,

65 % were women, 36 had a disability,

and over 23 % came from essentially the global majority.

So in constructing any alternative scheme,

it clearly needs to take into account

those cohorts of our residents who are the most vulnerable,

and certainly even is underprivileged.

I am certainly not convinced that this particular paper

actually does that.

One very specific example, and obviously as the previous

cabinet member for public health has been keen on

prevention and clearly culture at leisure

and a whole range of other things are vitally important

to maintain high levels of physical and mental health.

One area which this paper identifies,

which I would entirely agree with,

is the fact our need to address significant areas

of the ottoman population who do not swim.

There's a reference at all on page 156 at the bottom,

water safety and swimming lessons.

Excellent, don't disagree with it.

Then when you actually sort of look at page 154 in relation to the Tuking Bank IBO, you're

actually reducing access to that and the reality is you're looking to offer concessions of

only 20 to 40%.

That, in many cases, especially in council tax increase, will completely price the belt

of the range of very many people who are the very ones who actually need to have access

to swimming and who need to learn to swim as well. So, as I said, very often with these

policies there are contradictions, there are unintended consequences, but what I am saying

is that any scheme alternative to access at all needs to take into account those most

honourable people in our society.

Thank you.

Cabinet member has got a response to that.

Well, first of all, I think Councillor Henderson

is misreading the table in the equality and income assessment

because those were not the people using Access for All.

Those were the people who might have been eligible

to use Access for All.

We have no idea who used Access for All

because the last administration of which he was a member

failed to collect any data on individual users.

The same thousand people going to Country in Common

could also have gone to Bassy Park,

could have also gone to the Secret Cinema,

could have also gone to the Bassy Park Fireworks,

all discounted at 90, 95 % subsidy rates,

and they could have all been middle -aged men,

as far as we know, and there's no evidence

that it was who they were, or what they did,

or how many people were benefiting it.

And his administration chose to announce this

as the most popular, widely successful scheme going.

it's simply impossible from the data that we have,

because it was failed to be collected properly,

to know that that was anywhere near the case.

And I, as I said, I got the data for the usage.

Now, Councillor Ireland is now followed by Councillor Sweet.

Sorry, I mean, it says we didn't collect any data.

If that's the case, how is it that this equality

impact needs assessment can identify access

from what was actually used.

65 % of women, 36 % with a disability,

and 23 -plus percent for people from the global majority.

We must have collected some statistics.

Otherwise, the quality impact needs assessment

can actually quite lose figures.

So if I can perhaps help there, Councillor.

So when individuals registered,

We collected information on the protected characteristics.

However, to Councillor Graham's point, what we didn't do is then collect when they used

a service.

So if you like, there was no golden thread from if someone used it, going to the Leisure

Centre, us recording the fact that they used the Leisure Centre.

So the Equality Impact News Assessment is based on our analysis of those who were members

of the Access for All programme as opposed to those who actively used it.

Thank you for the clarification.

Councillor Allen.

I have a question for Ms. Alexander.

Depending on your answer, I might have a follow -up.

So, first of all, what I remember is the reserve was created from an unbudgeted surplus at

year end, so nearly five million pounds.

So we put that into reserve, and there's actually 2 .3 million left in the reserve.

My question is, I am not clear from this, I know that in my ward there are two community

halls, although one is about to be demolished, where access rule would enable you to rent

space to cheaper rates. Is that correct? Because I can't see it in the paper and I don't know

whether that will still exist. I saw the library, but I wasn't sure if that applied to community

centres like the open door and the accord.

Yes, so that would not continue.

OK, so really, it is a personal thing for me really. In my ward, this might be Ms O 'Connor,

I would like to look at the Equality Impact Assessments, specifically pages 177 and 178.

Now, I'll get there in a minute.

So there, excuse me, it's taking a long time.

So at the bottom of page 177, you're looking at indices of deprivation 2019.

