Finance Committee - Wednesday 24 January 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Finance Committee
Wednesday, 24th January 2024 at 7:30pm
Speaking:
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
but sense, and that is money coming into his 2,000,002 and a half million give or take last year, and it's forecasting six and a half million next year, while the year we're now in and 2 million for the two years after that. I guess I just want confirmation. Really. The six and a half is actually in a sense retrospective, and that's payment for houses were built last year or the year before and the 2 m are purely guesses at the state of planning applications at the moment and what the building programmes are actually under development right now is that more or less right, and if it is, how does that six and a half billion compare with
almost anywhere else, we will have the biggest growth boroughs in in in the country.
yeah, that's right, so the time lag is an about, but it's September 22 to September 23. Growth in dwellings is captured and then multiplied by a national average figure to get that allocation to the 6.5 is an actual allocation as opposed to the 2 million going forward, which are projections. As you say, I think 6.5 is one of the biggest allocations in the country and it is exceptionally by once with a kind of previous standards, so you can see that that's been significantly more than then the amount that we received in the current year for the growth, the 12 months before the ones that have been captured this year, to think it's one of the highest
OK, Councillor Graham, yes, well, first, I am just on the point that Councillor Bolton, I'd actually looked at figures up, so what it is is the the properties added that then become liable for council tax in the year to October 23 October 22 to 2023, which was 2,859, which is a very significant number, and of course that was based on quite essentially, homes that were still built under the previous administration and then were completed and only occupied in that time, so we do await at some stage the the Labour cliff edge when the fact that there are no planning approvals to build out
comes to us and comes to fruition, however.
but well, that's fine I shall carry on.
anyhow, my question was actually around the overall level of government funding, which which obviously includes that we say that the total funding coming in is 11 million.
then there's another two and a half million, as we, as we heard, probably today there's another two and a half.
in terms of the benefit from the local Hounslow housing allowance uplift so that's that starts to look like 16 million a difference compared to last year, which is significant, is certainly more than last year, when it was described as more generous than expected why is it that within the forecasts we're assuming that government grants will be flat for the future?
and I said, thank you Councillor year, so just to clarify the two and a half million that you refer to on the local housing allowance is in grant, it's a projection of the impact that the increased local housing allowance may have on on our costs so just to clarify that it's flat because we assume that without any other information to assume we assume that the that any increase in government funding would be potentially offset by additional service pressures.
and just follow up on that, but sit under the line of just relates to government funding, shows flat not not, so, obviously, service pressures may come come to bear on that, but as I am, as I noted at the line that just relates to government funding coming in is flat should should it not be flat.
well, I would I, as I said, without anything else, to go of bearing in mind we have had government cuts in the past, we assume flat, because we assume it would be offset, so we either gross both figures up or we leave them net, which is what work we've done historically in Wandsworth is we've we've kept that flat, so if the Government's own figures show that the year before last it was
it was 98 million than 103 million last year, there was 109, which, as of today, is now, can we 111.5 so flat is not in any way representative of the last three years of settlements, is it?
sorry, Councillor Auntie's, you, you looked as if you might have wanted to say something.
sorry, can you put your microphone on?
firstly, thank you, I, I think it just illustrates the difficulty of trying to forecast when with a one year settlement, and I think if you look at.
paragraph 18 you'll see that no paragraph 19, rather you'll see that the Services Grant that was cut this year, it was 2.9 million, it's the she'd gone down to of 24 25 down to less than half a million.
the and I'm not an expert, obviously, but I can't work out why some grants have gone up, some have gone down, we're not told why, so I think officers are just being prudent with its good financial management. Don't bank on money, you're not sure that you're not gonna get, so I'm very happy with that approach. Thank you OK, thank you card right at Carson, so it may well further excuse Raiders haven't been there to transgressive report.
Councillor Graham
OK, I'll call upon you when I need to call upon you, your colleague, Councillor Richards Jones is actually next, I've got U-turn.
OK, thank you, Chair, or a question on paragraph 38 about charges before us, my question, can I just check with Ms Mary so?
the assumptions in the budget before us, I think, assume either no or or a notional uplift in fees and charges as I correct.
they assume no uplift in fees and charges unless the decision has been made to increase fees and charges.
thanks for that, that's how it appears in the paper, so so last night at the the the Housing Committee approved a 6.7% increase in fees and charges, so presumably before March can we assume there will be further increases in fees and charges as part of the budget.
well, we every view fees and charges every year, so you could assume that service committees, the other service committees, would receive a paper, yes, what that would say you'd have to wait until those papers came out.
so on, on the assumption that we are going to see more than just the 6 point.
quite high, and I can see that they, the 2025 and the 26 figure, is based on 2.7% for future years, well, in actual fact the Bank of England is target is 2%, so would be great to understand.
at spelt or.
so that's my for that's my first question and then my second question is.
Councillor Ireland mentioned good financial management, so I thought it'd be a good time to talk about the change programme that the Council are investing in, and it seems a bit of a strange time to do that, given that we are in, as you say, are in a cost of living crisis residents need all the money they can.
so and the Council is spending reserves on a project that has no apparent return on investment, so if you, if you wouldn't mind, I'm sorry about this question, thank God, Councillor Hedges, I think it's probably fair to say I wouldn't normally intervene as Chair but,
I'm pretty sure that we, this committee, agreed that we will look at the change programme and there will be a report coming to the next committee, so obviously if it would be, I think it would be helpful to wait until the next committee when we have the report for those quest. Thank you, Chair is just because of the budget gap and the use of reserves, and the this has come up because we are worried about our residents and keeping money in their pockets. I think I said the budget gap. The reason why I'm asking that question. I think I understand that, but obviously we've also heard that the at the moment we're going to have to read this is the first draft of the budget, so the next time it will come through with that anyway, if you go off to sort of voice-mail, so paragraph 27 talks about it to transparent and be expected to deliver. Financial benefits. Is perfectly reasonable for Councillor Harris to ask what those benefits might be. It's in the paper in front of us
well, I've commented that it's going to be a paper coming to the next Committee Councillor Hedges'.
look, I don't know.
I will only add to what I said a couple of months ago that the change programme is essential to the continued good financial management of the Council. I'm really sorry he would have to be really a patient just for another few weeks you will get a detailed report next month that will set out all the savings the change welcome, isn't just about making savings, it is making the best use of resources used in digital but honestly what you'll get next month will explain why we are so pleased if you could be patient for another month, I'd be grateful, thank you OK and then you had a question about the inflation
yes, thank you Chair, so I mean I think the point has already been made that the the Bank of England forecast hasn't been hit for it for a long time, pre high inflation. It wasn't running at 2%, and that was its that was its target, then so you know, we've seen it. Actual inflation vary both above and below that target. What we've reflected in here is a number of a number of analysts that sit around the sector who have reflected on the current position and are projecting forward at that rate. It isn't a figure that we've made a pass sales, we've got you know a whole raft of kind of analysts that sit behind that we refer to when we when we make our assumptions
thank you.