And you've got a couple of maps and another one colourful at the top, if you're looking

online, not if you're looking at papers, on page 178.

Now, the indices of deprivation, they're now

seven years out of date.

And I feel really strongly about this,

because I live in the ward I represent, West Hill.

And I always think that we are very much overlooked.

And there are two community centres, particularly

the Open Door, which is based in West Hill.

And if you look at the map on page 178,

you can see the colour at the top of West Hill is comparable to not the most

deprived but second in the other areas like Roehampton. Now the issue with West

Hill is that it's a very mixed board and you have a concentration of very

deprived people on the estates where one of these community centres happens to be

and they want to use this centre but they are priced out of it. Now the

ironic thing about this is that this community centre was built by funds

raised by the same people or their descendants that now are not able to use

it and I would really I'd like a plea really that I'd like some more data

about this indices of deprivation either more up -to -date or more detailed because

I feel that a lot of our policies are based on this information I don't think

it's accurate, it's either out of date

or it's not in detail enough to capture particular areas.

And I think that won't just be the same just in my world.

Because I see things on the ground.

Cancer Ireland, the census is only every 10 years.

Not much we can do about that.

So if I may, we use the latest available data

in our quality impact needs assessments, Cancer Ireland.

But I do take your point that it does time out.

So as soon as we get more up -to -date information,

we'll make sure that that feeds in.

And I know our data and insight team

are always looking for what data they can find,

how they can cut it, and how they can enable us

to drill down on it.

Sorry, if I may, just quickly.

That's really helpful.

Shortly before the election,

I was working with people from the children's team

who acknowledged there was a particular issue,

for instance, that is not apparent in these maps

with children in West Hill.

It's been discovered by looking at other data.

So it's really a plea when we're looking at equality impact

assessments that we don't just rely on this,

because honestly, you don't get the fair outcomes.

You really don't.

I'm sure officers have.

Yes.

But it'd be good to look at that further, actually.

Thank you.

Council Graham, then Mr. Alexander.

Just to make clear that these are statistics

collected by the government, by the Office of National Statistics at a national level.

It would be helpful to know if Councillor Ireland, while she was in administration for

the last four years, raised it with the Labour government, or used her Members of Parliament

to raise it with the Labour government.

Absolutely, I did. And I also raised it constantly with the Office of the—I'm like a broken

record.

So are they going to do something about it?

I'd be genuine to them. Are they planning to do something about it?

Alexander who was going to respond?

Just to confirm, it is a bit hidden away in Appendix A

under the liner and bereavement allotments and haul hire,

that's the bit that covers.

The thing to remember of course is that our fees and charges

are the upper limit, so if there are groups

and we can look at how we charge differently if it helps,

there's obviously an opportunity cost to that

and we have to make sure that works out.

And of course the other thing we can do,

and operators tend to do, is campaigns.

So it's not completely set in stone, the cost.

I'm sure Councillor Allen is ready for another petition.

I really would like to wrap up this section

because we have more to go.

I just want to make one point.

Having 2 .2 million of reserves

doesn't mean to say you have to spend it.

So can we please go...

but that is our Council Islands policy, of course,

more quickly than us.

No, stop it.

If you can please go to the recommendations,

which again are the same, this is just to be noted.

And I think it is important that the matters

that we have discussed openly,

which have often been quite ward specific,

that those are taken to the Cabinet.

So if I can ask that Councillor Graham make sure

that all those things go up to Cabinet.

Are we agreed that we can move on?

Thank you very much.

So we now move on.

We are now going to move on to the quarter one financial

monitoring.

No introduction on that one.

It is as it is.

If anybody's got questions for Mrs. Mary, I know that

We're probably all quite keen to talk about paper eight and paper nine, so it's up to

you committee, but maybe this one might be slightly briefer.

Do we have any particular questions?

Yes?

Item 2 .1. Thank you. So page 197, I think it's 2 .1. So the overspend of 5 million in Q1,

that's concerning. I'm just wondering how confident are you that the efficiencies

that have been agreed when the budget was set in February will be achieved?