Councillor ambush,
can I make a picky point before a serious question for the Cabinet Member for the sometimes the figures in the tables don't match the figures in the text by 1,000 pounds, and I know we're talking about big big budgets, but can we make sure that doesn't happen in future it slipped slightly unsettles me when I when I read the report.
so the serious question for
Councillor Ireland is, do you agree with Councillor Bentley, who is the leader of the Conservative group on the LGA and the leader of Essex County Council, he says that 6.5% settlement fails to address the problems that all councils are facing, most obviously inflation but also other problems such as special challenges adult social care, children's housing and homelessness,
and the LGA itself forecasts of 4 billion funding gap over the next two years. So, as well as the inadequate settlement, the government continues to sigh for long term planning by proposing settlement for one year only, it would be much more sensible for two or three, and furthermore we get changes that like happened today. I mean very nice, no one's gonna say now to the 500 million pounds, but it's kind of rather late in the day to add in bits, and the numerous earmarked grants are very confusing, I think as Councillor Ryan and we're saying, the service grant the household support grant social care grant prove better care funding. Public health grant is mind-boggling, and there's no rhyme or reason why some of them have gone up and some some of them have gone down. Well, what's the strategy? In these circumstances, I want to congratulate the cabinet member for producing a balanced package. I know it's only draft at this stage. Despite us awaiting confirmation of grant settlements from the fag end of the government. So the question is how you cabinet, does the Cabinet Member agree with me that the inadequate level of funding and the ridiculous short term planning approach by central government it impedes the delivery of our local services, but all very late in the day though,
right. Sorry, Councillor ambush, was that question directed to the Cabinet Member or the offer to cap a fine. Thank you, cabinet member yeah, thank you. I do agree with that. Of course we are very kind of bashed, just a minute to Councillor Graham shush. I don't tend to interrupt anybody, so please don't interrupt me I I. We are all very grateful for the additional funding we will have to find out how much it is, but it is very difficult to plan and the additional grant we've got is it's all very nice, we're very grateful, but it does not make up for the additional cost because of demand pressures. Increasing the cost of supplying those services is going up and inflation, so extra money is good, but it's not enough for our needs and the government have not addressed the structural underfunding of local government, and it does worry me, because we, I'm really thrilled, that we've managed to so far produce a budget that works
and I know that lots of other borrowers are not in that position, and I just look forward that I see that you know there's trouble ahead unless the government address these issues, so yes, local government is underappreciated and underfunded.
sorry, thank you very much.
also supplementary a short one, please, yeah.
how can we forward plan our budgets when we don't know whether or not we can expect the 4 million pounds from government for the household support grant we were is continues to the end of March, but in less than three months we don't know what's going to happen, perhaps the Cabinet can member can explain why that's important and any reason why the government haven't given us a decision yet.
thank you. You are referring to the household support fund. Yes, that does really trouble me, I think it's downright cruel PR. These are people's lives they're playing with, we need that money, people need help. We bonds with last year go for point 1 million pound from tranche 4, and we used over two and a half million of that to provide food vouchers for children who are eligible for school meals so they can be fed during the holidays. Also other things, we help people with their council tax and providing school uniforms now the cost of living crisis is far from over people need this money and it's just not fair, it's not fair on council officers or us trying to plan, but it's especially cruel for people that rely on that money. So yeah, I'm very disappointed about it OK, thank you very much, cabinet member Councillor Osborne
yeah, the the headlines here are obviously that the council has put a lot of work in, it's been prudent, has been cautious and has provided all sorts of things which have been difficult to provide, but which are outstanding compared with other councils their cost of living support scheme is the most generous in the country, for example and
that has been done in a period when the government has prevaricate and delayed and not been entirely clear about how much money we are going to get, and we are still waiting as Councillor Downes, but as she says, there are still chunks of money which we are still waiting to get a better, clearer picture on when we do get the money, it's a sticking plaster on something, it's always welcome, but it's a sticking plaster on a bigger, bigger problem when we are trying to deal with the general health of the economy in this borough and investing in the lives of people. The headline here is the Conservative government. Dithers and Wandsworth council delivers
thank you, Councillor Osborne, and I'm going to take a second round of questions I've got Councillor Grahame, is there anyone else who wishes to ask some more questions and we could also think about the
yeah, anyone else wanting to okay, I've got two more questions on the main bulk of Councillor Graham and Councillor Belton, sorry I, just on a point of dithering, it was the case equally under Labour governments that defined funding settlements weren't announced until December and only finalised shortly before we ended the Budget period. I haven't heard any proposals from his party to change that were they to return to government, but perhaps he knows something about the Labour manifesto that I don't turning to information on that, if you want
there was a was a Local government Association finance conference, just in a matter of a day or two ago, in which the Labour government spokesman addressed this very point and said two or three year periods, rather than this kind of constant truncation of what are or are over the decision-making process which the current Conservative government is imposing on transport as it is probably fair enough to say I was lucky enough to be there which is very interesting hearing from both the incumbent Minister and,
the many person who hopes that yeah, maybe this time next year, we'll be local government minister, and yes, that's one of the questions that all local authorities in the room had was around having longer settlements, so we could plan, and that was one of the things I would it was discussed and it was the notice that it was very important and they would be aiming to do that. They all agree with it in principle, we'll believe it when we say it in practice. I think, however,
Councillor Councillor Anne Bash mixed said that this is a balanced budget, it's not a balanced budget, there is a projected budget gap for this year of 6.2 million now as of today, thanks to the generosity of the government that's come down to under four, but it's still not balanced, however, we expect the administration to be able to balance it given.
that its inflation estimates are somewhat pessimistic. We think, given the improving conditions, they're not actually adjusted as much as they might. The final figures for business rates on here and that, as Councillor Ireland confirmed, the administration, it seems keen to increase fees and charges during a cost of living crisis. But I do want to point out the biggest aspects of this, this or at all, which hasn't been mentioned so far, which is the 11 and a half million pounds worth of overspends, and that this administration has racked up. It is the case. Is it not Councillor Ireland that if this administration had just been
got that number down by half, if this was your budget, which the through departmental spending is exceeded, if you just kept your budget by 50% of what you've actually done, you've not just been able to set a balanced budget, you'll be able to cut council tax, wouldn't you?
I say one minute and Councillor Ireland, I've also got Mrs. Mary offering to do what budget well, I just want to add to what Councillor Graham, I just thought. It would be helpful if I clarified what you said, because actually we're not projecting a or an overall overspend in the current year. Paragraph 11 clearly shows that whilst we have got service pressures that we've set out in detail in the appendix, we've also got offsetting underspend. So we are not suggesting that the that there is gonna be an 11 and a half million pound overspend at the end of the year or if I just wanted to make that absolutely clear before Councillor Island and had her question. Thank you sorry, I do at that point I wasn't talking, I wouldn't say it was a net
overspend of 11 and a half million, but I am a corresponding undisrupted, I thought what I am saying is that if those departmental overspends had been less severe.
then there would not be a budget deficit, and that is my point, why was this administration unable to stick to its own spending plans on those key areas?
Councillor Ollanta, well I'll answer that briefly, I think purely and simply inflation, but really I didn't say that we were going to put fees up, that will be decided by the various committees, and I what else can I say inflation, courtesy of the Conservative government has meant that costs are just rocketed also demand for our services.
these continue to grow and the amount of money that we get from the government to help us supply those services isn't enough.
because it doesn't cover the additional cost through inflation and because the demand is increased. So I think officers have done a brilliant job in keeping these costs under control, but they're fighting a battle here and the government are just not being fair to local government to come. I have to come back at that because the factors we're talking about the budgets that were set last year when inflation was a lot higher than it is now, when the assumptions that this Council made for inflation would be higher than it has in fact been, and likewise when government funding was known and when government funding is now proved to be more generous again than expected. So that's simply isn't an explanation. Is it well, although I could read the various notes that explain why inflation the increase in the cost is higher than we forecast simply because we, the cost of supplying those services, is rising higher than the general rate of inflation and also the demand for the services has increased. I've in the document it gives details of a case loads and the additional demand on our services. It's all in there. I spoke to them. Ireland is not the same thing as inflation, that's extra people using services, that's not inflation, inflation is an increase in prices, but thank you, Councillor Gruen, so because Ms Murray had the non-binary had to commit to I, so I just wanted to clarifying inflation, set a table on the front page. It does show that in 24 25, so in the next financial year which were looking at now, there is 45 million pounds worth of inflation is being added to that budget. 25 million of that is natural inflation. It's not projected its actual inflation up until the end of November 23, and then there's a projection of 21 million. Beyond that now, whether or not you consider that the assumptions that we have made in the future years are are higher than they they then a target for the Bank of England are yeah. That is an absolute fact that 25 million, is more there's 21 million there as well, to come, so 45 million, in no way has the government covered 45 million of additional cost. In no way does our Council Tax potential cover 45 million of additional costs, and in no way would our fees and charges cover just inflation. That's without any demand pressures whatsoever. So you know, if you're focusing on inflation, you have to take care, as you know, the impact that this is having on our figures going forward. It's just not going away and that is outstripping any additional income that we get across any of our elephant right. I think facilities that require not just to our students clarify one point. If it's okay, I'm not saying what was just been said. However, my point to Council Ireland was that the the inflation we assumed would be the case when the budget for this current year that we're in who said it has actually been lower than we were anticipating, so that cannot be the explanation, like because government funding has not been quite generous in that period said Gabriel, I cannot be the explanation for this department
think you have made your point several times, thank you, I'll now move on to Cats Corner.