What's your backup plan?

Mrs Mary.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Cook.

Yes, so the 5 .3 million is showing as a projected overspend.

There's also in paragraph 3 .3 reference to some assumed mitigation.

So effectively what we're saying there is in order to deliver an overspend of 5 .3 million,

we would also need to deliver mitigations of just under 12 million.

As I said earlier, this is a really significant period for us. We're seeing pressures and overspends

across a number of the areas and demand assumptions that we put into the budget in February just aren't

playing out in the current year. Some of the mitigations that we put in place are reliant

on bringing forward plans that we had and we've put in extra resource to do that. So I'm confident

that some of those mitigations will come to pass,

but there is a risk that that 5 .3 million will go up.

Quickly, Councillor Graham, and then Councillor Richard Jones.

Well, again, it may be something that Councillor Cook isn't aware of,

and I appreciate she's a new member of the Council and the committee,

but this overspend isn't a one -off.

There have been repeated overspends,

particularly in adults, social care and health areas,

but others overspend too for the last few years

because the demand figures, I think principally,

were not adequately reflected in the MTFS

and financial planning.

The figures that we presented for the spending review in July

were based exclusively on the budget that we inherited

that was set in February, March of this year.

The reason why the spending gap, the budget gap went up

between that initial report and the final one

that was presented in September was precisely

because we have added these demand pressures in

in order that the routine overspending that was occurring

can be prevented.

Now that's still, it's still challenging to prevent that

and that unfortunately has been a culture

of overspends just being a thing,

but we have increased the demand forecast precisely in order to try and hold departments

and areas and teams to their budgets rather than allowing them to overspend them this

way.

Councillor Richard Jones.

Thank you. That tees up my question quite nicely, actually, because if you look at page

198 and the overspend forecast, I mean, the primary drivers are actually no surprise at

They're nearly, it's health and children's

that really account for the entire variance

plus an inflation contingency.

And if you then look at the mitigating actions assumed,

there doesn't seem to be a complete correspondence with that

so the health mitigations

don't seem to reflect the health variance.

Children's mitigations are more than the variance.

But then housing seems to be doing most of the work, but actually housing is projected

to come in roughly within budget.

I know this is an ongoing issue that we've been flagging for many years about the demand

pressures and the overspends in health and children's, but could the Executive Director

of Finance just give us a broad overview of what work is being undertaken in these directorates

to control expenditure?

because my assumption is it's going to take some time

to address these overspends

because they are longstanding and they are challenging.

Mrs. Merry.

Yes, so thank you for the question.

So particularly in health, we've pulled forward

some of the work we've been looking at

with our external partners

to consider how we manage demand

and they're doing a significant amount of case reviews

and looking at alternative ways of providing care

to existing clients.

And that's reflected in the mitigations,

but you're right that some of these mitigations

do take some time to materialise,

hence why there would be an in -year overspend

in addition to the mitigation shown in the table.

Children's is similar.

Children's is, as some of you will know,

is highly impacted by a very small number of cases.

And we've seen that coming through in the past year.

So the mitigations there would rely on

no further increase in difficult cases

and also trying to step down some of those difficult cases.

And as you say, the children's forecast is reflecting

that we don't feel that that's all going to be achievable

in this year.

Housing is an interesting one

because whilst the mitigations there are significant,

I think some of that mitigation is

going to have to start manifesting itself

as a projected overspending year.

I mean, look at the figures.

We've seen a plateau, actually.

We've done a significant amount of work

in the first part of this year on our front door.

And we have seen the number of presentations

have continued to rise.

But we've done lots of work around avoiding

accepting people into the duty by finding alternative outcomes for them at that early stage.

So it has started to plateau, but again, you're absolutely right, these things take time.

I do think some of that four and a half will start, as I said, to manifest itself as an overspend there as we see what the half year position is.

we can't, I don't think we'll be able to mitigate it in full.

So I would expect the quarter two position

to have an increased overspending housing,

unfortunately.

Notwithstanding, there has been some really good work done.

And actually, some of the figures

that are coming through are really quite encouraging.

And we've got a new director who's

doing a whole system -wide review of how we address homelessness,

and is particularly focusing on how we get people out

of temporary accommodation into better accommodation quicker

than is currently happening.

My understanding is that this will come back

to our next meeting in December.

So this is an ongoing, because I think

it's very important in the finance committee

that we keep an eye on all of this.

I think we all agree on that.

Do we have any more questions?

As I said, I'm mindful that we've

got council reduction scheme coming up

and the work programme.

Are we happy to agree to this one?

Thank you very much.

So we will now move on to the council reduction scheme.

This is the consultation.

You have the paper there.

I think this one is probably going to need an introduction.

There seems to have been a great deal of confusion, misunderstanding.

So if you could be clear, not too long, not too long, we've still got quite a few things to talk about.

Just to give us an overview of this, I would be most grateful.

I think Councillor Graham was going to start.

Yes.

So, where we were coming up with this, one of my principal concerns, because of the scale

of the council tax increase that we are being forced to look at if the government doesn't

reconsider its position, was that there would be a particular impact on very low incomes

if we just went about this in a conventional way.

We wanted to avoid a sort of large one -off increase to people's counter -tax bill, trying

to move to a new system in one step and actually smooth that path.

Now, we would like to smooth that for everybody.

the debate previously about can we stagger

or phasing counter -tax increases.

Well, I mean, the same principles apply there.

Unfortunately, we can't do that

because if the counter -tax increase

that we need in order to plug the gap,

what we can do within the counter -tax reduction scheme

is stagger it so that we have a very initial,

sorry, very generous initial support

and then bring it back down to the overall

quantum of support that we offer now by year four.

Because we're looking to balance the budget across through to year four and I've made that the basis the

Council tax increase we can do that without it adding to council tax bills if we left the scheme

unreformed and left the discounts where they are the cost would increase from

7 million around 7 million right at the moment to

Nearly 14 million in a permanent ongoing way if you don't then bring that that cost back down again to 7

I mean, that's seven million a year you need to find.

That you're talking about an eight percent plus

increase in council tax to keep the discounts

where they are.

So we think that we have to move towards a scheme

that is more, is closer to that of other London boroughs,

not surprisingly, because those other London boroughs

already charge council tax at those higher rates.

But it is fair that it acknowledges that everyone

should pay something, which was the case

under the previous administrations,

only recently that that was not the case

for working age people.

And that does cushion and phase that impact

so that although when we get to the end of four years,

people are having to pay more,

there is also support for a broader group of people

because we're including some that don't qualify right now.

And we don't have those large one -off increases

which would leave them unable to plan ahead and adjust.

Officers, if you'd like to add.

I'd firstly just like to start with an apology.

I'm Alex Wilson. I'm the Director of Revenue Services.

I just wanted to highlight in advance that there are a small number of minor

transposition errors on the CTR benchmarking data in Appendix C on page 218 of the report.

So, apologies for that, and I just want to assure members that none of the errors make

a material difference to the overall benchmarking position, but I'm, of course, happy to provide

revised data outside of the meeting.

Thank you very much.

Before, Councillor Sweet's going first, but before we get to there, I just want to be

clear about this.

So this report is seeking agreement to consult

on proposed changes to the working age

council tax reduction scene.

Pensioner entitlement is set nationally

and is not affected by the proposals.

So I just want to make sure that everybody understands

the purpose of the debate.

So Councillor Sweet is going first.

Thank you, Jeremy.

What would the cost saving be if the council

will simply reduce this to the statutory minimum

and just have the pensioner scheme?

So I think the advice I've had on this

is that there isn't a statutory minimum as such.

You have to design a scheme for working age.

It's not specified how low you could potentially go on that.