but thank you Chair, I, I do have some questions about the appendix if we can move on to that, is that I just want to say, is that okay with, but has anyone got any questions on the substantive bit before we go to the appendix actually I do have a question about how them save money across the whole council estate actually, and I have noticed that for at least the second winter in a row we have in January windows open, would it be possible to save money by turning down the heating especially with energy prices being so high?
I mean, if you did that across the whole estate you'd probably say Well that's Henry funding yeah well planned where it wouldn't even touch winning, touch-type booze right, OK, thank you, Councillor corner onto the my main question yeah I'm on Appendix A. We have breakdowns of the service area which I'd appreciate now on the children's.
section, where forecasting from 25th to 28th May, could you give us page number players that would really help yeah, of course, are page 24.
we have budgeted for 24 25 through to 26 27, the same amount being spent each year in children's now and in the children's services, we have a deficit and we have a deficit reduction plan which she'd been well received and we hope that officers were able to meet him keeping great work in order to do that, but we also are facing huge pressure on services which the Cabinet Member has acknowledged and that that,
and and obviously it's a statutory service aims and can't just not provide those services so.
and in that health.
health service breakdown, as well as children's, it talks about rising HPS and unavoidable costs that we're forecasting there, so how is it prudent for us to budget no increase in Children's Services expenditure from 24 25 to 26 27, especially with the deficit reduction plan that we're pursuing?
thank you.
Mrs Murray.
yeah, I can give a brief answer, thank you, so we have allowed for growth in in next year, but there are also obviously demand management actions that are being taken that are hopefully going to bring future growth to a reasonable level and for that growth to plateau we have inflation estimates, as you know, sitting elsewhere in the framework so that doesn't exclude there being inflationary growth in Children's Services, but what it's recognising is that we think that demand will be
stable and therefore the figures that your shoe you're seeing in the appendix which don't include inflation, are static now, whether or not that comes to pass. This is exactly the kind of discussion that we'll have as we go through the year and we will pick that up in the medium term financial strategy in September and also when we get to the outturn figures in June, so there are a couple of touch points for this committee during the year to try to check in on those assumptions, but at this point, with the demand management actions listed in the paper, we think that's a reasonable assumption right. Thank you very much
I had Councillor Belton next before I got everyone else, have you still got a question, Councillor Bolton, or shall I move on to the next person I did have a rebuttal wi for Councillor Graham, I was lying but his case Keogh so completely collapsed pointed me continually, my cardiologists are laid at that's a hedges next. Thank you Chair, so I was just looking at the Adult Health and
sorry, the adult social care page in the appendix, and it talks about the other place 15.
thank you, it talks about, obviously the extra.
the projected overspend and and the pressures that are on that particular area.
would it be prudent to expect an increase in the adult social care, precept part of the council tax that you did last year, rather than actually freezing it, thank you.
Miss Murray's year Missouri, so I haven't modelled any any assumption on council tax at this stage that will come as part of the next committee cycle discussion.
OK, thank you.
Councillor Fraser was next, thank you, Chair, asserting Mr mine.
marks kind of bleed on from some of the points that Councillor Brain was making, I mean you ask about the these pressures. Lots of them are coming, as we can see or in children's services and adult social care, and we are filling the gap as a council in these areas in housing where the government is failing us, so more and more responsibility are being devolved from government to councils, and it is us that are being led to to to fill those and any any in times post COVID, though those challenges are ever increasing are as Councillor. Ireland has talked about in areas such as mental health, but I do just want to draw Members' attention to the the and to commend the Cabinet Member for Education for the announcement made today that on child protection reports that we've been given a positive rating from Ofsted for that. So despite the deep pressures we are and we are recovering from some pretty bad Ofsted reports in the past as well, which we had to invest lots of money and as a Council to recover from as well, so so just to commend Councillor stock for that as well. OK, thank you and Councillor marshals. Next
so much.
just looking again at paragraph 11, where you rightly drew attention to the fact that Treasury income has played a major role in filling the gap between income and expenditure.
and also looking at paragraph 36.
where you show the impact on changes in returns.
I have a one minor question for, and this is very about when you, when you refer to local interest rates, I'm wondering what local interest rates actually being an officer totally familiar with that term,
but I'll have a main question for the for the Cabinet Member, which is around the the balance of the how we invest our treasury, how how we invest, the very large amounts of cash that we have on hand, I mean, as a general principle, investing that.
your your your, your exposure should match, in terms of the the length of time for which you invest against the length of time which you are holding on to your assets. And while there are the north of 500 million pounds of cash we have on hand is all money that's flowing in and out very rapidly and no individual pound is around for very long overall, is that level stays very high over a considerable period of time, and they would certainly be appropriate, as you have been doing, because I want to point out that the the length of investments should be hi to match that and there has been under this administration are very, I think, successful experiment in re-profiling things so that around a bad thing, about 10 to 15% of those investments have moved from very, very short market money. Market investments to rather longer more structured investments and
I would I would like appreciate I mean for, firstly, a comment on whether you think that experiment has been successful and then perhaps something from the cabinet member as to whether, given the fact that we're about to see a very sharp decline in interest rates coming up, whether the it's appropriate to consider extending that to a higher proportion of thank you just let me have on hand right thank you, Councillor Marshall and Mrs. Mary first then the Cabinet Member yeah, thank you Chair. So yes, you're right, we have, we have looked at the the length of our investments and we have tried to maximise those where appropriate within the
the cashflow projections that we've got just to add a word of caution, our cash balances are high, they have continued to grow for a number of reasons in recent years, but there is a clear plan in housing to deliver on a thousand homes which is not being funded now from external sources, so you know I expect and the cashflow projections do show that our cash balances over the next few years will drop considerably.
as we actually deliver that thousand homes programme, so we've just got to be very mindful of that, what I would say about the longer term, investments which are effectively the multi-ethnic funds, where they're open-ended, but they are a higher percentage yield there, there is a complication with those which is about to put a spanner in the works which is the at the moment there is a temporary override on and on a
reporting to an international accounting standard. That means that you would have to reflect any gain or loss at year end into your revenue accounts. We don't have to do that at the moment as a local authority, because there is this temporary override, which is about to end what that means is effectively. At the moment we get an interest rate on our investment and our principal. Our capital also fluctuates in value at the moment we don't have to reflect that fluctuation of value in our accounts, but we will have to when this override ends. So we just need to be cautious because that will impact on our bottom line that will impact on our reserve use and that will actually show
in an area of while it was showing that framework, you know as well as treasury returned, you will also have the risk of your principal valuation going down as well, so we need to take that into account and that's part of our discussion around our latest Treasury Management Policy which will come to this committee next month for discussion, Councillor Alan, did you, you have a cow cow, did you have any further comments because chancellor Marshall asked OK, thank you, yeah, I thank you. I think Mrs Murray provides a very comprehensive answer. All our says, we keep our investments under constant review, mindful of our fiduciary duty to protect those investments, but it's not like we sit back and don't do anything, we do keep them under review and we will continue to do so. Thank you very much
I'm just going to let you know, is we've?
it's been a bit variable on the time is this we're coming up to, having spent three quarters for now, I've got two people haven't yet spoken who I'm going to ask speak, and then will I think we can pick up for a bit longer but I'm going to be saying to pay everyone especially if they've already spoke well as they have already spoken keep it very quick on the detail OK it cancels all this time.
thank you, Chair, just to sort of without actually say thank you to Mrs Murray for actually explaining a number of very complex issues, some of which members around the table have tried to muddy and coming back and to clarify for us, so thank you for to myself and probably those watching as well for around a very complex issue I'd like to hope people to page 23, which is about homelessness.
and first of all, I think just to recognise the work that's being done to drive down the homeless numbers and get people into permanent accommodation by administration.
and also just to recognise the increase in the local housing allowance that has come through. That has the that's fed into this, but my question is about temporary accommodation and the cost of temporary accommodation. I'm just wondering, in the in terms of the calculations, what assumptions are being made about the rental costs moving forward because rents runs far ahead of inflation are quite often especially as there is very little accommodation available and what's the thinking in terms of projections moving forward,
missing Murray yeah yeah, thank you Councillor, so I don't have the detailed.
projections on housing, that that's something that was discussed at Housing Committee. I think last night actually, but I can certainly get those for you, we've assumed that there will be growth in the cost of a or a replacement effectively, I think about six or 7% for next year at the local housing allowance will help and there's another technical change that we're lobbying. The government on that will also help with how much benefit we get, how much housing benefit we can charge and then get the money back on. So you know we're working as hard as we can on that.
we have built in projections that assume an increasing in rents, because that's what we're seeing in the market, but I have to get you the detail of that separately if that's OK, thank you, thank you, Councillor Jeffreys nice to hear from you and see you again this time, thank you Chair likewise,
just turning to page 15 and 17, looking at adult social care and children's services, adult social care was originally showing a projected 2 million overspend, since then that's been more than doubled to 5.3 the figure for Children's Services was originally projected.
a an overspend of 1.8 million, and that's 1.9 so adult social care is more than doubled and there's only been a relatively smaller increase for children's, I appreciate it's a very complicated issue.
lots of increasing demand, but those are issues that both.
areas are facing was that as being sort of overly optimistic and the assumptions we were making, and therefore, would there be things we would do differently from a budgeting perspective or other sort of one of issues that have arisen in adult social care rather than children's services.
thank thank you, Councillor said, so I don't think we can compare the two. I mean the numbers and those areas are moving separately. They're moving, you know that they are not co coexisting at all, so we forecast as best we can in all areas, irrespective of whether the number is gonna put down or is set out in the appendix or not. I think the biggest issue we've got in terms of adult social care is is it's it's, it's all things, it's the complexity of what is coming through. It's the demand that's coming through and it's effectively the broken social care market, which is bleeding us to pay for placements that you know we just can't get some placements, and some of the places that we're getting are extortionate expensive and we are having to pay those those rates. So it really is, you know, we can manage demand as best we can. We we can't stop the the the market from dictating the prices we're trying to in the government, to its to to its credit, is trying to with some of the funding that it's putting into the sector, particularly around workforce, but things things like the wage bills, energy bills, all those things are reflected in the forecast. We've also got particular issues with
NHS colleagues, and you know making sure that the NHS is paying its fair share for continuing healthcare, and that's a discussion that goes on throughout the year, it's a very detailed conversation about very specific clients and the client base, and we often don't get resolution until the year end.
on some of those matters, so you know, or it could be, that that figure gets better during the year and then finally just to mention there's also significant pressures that are coming through, that we can see in mental health discharges from supported accommodation that the NHS is is leading on which obviously is if it's a fantastic,
it's a fantastic drive to get people out of supported accommodation and and into to step down, but ultimately that puts more pressure on the council's finances, so you know it's good news, but ultimately we've got to reflect those projections, and that's what we've updated in the latest figures.
thank you very much now, I'm just going to say we've spent.
about 50 minutes so far, I'm happy to T and I think there's been a lot of points raised, it's very detailed paper, however, I would like us to be in a position where we're moving to a vote within maximum of 15 minutes, so I'm prepared to take shorter questions on particular lines that we haven't already covered. So there's anyone got anything that we haven't already covered.
Councillor Corner and anyone else, sorry.
Councillor R bash, it really helps if I get hands in the air Councillor Colin, is very good at this Councillor Anne Bash.
Councillor Graham and I have a question as well excellent. Thank you. Cats Corner, our vantage are quick. 1, on page 37, our waste collection and recycling are very interested in the Environment Budget because of the pledges to bring in food waste recycling, and obviously we are the huge operation that goes into waste collection and you are actually reduced projecting that we'll spend less on waste collection in the the final two years covered. Here is that prudent, based on the fact that we're going to be negotiating to improve the service with with regard to the food waste collection and so on?
who was that for Mrs Murray of Cabinet Member, for both of them political point of whether to do food waste collection, the Cabinet Member, but in general?
if Ms Mary Harrison even said, that'd be great.
can I be S Murray Mrs. Murray happy to go first and then Councillor.
thank you, so the Environment Committee approved the a full roll-out of the food waste service across the borough, and the figures in here reflect the detail that went into that that paper so.
there is obviously an increase in waste collection through the contract extension, but then also we expect there to be, as you would expect, a rigid reduction in residual waste, black bag waste, tonnage and disposal and collection would also go down, so if you're going to do one and invest in one you're going to have an impact on the other.
food waste is going to be compulsory, you know, the government is bringing that in and has actually just given us some capital grant to help with the introduction of that, so you know the figures in here are, as per the discussion that went to environment committee, I think it was September.
thank you, Councillor Holland, I wasn't sure the question is my understanding that processing or recycling is much change cheaper than it's a lot like refuse, I think it's about four times cheaper, n yeah.
yeah, OK, Councillor Ryan, Bash.
to a question from Mrs. Mary in relation to the transport overspend, page 20 projected now 3.8 million.
this, I understand, is caused by reductions in income and activity, so have we considered whether we need to reduce costs and staffing levels to help reduce any future overspends.
this area.
thank you Chair, so when you say staffing costs, I mean there are there are there's the cost of?
parking enforcement, I mean we can have a look at that, I think there's still, there is still activity on the streets, what we're finding is that drivers are more aware of their behaviour actually, and that's more of the driver for a reduction in income rather than less vehicles on the road. So you'll see at the top of page 19 that PC N so penalty charge notices are you know, the income from that has dropped that that's because people are being better at not not causing a contravention and on-street parking is effectively our pay and display, and that's exactly the same thing where people are being smarter about the the number of journeys that they make for one but also,
the length of time that they are staying has gone down, so I don't think at the moment we're seeing a reduction in activity per se, we're seeing a smarter use of the car, I think, is what's leading to this, so I mean we keep the parking enforcement contract under review and you know that's that's part of our contract management, so we can certainly keep an eye on it and make sure it's it's proportionate yeah, thank you. Thank you
Councillor Graham yeah, so I just want to come back to at the point being raised about the difference between children's services and adult social care, I mean, just looking at, I know we're talking about a couple of sides of A4 each sorry because you have a page number of pages 15 and 16 and then 17 and 18, but the the. The contrast in presentation does strike me that in adults essentially you've got a prescription of a series of problems, whereas for children's services sir, as descriptions of series of actions have been to address problems.