I think if we had no such scheme at all

for working age people, you would save several million pounds.

Unquestionably, whether that would actually be compliant

with the rules given that you have to have a scheme,

I'm not so sure.

You could definitely make it less generous

because this would still be more generous

than quite a few in many ways.

But you then have that offsetting impact.

I think to offer the same overall level support

that we are now at the end of four years,

I think probably strikes the right balance.

It means that that scheme isn't causing council tax to increase,

but it is still providing the same level of support

in terms of financial terms that we are now, slightly more in fact.

It's a valid question, so I think that we would like that information

if it's possible at some time in the future.

Councillor Sweet, you have the supplementary.

I mean, sorry, just following on,

and I think Councillor Graham's sort of covered it.

There is a requirement to have a scheme,

but there is no maximum or minimum amount

that the scheme has to cover.

So in terms of your question,

I can't say any more than that, I don't think.

But on page 210, it says that the working age scheme

has a projected cost of 6 .9 million.

So am I right in thinking that if we didn't have a scheme at all, that would be a £6 .9

million saving?

Yes, if there was no scheme at all, we wouldn't be paying £6 .9 million out yet.

Councillor Henderson.

Thank you, Chair.

If I can draw your attention to page 214,

and the EINA, Equality Impact Interception Assessment,

makes it quite clear that the removal of the EWA -1

category will particularly affect disabled working age

residents, carers, and parents and families

with children under three.

I mean, two issues.

The first is just simply an observation.

I'm fairly certain that a cabinet member did actually

say at full council that the council tax reduction

scheme would be more generous than that currently on offer.

Now, setting aside arguments of how it is

sustainable for the time being, I mean, it paid me, isn't it?

So I would ask him to perhaps be considerate of making that statement because it isn't

at all correct.

However, my real question is, without the council is actually moderate, the combined

effect of council tax increases and changes to the council tax reduction scheme on low

income households, including those just above the eligibility thresholds.

Councillor Henderson, I want to remind you again this is about a consultation, not the

scheme itself.

Councillor Graham.

Yes, just to answer Councillor Henderson's point, this will be significantly more generous

in the sense that we are currently spending $6 .9 million and next year it will be $12 .4

That is a big increase in the financial level of support

we offer through council tax reduction.

Even when you get to the end of this in 2030, 31,

we will still be spending more than we do now

and we will also be helping a wider number of people.

That is more generous.

Now, what I did not say is that people would continue

to get the same discount level that they get right now.

And indeed that will adjust in each year.

It won't be the same in any given year

because of making sure that the percentage increase

that they are facing is staggered and smoothed.

But 12 .4 is significantly more generous than 6 .9.

Sorry.

Chair, sub -commentary.

So sorry, I was just checking.

I just want to keep confirming that it's consultation,

so we could be here for hours arguing about this.

I understand the point, Chair, but surely the consultation should take into account

the comments which are made around this table.

And what I would think would be a very useful thing before you go out in consultation is

to establish whether the Council has model, the combined effect of Council tax increases

and changes to a council tax reduction scheme

on low -income households.

So that is the point, and I think it's entirely relevant

to the actual consultation.

And in terms of whether it's more sort of

generous scheme or not, I mean, if you look at the board

costs currently existing scheme, which, you know,

I think people have mentioned is more expensive,

But I'm not going to argue semantics of that.

Clearly, the administration decided to front -load the help of two people.

Very simple, understandable.

But I think there are much more fundamental questions that need to be addressed

in terms of how this council tax reduction scheme will work.

Thank you.

I think the paper's quite specific, how it would work. Maybe officers.

I think it has been quite well thought through how the council reductions are going to work.

I am confused, Councillor Henderson, as to why you do not think it is clear enough.