and on the one hand we got a increasing overspend in adult social care and on your handed children's an overspend it seems to have been gripped at least midway through the year, I appreciate that's just a presentational matter in terms of how it's been put forward, but would officers not think that we given that contrast we could read slightly more into that the children's may have been better at dealing with these case issues than and the equivalent problems in adult social care.
thank you, Councillor Gruen, so you're right, I think it's a presentational issue, the adult social care narrative does refer back to the demand management action plan, and that was presented to Committee in adults or adult social care committee in September and has got a you know, a whole host of management action sitting beneath it, so I'm confident that we're not doing better in one than the other they are, as I said, they asked very similar in headline terms, but actually
the levers that we can pull in the control that we have on the market is actually very different, and that's the thing I think that's that's coming out in here, so since September we definitely have done better in one than the other because one is stabilise and the other is more than double that, but I just also wanted to wonder if you could address a point that Councillor Fraser raised, she said that the government has piled additional responsibilities on in adults and children's. I wasn't aware that,
statutory responsibilities or other responsibilities that were being handled by government have been passed to us, they haven't changed and if there is more the fact that there's just.
either a real or released demand from Covid and or and a difference in the number of people getting statements or tribunal results or whatever.
yes, I think the the compounded impact of statutory changes we are still seeing that so, as you mentioned, H CPS are continuing to rise and that was directly linked to a statutory change, it just happened to be a number of years ago, but we're still seeing that increase sorry HC Pies for So Education, Health and Care Plan yeah
per LA for children with special educational needs.
I think it's actually it is interesting, actually you say that because in the announcement that came out today on the additional half a billion for social care, there is recognition in that letter from the Minister that you know they recognise that the government is piling pressure on on these services and that's why they are choosing to to give additional funding so you're right there isn't an immediate change in statutory.
responsibilities that's leading to it, but I think it's that compounded impact over a number of years is still still having an impact, and then also, as you mentioned, the kind of the COVID drag as particularly had an impact on adult social care, the complexity of need,
people are coming to us with a higher level of need, and we haven't caught them in that kind of lower intensity stage, and then mental health in particular is a significant issue at the moment nationally, and that's what we're seeing in the figures.
is it is it related to what yes, it is really, it's not a particularly political point I just wanted to to to note to the committee.
that there are two placements described on pages 17 and 18 so on dysfunctional placements to talks about one single placement for one child costing 750,000 pounds annually and one on page 18, another placement for a single child costing 1.2 million pounds annually. Now that's obviously at the extreme end, however, that is two children that are costing the equivalent of the 3% on Council Tax. The difference between what you would describe as a freeze and what we'd save as a 2% increase on the social care cap and taking a whole 4.9 9 2 2 individual cases so that does show
why, while we completely understand that the Council must deliver the care that it should given the costs of external providers and the complexity of this, we've got to be imaginative about how we do that, including from our point of view, looking at maybe running in how services, rather than relying on external providers, if they are able to in a sense, rip-off councils because of the increase in demand that we may even want to establish capacity to get those costs under control. Councillor Barry thank you, and I think one of the things we need to be very mindful, of, of course, is that the particular cases we obviously we will not have this committee now enough, other than to say it's an example of the sort of costs that we may excuse me that we are incurring as a Council and we would not in any way I'm sure the whole Committee would agree. We would not in any way wish that we wouldn't we're not implying that we should not. We want to support the children. It is just it's very difficult because of the complication of need for those particular families, and obviously it's a very difficult position for them, and my question, which hopefully I I can ask page 41
I've seen we're looking at restructuring the graduate training programme now one of the things that I think local government does offer can offer is a very interesting, varied career path to our young people, and also it is an area where we've got to try and attract youngsters and good talent to be our executive officers of the future.
it's wonderful, it's Ms Murray's.
what does this mean 0 no, sorry, there's a point to this.
I think the chief executives could answer that is, would you be able to, could someone explain to me what we're going to do and hopefully, and I would be hoping this is not gonna make a difference to how we're recruiting our youngsters, thank you.
well, I hope it is going to make a difference because I was going to agree, or I can prove our effectiveness, so essentially at the moment the graduate scheme that we run has the graduates who join us almost supernumerary so that they don't have to deliver them posts in the substantive structure.
so they make a significant contribution to the work of the Council, but at the end of the scheme they have no guarantee your right to ongoing employment at the Council. The intention with this proposal is that we actually organise the scheme so that there are identified posts in a substantive structure and that the graduates are part of a managed progression scheme where they have access to substantive opportunities within the organisation and have the opportunity to progress with us beyond the particular period of the of the programme. So we hope it will actually be more attractive to graduates in that it ought to lead to permanent employment, and it also means that it's not an additional cost to the Council, because we need to identify appropriate posts within the organisation that are then held and used as part of the graduate management programme. So we think it will be more attractive and enable us to get even more out of the the graduates who join it's OK. Thank you, then, how many graduate trainees do we have any one time when we start the programme
Mr. Evans would be better placed to comment on that in terms of the current.
as John hasn't got a microphone, Mr. Evans said six to eight currently brilliant, thank you very much, OK, and what I'd like to do now is I'm just going to ask the Cabinet Member for Finance given we discussed the budget, if you've got a couple of final words before we move to a vote.
thank you, Chair, and I just want to thank the officers done an excellent job, as always, of very complicated, very difficult circumstances, but I'm very pleased for the work you've done, thank you very much, I also want to thank my Cabinet colleagues of working with department directors Toy to try to identify savings,
and they've done a very good job on that too.
I think we've spoken a lot about the difficulties in funding and how the structural underfunding of local government, but I just want to say that I'm very pleased with this budget, I think we've done a brilliant job here, I think most local authorities would be absolutely thrilled to be in our position that we have continued to invest in in our residents with we've got the largest cost of living.
fund in London, probably the country, and we will continue to provide help to our residents where it's needed, so thank you very much everybody through your work.
so I tell everyone special, can I just explain the opposition's position on what will be allowed in the way we argue for more budget per vote, well, I'd like say, if you really want to help us, then you can ask your masters to give us a decision on household support fund and give us the money we need, we've already had 2.5 million today and you haven't even said thank you.
sorry, sorry, we are having a perfectly coffee to give out 5 years. Well, if you can't give one side a summary, not the other excuse me, I think you've actually had quite a lot of opportunities and for sure, but we just could we haven't given our position on the budget, so we just like to explain you'll just have to be asked to vote. Yes, I'd like to explain why we are voting the way we are very briefly. What are you going to do, Councillor Graham, I, so we just want to say that we we, I think we completely understand there is a lot of very valuable work that has been done by officers and said we'd reiterate the thanks to them for their efforts. We do not support a budget that shows a projected budget gap which would have to come from reserves of 6 million. We think that there are signs within these papers that the administration may be able to present us with a final Budget without such a deficit, and we hope that they will.
but as things stand, and particularly as that's only the case because of the overspending that has taken place on their side, we we believe that we should abstain on the main budget, but we are of course happy to vote for it to go out to consultation because you need to consult on something OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, sorry, yeah, so you don't agree with Simon Hall. Your Minister for local government is encouraging local authorities to use their reserves. I don't think this Council either needs to or should use its reserves to fund general current day to day spending. OK well, thank you very much, but what I would remind everybody here is that this budget is was put together with the best information we had at the time and as we've already heard, we've had changes already coming through today and obviously we will get a final budget at the next Committee. OK, thank you very much right. Let's vote on that. The
recommendations 3 A, and the first one is the recommendation is in a is to approve.
this as a basis for further consideration, all those in favour, please raise their hands.