Just to pick up on the point about the impact on vulnerable residents, the risks are identified

within the report and clearly there are risks around impacts on collection rate and the

particularly for low income households to be able to cover the cost of the

council tax liability. So the council already has a very good framework of

support for low income households. Miss Mary mentioned earlier some of

that support mechanism and in particular some of the additional capacity that's

on into the council tax team to help monitor arrears and use information from things like

the low income family tracker to proactively engage with households that are struggling

to pay their council tax and some of that will be linking in with our financial inclusion

officers to help give those households sort of a wider array of support, for example,

helping them to get access to other benefits and support that they might be entitled to

but aren't currently claiming.

So that's a very important point too.

Thank you.

So that's one thing and then the other is obviously using the consultation to collect

information around the potential impact on those vulnerable groups and then to monitor

the impact of that post implementation of the new scheme.

I can hear that Councillor Henderson is asking if you modelled it.

Have you modelled it? That's my question. Thank you.

I'm asking it for you. How collaborative.

We haven't modelled it, but we've identified the risks and we've looked at mitigating factors

because I think it's very difficult to know what the real impact of making changes like this will be in reality.

but it will be something that we will monitor very, very closely.

I think Councillor Mayor's got a quick one.

Yeah, so just briefly, obviously what we have modelled and indeed is set out in the paper

is the financial change for each group according to which band they will be in.

So that impact for each of those households is modelled.

But what we don't know are necessarily some of the differentials

around those that are currently in the WA1 band.

I mean, a part of that, so some, for example,

you can be in your 20s and be on PIP for ADHD

and actually have a relatively good income

compared to some of the other bands right now,

and this, although, you know,

it involves paying more council tax.

That's entirely fair and proper

if you look at actually disposable income

in those circumstances.

Likewise, you can have somebody else who's on PIP

but has significant costs because of their situation,

carers, issues and things like that.

And so they might, because of their circumstances,

they might be on similar incomes,

but have actually very different outgoings.

So we are going to contact everybody

we've got an email address for as part of this,

precisely to get some of that information back

about the impact on individual households.

but in terms of modelling what the council tax sale need to pay will be

and which band they're in, without that we do know.

I think it's very important, and this is a message

that we very much want to go up to Cabinet,

is that we all recognise that this is going to be very difficult.

This is a situation nobody wanted to be in.

And I would like to thank all of you for the sympathetic work

that you are doing on something that is very difficult.

Councillor Ireland.

Thank you. I can see a lot of work has gone into this.

So I hope I haven't got this wrong.

So I'm thinking about residents in WA1 and we think a lot of them will end up in WA3.

And just looking at, we expect the council tax there to be, I think it's about £365.

25 pounds and they'll only be able to get a discount of 25%.

So that makes it about what, 270 pounds.

So what I'm concerned about that is,

you might have people in there that are used

to not paying any council tax.

So they're not, where's my council tax bill?

And when it comes to the consultation,

they're looking at the plans on page 243.

You're saying that, where'd we go?

I do recognise it's a lot of time and money resources in this, but I do...

It says here, the level of...

Second line on the box, item number seven.

The level of consultation required for changes to the council tax reduction scheme

has been scaled back from the initial scheme

and it is no longer necessary to write to every council taxpayer.

Now, I do appreciate there's a lot of resources in this,

I'm thinking particularly of that group where they're not expecting a council tax bill.

And I just want to be assured that we're not just expecting them to look at the local papers,

because what is the local paper anymore? I don't know.

You know, it would be really helpful to have some reassurance that people know this is coming,

because we want them to pay, then we have to give them a notice.

And we all agree we'd like to improve council communications wherever possible.

So it'd be really helpful to know what your thoughts are on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. The references to the scheme that was revised back in 2016, where

we wrote to every council tax resident in the borough and at great cost and actually

we didn't get a significant amount back from that. So we want to do a much more targeted

campaign this time and Councillor Graham's already mentioned it and that is to use Council

tax data and benefit data that we hold where we have email addresses for all of those currently

in receipt of CTR, we will be contacting them to advise them of the consultation and to

provide them with information on the proposed changes. So we want to encourage as many people

as we can to provide their input into the consultation process.