Brighton air.
please, that's six.
all those against 0 all those abstain egg on A and can you note the chair didn't cost about and then be?
is?
everyone's happy to agree that this goes out to consultation, which is one of the things that we have to do with the budget is we?
have to put it out to statutory consultation for the right payers,
members, I'm just gonna, make you aware I've heard that the the webcast is not actually working, we are recording and we will be uploading tomorrow, and of course nobody is able to see me or hear me make that announcement on the webcast but just so you know OK if there's any questions for.
you pick.
those people watching.
okay right, would I like to move on to item 4, which is the grants the recommendation for the grant scheme contribution missed reference if you could just give us a very, very brief outline, I think we've seen the scheme before but just clarify what's happening and we'll go from there, thank you Chair and year and met many members and ticket. Long-standing members will be familiar probably with this report which comes through
this committee annually, and it is seeking the Committee an Executive and a commitment to supporting the London Councils planned schemes, and the Council grant scheme is a a scheme which London Councils runs on behalf of the boroughs.
they collect contributions and every London borough and give our grant to a series of organisations which help run services, pan-London for.
for the most vulnerable in London, particularly homelessness and for services, so the Council is being asked to contribute 247,000 pounds 463 pounds, sorry and for the next year, and that is a calculation based on the population of of Wandsworth and if the Council wasn't to approve it but tooth, I think it's two thirds of authorities in London do agree, then the council will be obliged to pay the money anyway through statute exists and so slight oddity in the way the system works, but the programme does deliver benefits across the entirety of London. Thank you OK, thank you very much, Mr. Evans. There are any questions on the report. OK, Councillor Fraser,
Councillor Graham said forecast Fraser, thank you, and just for one thank you for your presentation, just for my benefit, it's my first time saying this unscathed, could you just give a few examples for me of the type of things that that although we get out of this one and one might be grants or activities or just just wipe justice for information,
yeah sure sorry, the fund funds a variety of organisations such as St Mungo's homeless, Link near horizon, you sent a shelter and a variety of services that provide a particular support to women and survivors of domestic abuse, so refuge Women's Aid, so it is providing a sort of,
both in terms of sort of signposting services, advice services as well as for front line or refuge type services so and there is the London Councils Committee itself meets and does consider a wide range of information on outputs and outcomes across all the boroughs on the work of all of the programmes that are delivered, so there is actually quite a lot of granular information is available and at 2.00 members of this committee on the London Councils website as well but yeah it delivers a huge range of programmes.
OK.
Councillor Gruen, yeah, I am going to make my annual complaint, which began well before the change of administration and, no doubt will continue indefinitely into the future, which is we still have no information other than that which London Councils itself has deigned to give us threats and in reporting mechanisms. There is some granular detail, but we simply don't know from an intervention on what those interventions were, how effective they were, how they relate to interventions anywhere else, and it seems to me because I am cynical about these things, that we know we have to send this money across
these things in theory should be good and I accept in theory they should be good and therefore no real effort is made to chase down any information in detail because we still have to pay it anyway. Yet there may well be things where we should be lobbying for Wandsworth either to get a fairer share of the funding or a more effective use of the funding, and from this I not only do I not know, but I don't believe anybody else in this building knows either. OK right. Thank you for the annual comply. Does it require an answer from anyone, or are we just noting the complete
to say right, OK, Councillor.
I would say I actually just could I say those I missed reference, could we make it available to Members the links on the London Councils website I know you have, but I'm you know, not all of us have, so we can have a look OK, Councillor Marshall,
I know we then set this amount, we're just paying the bill, but I'm curious here as to why it appears when there's inflation has been running at 10% and the demand for these kinds of services is not exactly falling that we're paying a sort of very small uplift just a question of curiosity propagated in the opposite direction to the vol penny-pinching or attitude shown where the Member upset,
obviously, this is a decision taken by the London Councils Grants Committee in terms of how they set the the budget, and I think they are very cognisant of the of the pressures and the services they need to deliver, they do consult with the boroughs that do consult with our residents and providers as well so and yeah, it is it is is what set out in principles and that's what I think is a budget that they could deliver a an effective service for the those services across London.
thank you, that's corner, thank you any age on the theme of Councillor Grimes question and first is when the just a clarification question, really when the London Councils Grants Committee meets and decides to to give this money in grants to the boroughs.
is that is that given to Burrows specifically, or is it to projects that span bars?
or is there a variation so that the money and the money is used to commission services that are largely pan-London, also sub-regional, and I mean that is the whole purpose of it is delivering scale for some of these services where and some of the needs, and it doesn't respect borough boundaries. Essentially, yeah, I'm just wondering if it would be feasible to to have it scrutinised borrowing guidance committee, sorry, but I find the groundwork by our own branch committee is when London councillors GCC have it for. I accept the nature of the funding are
that, Mr. Evans, which are set out, do you have a question to the Cabinet Member for voluntary and community services?
I hear me, as deputy leader of the council, she one of our representatives on London Councils and I know the the leader of the council, is what work has she done, and her colleagues, you do say on London Councils, meetings done to to secure a better settlement for Wandsworth.
I am not the representative on the London Councils Board, I am afraid you have to direct your question to the Leader or you are the Cabinet Member for voluntary and community services within the council, within the within the council, yet say what work could be done to influenced London Councils to give us a or an even better settlement?
he said, I'm not the representative on the London Councils board, but you are.
do you not have them far bigger?
he leader, presumably you'd like to direct your question to the Leader, who is the representative on the London Councils board, and especially, if not totally, what I was doing in your earlier area, Councillor Richard Jones, I'm trying very hard that people actually speak when they're asked to speak, OK, thank you, OK next, PA, I have the next question I've got is for Councillor belt, Councillor sorry, Councillor Belsham had a comment to make
or a question or well, it's a comment actually, and a response to Councillor graham's original statement and indeed Councillor Conor's.
this, of course, while perhaps not, of course, but Mr Evans will know, I will now, and one or two other people know, this is a descendant from the abolition of the GSC, now, rightly or wrongly Chelsea made a very large number of grants to a very considerable amount across to all sorts of organisations in London and they were across London they have been extensively cut back ever since usually under Tory pressure, possibly quite rightly don't get me wrong, I'm not making that particular political point at the moment,
but they have been cut by extensively over the years, nonetheless, the government, in its wisdom in the original legislation and the borough leaders in the original settlement, did agree there was a place for London, wide organisations covering things like shelter and they have that system, they still agreed London borough leaders level on how they continue to exist and those particular organisations use the money.
I imagine on the obsessive and basis of need and that need depend, I mean it might be for flood defences, for instance, I'm not sure that that is covered, but if it were the LA wanted to get more than its share, but it may need for something else that will get less than its share. It's on a London basis and we can check everything in the book across the board all the time. If we want to put other things in life, do take precedence. I suspect, and I think we ought to leave the London boroughs collectively to get on with the system. We've got that as it is right, it's being as it is, is being cut back. Longtime Councillor Marshall is quite right, hasn't even gone up with inflation this year as almost every year, and I suggest we just agree the paper OK. Thank you very much, and Councillor Richard Jones, then Councillor World
to just just following on from Councillor Corner's question to the Deputy Leader, just in her time in a position as she had any communications at all with the London Councils grant scheme and e-mails and letters any meetings anything.