Do we know how many people who are not currently paying council tax,

do we know who will become paying council tax?

That would be a useful statistic.

So, the 7 ,102 households that are currently in WA1

who will be moved into the other working age categories

and will have to pay some council tax.

And that's really helpful.

And one thing I will say is that as councillors in our own ward,

it's beholden on us to make sure that we use our networks

to disseminate information.

I always feel very strongly.

Councillor Graham.

Yes, just a very quick point on top of that.

There is a cause of difference between contacting people

to make them aware of a consultation

and then contacting them when the consultation is over

and we've actually finalised the scheme

to let them know that this is what their bill will be.

And I think at that point,

we need to give very significant attention

to how we do that and how we make sure it's publicised,

because I think it's quite right.

And one of the reasons, another reason why

we want to make the scheme particularly generous

in the first year is so that those people

that are going out of nothing into one of the other bands,

it's a relatively low amount for them.

And it makes it easier to get that,

because I think there would be real issues

with just expecting people to have paid nothing up to now

and not have to think about it,

they're not just going to automatically know

to pay their bill and know how to pay their bill.

So all of those points, when we pass a consultation,

I think are really important to making sure

that this is introduced in a way

that doesn't cause problems.

And if, I hope it's not above my pay grade, it probably is.

I think it would be really helpful

if we could maybe have a very short item

that came back at the December meeting

so that we can understand how the shape is coming on.

I think it's something we all agree

that we would wish to be brought back.

Am I allowed to do that?

Thank you very much.

Wonderful.

Councillor Richard -Jones, and then I think if we can,

I think we've all had our say.

So Councillor Richard -Jones, and then if we could move on

to our work streams.

Thanks very much, Chair.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page

when it comes to the WA1 category,

because that's what's supposed to be removed,

and it's causing the most anxiety.

The definition is on page 215.

And I first just want to understand

that I've understood this criterion correctly.

And I recall when the last administration

consulted on bringing in this new scheme,

I think the majority of responses

said they found the scheme difficult to follow.

So, I think that that is a legacy that we have.

Councillor Isla is chuckling because she can remember the same paper.

So, the definition is two parts and they're both required.

First, that there's a child under three in the household.

That's condition number one.

Condition number two is then that the applicant and or any partner are receiving any level

or component of disability living allowance, personal dependence payment, armed forces independent payment,

or attendance allowance.

So, if I'm, so that's the applicant or any partner.

So, this is, to my mind, quite a wide category,

potentially, because it would encompass, for example,

a couple with a child under three, both in employment,

and potentially in high income employment.

I've misunderstood, I think, because Ms Wilson is checking out.

Yes.

So the child under three category, to be subject to be placed into the WA1 category, you still

have to meet the income standards that are set out in WA4 and 5.

So, it doesn't allow someone to have significant levels of income.

They have to still be within the scope of the scheme on the basis of their income.

OK, I see.

So then the definition on page 215 is not a complete definition?

I would have to say no.

OK, that's...

I've got to say that that has, and it's no criticism of any officers present, but it

has impeded my understanding of this scheme, actually, because that is not the definition

of the WA1 banned in that case.

And I think the Council is absolutely right, so I would strongly recommend that you change

that.

And also, I think it's extremely important, particularly if it's a vulnerable group, that

everybody understands, everybody understands, particularly them.

I mean, if we're struggling, it's not very helpful, really.

So, I'm proposing, I think we've had a very good debate.

We actually agree on quite a few things,

not on everything, but we do agree.

And, as I said, it's very important to this committee

as a whole, regardless of your political persuasion,

that we keep an eye on this.

So, are we all agreed on that approach?

And I think we're agreed.

Can we move on to the work stream?

Thank you.

This will be our last paper.

Now, this is item number nine, the work programme.

I was very particularly keen that we reappraise this,

I think is the right way of looking at it.

And I've been working with Councillor Graham on this.