I would like to know, and for what purpose you will for what purpose you're asking me if I've had any contact on that with Councillor Graham or Councillors within one that can the Cabinet Member has been asked a question, I don't think she needs it repeated by the rest of you just been asked by your colleague clarify for what purpose.
just before that.
asking a question about her role as the Cabinet Member for the voluntary sector.
right within within Wandsworth, I am the cabinet member for the voluntary sector and the leader of the council sit on London Councils, if there is a question that you would like to ask him, then you should ask him, but we know because we don't need to be here all right, but it's the answer none so your answer is none, I think.
would suggested write Councillor Ritchie Jones, thank you, but that would you're putting words in OK, Councillor Warrell, please.
thank you Chair.
once again, we sit in the position where the opposition tries who did in different ways to attack and undermine the voluntary sector, and that ship and somehow look at it is in a way that's actually it's running amok in I'm not being measured and monitored. I think what we need to recognise that the the London boroughs scheme is a pan-London skweee scheme. It's an integrated strategy across the whole of London, of which different people participate. It is not a once with response, it is a pan-London response, recognising a pan-London need we also one of the opposition members, also talks about measurement about monitoring et cetera. The the scheme is not only about volume, it's about impact on quality of life, it's about information, that's actually provided in some ways that sometimes can't be captured in terms of web hits, et cetera
so I think what we actually are demonstrating here from the opposition is a lack of understanding of how the voluntary sector works, a lack of understanding about monitoring mechanisms, a lack of understanding about reporting mechanisms through different through different ways and, frankly, I'm always disgusted whenever we talk about the voluntary sector, we have this continual attack from the opposition on the way the voluntary sector works and what was actually doing so I think we need to recognise that these schemes
excuse me, Councillor Jeffries, I am speaking if you give me the chance, but we need to recognise that this is a systematic approach across London to meet the needs of a group of very vulnerable populations, who need our support that might not have the volume in one particular borough, but actually might have more needed at a particular borough, and it's a way of sharing our resources and working together in an integrated way across London, and we didn't recognise that and supported. OK, thank you very much right. I'm just going to take the last two Councillor Gruen and Councillor Anne Bash, and then we'll move to a vote on this, so I want to be very clear. No one is attacking the voluntary sector. I am criticising the way London Councils is reporting back to us on what they're doing with our money. I'm not criticising those delivering services. These, as I've already said, should be good services. The problem is to use the operative phrase that Councillor Belsen used. It's I imagine because we just don't know, and we should actually have some assurance, and I think the other issue is HA which which comes out partly in relation to the questions being asked Councillor Akinola. What is the relationship between the money we're spending through London Councils on combating homelessness and combating sexual and domestic violence and the money we're spending locally on those things which is far greater now, without knowing what would we be better off if we could reallocating that 250,000 pounds we're putting into the central pot to be spent locally if it is more effective to SEN spend. Essentially, why aren't we sending some of that money to go through this framework rather than spending it independently here? These are all reasonable questions. We are not criticising the voluntary sector, we are not criticising the amount being spent, we are simply saying that we, it's our job to see that money is used effectively and wisely, and I have no idea, and nor do you whether this is or this isn't, and that is a suboptimal position to be OK, thank you very much, Councillor Akinola wanted to come in about the
the grant says yes, yeah, I just think it's very important for us to remember that we have to pay this money, it's not about us relocating money and that we have a choice, whether we can spend we have to pay into the London Councils.
grant scheme and we do benefit lot, I'm on their website, and there's there's case studies there are.
there are PR, there are outcomes on the website if you just go and have a look at it, and of course, when they're not gonna tell us about individual cases because of, as Steve rightly said, sorry as Councillor work rightly says, the vulnerabilities of the people for which the services are being delivered for so I think you can find the information that you need there and they spend so much money, I don't think we spend as much money ourselves in in the
in the borough, so we benefit a lot from this scheme so and what we're going to continue to pay into it because, as I said before, we have to OK, thank you very much, a last comment from Councillor.
and bashed that was what I said, It seems lots of sense to me to work with London boroughs, particularly where services are just wouldn't be delivered in 33 London boroughs. His party scale is partly evolving practice, and so I think those are two really good priorities. Combating homelessness and tackling domestic and sexual violence. The London boroughs have agreed to fund
I have before this meeting made informal enquiries both in the housing team and the team that deals with domestic and sexual violence and had very positive responses about some of the gaps that we wouldn't be able to fill in the borough in those two areas. That's only subjective discussions I've had, but I'd be really interested to hear from Mr. Evans if we're making full use of these services and whether staff in our housing teams and homeless teams hand in direct domestic abuse teams are fully aware of most of these projects that they might get advice from their clients might get advice from is is, is it well known and well used
with it within the borough services. These particular Mr Alison Wilde services, so my understanding is yes, they are well known, and indeed London Councils does give case studies of how the services have interacted with local services as well. So I'm sure with all these things there could be more done and more signposting and more information, so we need to remain on top of that and yes, that's my understanding OK, thank you very much. Councillors,
we would then move to the vote, we are asking the Committee to support the recommendations in paragraph 2, which is agree, the involvement and approve the contributions that we're going to make.
those in favour, please raise their hands.
right, brilliant OK, that is 10 gone out of the room, OK, thank you Chair didn't cast vote, thank you OK.
right we're now moving on to Item 5.
which is the excuse weak the trading the once with trading company annual report?
Ms Mary, if you could explain for the new members of the Committee.
briefly, what the trading company is.
off we go, OK, thank you Chair, so this is again an annual report that comes to this committee.
once with trading companies, the only company that wanted Council owns and, as you can see from the figures in the appendix the numbers of the the numbers are going to a very small we're dealing in pounds rather than thousands and millions which were used to this committee. The reason we have to have a company is linked to the restriction on local authorities, trading with organisations for a commercial purpose. So if we want to trade commercially, we have to
we have to set up a trading company because we are restricted by law effectively when we had two mutuals, so two staff mutuals that performed back in 2015.
who were reliant on our support services, so are HR our IT, our telephony, our graphics, in order to continue supporting those two mutuals in their in their new business, we set up the company and continue to support them to this day. Those two mutuals are one trust who deal with adult social care day services and enable who run the council's leisure services and culture.
so this mutual sorry, this trading company, only deals with those two entities and you'll see from the accounts that the support that we give them is small, it's important, if things like health and safety, DBS checks, and particularly some work on graphics for enable.
the accounts here are a summary of the trading company's accounts up until the end of March 2023, we try to minimise effectively what we do is we charge, we charge the mutuals based on a fee of rates and we aim to just cost recover via the company to try and minimise the impact of making a profit and having to pay a corporation tax so we we recharge into the company based on the level of a service that we provide during the year and that's probably knew about it hopefully that makes sense.
OK, thank you.
but I have one question transcribe them, make it quick, please, please, yeah, people are happy with, we support this paper, it's just a continuation of of what happened under the previous administration, I'm obviously the the only aspect that could cause any concern would be whether the impact of this work delayed other work streams within the Council.
the biggest one here in paragraph 5 is graphics work, and I just wondered as an example you can, can you give an assurance that that graphics work did not impact or delay on the producing the secret asset management plan for sorry, excuse makers, yes, are you asking where?
say what, because, right up to the Council's Asset Management, Tramp was sent to to be designed up for print, so you remember the I mean I know it's not been put produced in public because don't see the administration side voted against publishing it, but it was designed application for quite extensive piece of work, and I just wondered if that work had been enacted by the secret papers that we are not discussing and we had not discussed in this committee last time. That was what I said last time. If the question is as simple as does the work ed flaked, not we're not talking about individual reports, does the work that they do impact on other work they might be going for the Council, Ms Mayor, this is Merrick well, I think the paper tries to make it clear that that there is a limit on the amount of work that this company could take on for that exact reason, particularly with graphics, I know that we work on a
we bring extra resource in when we need to, so I can't imagine that a workload of this level would impact necessarily on the graphics workload overall, OK, thank you very much OK, so let's move to a vote on the basically the recommendation is that the Executive is asked to note the performance of the company.
agree a wry, is everyone agreed, excellent OK, we're now moving on to the
Wandsworth Bridge roundabout the grant of consent,
I am now going to read something out.
for any members of the press and public viewing this meeting, please be advised that we have considered how much of this paper we can discuss in public. However, due to the technical nature of the paper and the issues involved, it will be very difficult for us to properly scrutinise this decision with the LA without the likely disclosure of information contained in an exempt report that we have, and therefore I would like to move that the Committee exclude the press and public from the discussion on this item due to the likely disclosure of exempt information under section 100 eye brackets 4 of the Local government Act 1972 on the grounds that one, it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3, information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that person of Part 1 of schedule 12 A of the Act and to that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information
and my notes here he said we will return to open session once we've had a chance to considered matters, and I think I can say we're not currently for those people who review this webcast, what will happen is a break because we are recording so there'll be a gap and then we will pick up again OK, thank you very much.
so can we move to the vote that we go into closed session?
I want to go.
yes, Tony.
yeah
as you know, I think that the USAP confidentiality clauses and the
private consideration of of documents is extremely regrettable across the borough, and indeed in public life, in this country, I think we've taken confidentiality to an absurd level and we've allowed the private sector in particular to bully us into accepting that in the particular circumstances of this paper I'm prepared to go along with your resolution but under protest I must say, on the protest because I do not like it and I'd I only do so on the assurance of the officers, but it's absolutely essential I think it's something that should be avoided on all possible occasions, and I hope the officers will make sure that it is avoided. I recognise that it will sometimes be necessary, but it is overused in this Council and in the and people who have been here long enough will know, I've been Mr. Evans about the only person here actually will know. I've made this protest over the years and I still maintain it, but in this particular circumstance I accept it reluctantly. Okay, well, thank you very much, Councillor Belsen, and I think I'd probably add from discussions I've had with quite a few members of this committee. Obviously, as we would much rather prefer to be discussing information in public, but I have explained why we cannot do this, so at this point I would like us to can I just state just? I very much sympathise with what Councillor Belton said
having looked at this myself, I agree that we are going to need to discuss it in in closed session, I'm not so I I, I'm not trying to place the blame at the private sector, but that so I then say in public that's that Graham
one thing that happens is occasionally, we do all agree on something, it's quite nice if we can agree, okay, can we close?
stop recording, are we?
0sorry, first of all, can you vote right, are we agreed that we should move to private everyone agreed, and I'm actually gonna vote on this one, too?
including the Chair, OK, and we're closing.
OK.
to try and get this through OK, Councillor Gray.
Councillor Graham, we've now got some changes to paper 24 26, broadly to reorganise the way that the
2, A and B are organised, so what I think I've got correct is that the recommendation that we are suggesting is recommendation B, would that you are suggesting, sorry, is that recommendation B
would become recommendation, A so were authorising the Interim Director of Place to seek to negotiate, and then the next recommendation, which is be, would read pursuant to s to suitable.
it says.
who age?
bra
I think it was just grant consent was it, we said, yes, grant consent to CFL, so the first thing we will vote on is.
do we have to do it in three votes, do you think we really need a proposer and a secondary now?
would you like to propose and say, would you like to I'm happy to propose, OK, thank you, Chair I skip for paragraph 3 is included yesterday's vote.
I would like to second OK, thank you very much, OK, so we all clear what we are.
voting on at this stage on the way the terms are ordered and
a slight change of wording OK.
yes, a recommendation 2 as amended.
who is in favour of recommendation 2 as amended, and where we need to vote on a recommendation before we can vote in favour as amended, not least as as another amendment to recommendation 2, we haven't considered yet sorry
non voting on the amendment, or maybe have not agreed to Brian here, so we're not voting on re paragraph paragraph 2 as amended, which that's my point.
OK, so we're voting on the amendment to paragraph 2, OK, those in favour of the amendment paragraph 2 please raise their hands.
thank you.
those against the amendment to paragraph 2, please raise their hands.
thank you.
a case that's 5 6 and the Chair didn't cast a vote, was there a further recommendation, so now we've got one unamended to have we got?
probably make sense to now consider our amendment 2 before going on to 0please, so do you have to work with us to read out your wish mystery, ritual, I'm sorry, scarcely.
would you like to read out the sign?
OK.
so the amendment is to add a new sub Point C, write to the mayor of London, requesting that tearful share of the receipt is ring fenced for the Wandsworth Town Centre, gyratory removal W T C G, asking for the reasons set out at paragraph 12 of the exempt appendix to the report,
OK, thank you, do I have a seconder for that place, Councillor Conor, thank you, and I just stay just say this on public record, given that the public don't know what we discussed in private.
in relation to our first set of amendments that was aiming to improve the negotiating,
position of the Council and we still hope that the Executive may take that approach in relation to this, it is simply again for reasons that can't be fully stated, that the generation removal scheme is a critical part, an ambition cross-party in Wandsworth.
we are all in agreement that the funding should come from tearful, where there are funds available for reasons I say that we can't go into, it was our understanding that a receipt from this site may enable that to happen, we still think that should happen whether or not that is an obligation on TFA all and therefore we think it's appropriate if the administration agrees with us for the Executive to write to the mayor asking him to do what we all think would be a good idea.
and Councillor Ireland. Perhaps you would like to comment on what you said when we discussed this in closed session as well and noted noted to be demolished to explain to the public why you might not wish to write
I can repeat what I said earlier, which is simply that some negotiations and influencing is best done in private rather than public, OK, thank you very much.
OK, so can we now vote on the new proposal for C, please, OK, those in favour of.
edition C A which is to write to the Mayor of London, please raise their hands.
OK, thank you, those against that, please raise their hands 6 5 again, thank you very much, OK, so that fall, so we now will vote on substantive 2, which is, as is now still as it was printed in the papers yeah.
amendment 3, before you know, let's deal with two first OK, so those in favour of recommendation 2 as printed in the paper please raise their hands.
bank queue, but six year those against that recommendation, thank you very much, that's fine, OK, so the Executive is recommended to take that view, but obviously we will the discussion now, the next one is now does 3 still a plot, the change you suggested to 3 still apply so we we we we wish.
3 to be rejected, so struck out, which is the same as voting against it, however, we will put out a strong public record why essentially, it is the position of both sides that we don't want to have a capital receipt to use in this way.
the the the the aim would be to make sure that we're not in that position if, in circumstances we do end up in that position, we feel is appropriate to properly investigate and take a decision on what we do with that receipt then not to pre-emptively authorise it when that or isn't action hasn't actually been the focus of our discussions this evening and as what it would involve has not been adequately scrutinised.
right OK, thank you very much.
I'm just going to ask the Chief Executive of your views on that one, I mean we have talked about timings that we would probably not, sir, I mean I would agree with the view that it's a second order issue that strictly speaking doesn't arise unless and until the Council receives a capital receipt so,
but on that basis, I hope that we could agree to rejects 3 am strike about.
sorry, that is what I thought we'd agreed, many things, Councillor Bolton.
OK, OK, so if you agree that we think that's looking at my other team, we think that's a sensible approach, so we are recommendation is that we do not agree, so we've got to vote on this summary OK, so those in favour of continuing with 3 as it is.
those against continuing with 3 as it is think that's unanimous and the Chair has it cost to vote, no abstentions, thank you very much.
and I think that covers everything in paper and Councillors, thank you very much, it has been.
somewhat longer over this exempt paper than I thought it would be, thank you very much, thank you everyone, thank you, Marina Mo Barry Hanna, Ms Ritchie, for your patience through your first meeting.
right, we will need to go home and cuts in.
- 24-23 Council Wide Development Budget FINAL, opens in new tab
- London Councils Grant Scheme Contribution 2024-25, opens in new tab
- Appendix A - Borough Subscription 2024-25, opens in new tab
- Company report Finance Jan 24 1, opens in new tab
- Appendix, opens in new tab
- Wandsworth Bridge Roundabout - Committee report, opens in new tab
- Appendix 1, opens in new tab