As we have been entering into very difficult,

uncharted territories of huge budgetary change,

perhaps it would not be appropriate to have a work screen

that had been set some time ago,

because I would suggest that we need the flexibility

to be nimble, to be able to address things

as they come forward.

So this is not any intention to hide anything

or to be less than transparent.

So instead of bringing you a whole list of things

that we were going to talk about with time scales,

the intention is that we have an informal meeting

with the committee at the end of November

to collectively discuss amongst ourselves.

Now, bearing in mind, we are a fiduciary committee

in many ways.

There will always be things that come forward

that we must discuss, that we must agree,

and that we must debate.

That's very important.

But I think it would be very helpful

if we all sat down together and discussed

the things outside the statutory duties

that we would like officers to work on,

things to be brought forward to the committee

so that we could discuss them.

Thoughts?

Councillor Richard -James.

Thank you, Chair.

I think that way of proceeding is really quite sensible,

having an informal meeting at the end of November

to discuss what topics we might want for the work programme,

and then formalising that at the December meeting then

There's some kind of concrete timelines for going forwards.

This is probably more appropriate

for the informal meeting,

but if it's helpful to kind of get people thinking,

one topic I think that we should give serious consideration

to the work programme is looking at some

of those demand pressures,

particularly in health and children's.

And I say that for two reasons.

Firstly, because particularly in opposition benches,

we have a wealth of experience in Council Island.

They used to have the finance brief,

and Councillor Henderson needs to have the health brief.

And it'd be helpful to draw on that experience

for what this committee does.

But secondly, whilst the service committees

will be looking at the levels of service

and performance in those areas, as you said, Chair,

we're the finance committee,

and ultimately we're the ones who are responsible

for almost holding the other committee's feet to the fire

in terms of what are still troubling overspends.

And I think getting under the bonnet

of why there are those under spends

and how we can rein them in.

Because it really is the question of this council,

I think, actually, and we have an opportunity

to draw an experience from across this table.

And that can extend, I think, almost certainly beyond March,

but actually to the next 12, 18 months, potentially,

if that's what the committee thinks would be appropriate.

Absolutely agree, Councillor Henderson.

I was out of Care and Health.

Councillor Squeak was education.

We do have a lot of experience.

So I really welcome that.

But thoughts from the opposition?

I think we were going to propose something very similar.

I think we were going to suggest a task and finish group,

or whatever you call it.

It doesn't really matter.

Absolutely.

I mean, the whole changing issues,

which Councillor Richard Jones has outlined and any more.

So I think an informal discussion

as to where we take this committee

and what we particularly drill down on in the coming year

will be very sensible indeed.

Thank you.

Marvellous.

I think that's, what a wonderful note to end on.

I genuinely, genuinely believe in collaboration

and we do collectively have a lot to give,

even if we don't agree, always.

Councillor Ireland.

So if we have other ideas,

we're just looking at one subject at the moment,

or how do you bring that up?

No, so the idea is instead of having a list

with times of things,

this is what you're gonna talk about,

we need to be nimble and flexible

for what the good Lord may throw at us.

But we will have a meeting,

So, Councillor Richard -Jones has come up with,

I think, very sensibly, adults and children.

I think that would be a logical one.

And we will have topics that we feel

that we would like to discuss as a committee,

bearing in mind that we're at finance, of course.

And then we can have that informal discussion

and come to a consensus about what we think is important

and give a rough timeline to.

Does that sound like a cunning plan?

Councillor Henderson was gobsmacked.

You were!

Bless you.

You have a very scary reputation,

and people say, it's not really that bad.

Anyway, so thank you very, very much for your time.

I would like to close the meeting.

I'd like to thank the members, the cabinet member, of course all the officers, and for

those watching at home, I hope you found it constructive.

Thank you very much.

Interactive webcast player

Finance Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeThursday, 8th October 2026 at 7:30pm

Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 8th October 2026 at 7:30pm