Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 23 January 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 23rd January 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Okay. Okay. Welcome to this Finance Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Critchard,
and I am the chair of this committee. Members of the committee, I'm going to now ask you
to introduce yourselves, starting on my left, please.
Hello, I'm Councillor Sean Lawless, Tooting Broadway Ward.
Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Jeremy Ambas, West Patney Ward.
Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Warrell, Shaftesford and Queenstown Ward.
Evening Councillor Claire Fraser, South Ballym.
Good evening, everyone.
Louis Van Neuwirth -Dahr.
I'm Alistair Richard -Jones.
I'm one of the Councillors for Northcote Ward.
Good evening.
My name is Councillor Matt Corner. I'm a member for Ninetowns Ward.
Good evening everybody. I'm Councillor Lindsay Hedges of Ballin Ward. Thank you.
Councillor Peter Graham, will Council for Wandsworth Common and Opposition speak for Finance?
Thank you very much. We also have Councillor Akinola, cabinet member for Voluntary Sector Business Engagement and Culture here,
and Councillor Ireland who's the cabinet member for finance.
And we have several offices present but they will introduce themselves
when they address the committee. Okay so item one is the minutes of
the meeting on 4th of December 2024. Are they
agreed? Are there any amendments?
Can we agree these minutes please? Okay thank you.

2 Declarations of Interests

I'm also aware that there are some actions outstanding from the previous
meeting. The clerk and I are following these up and we will share the action
log with committee members after this meeting. Okay so we're on the case.
Members are aware of their duty to declare pecuniary interests and to keep
the registers of interests up to date. For the benefit of any members of the
public viewing the meeting. Any interest declared during this part of the meeting should be
related directly to the agenda items and the decisions being taken tonight. Members are
advised to seek the advice of the monitoring officer in advance if they believe there is
any conflict or pecuniary or other type of interest to be declared. Are there any declarations
of either pecuniary, other registrable or non -registrable interests from anyone on the
committee. I have to declare that I am one of the directors of the Wandsworth Trading
Company, which we have a report from the trading company, but I have no pecuniary interest
in it whatsoever it's a council organization and I will continue to

3 London Councils Borough Subscription 2025/26 (Paper No. 25-18)

chair. Okay, okay, first item on the agenda is the London Council's Borough
Subscription for 26 -27 paper 2518. The assistant chief executive
here. Mr Evans, would you like to say a couple of words about this paper that we see every
year?
Thank you, Chair. Yes indeed, you do see it every year and have done for many years, but
we try to include as much information as possible, so this is asking for the Council to approve
its contribution as 132 London boroughs are asked to contribute to the London Council's
which commissions a range of pan London services for those things like
homelessness, domestic violence, domestic abuse, so helping to provide services the
most vulnerable in London. So the money and the budget is set out here, it's
changed slightly since last year based on the amount is based on the
calculation based on our population of our borough and there's a slight quirk
that even if we don't agree that the law states that as long as majority of
councils in London agree then by law we have to pay anyway but it's interesting
quirk of the system but happy to take any questions okay thank you very much
who's got any questions okay councillor Graham anyone from our side the other
So, and this is something of an annual complaint.
I have no problem with money being spent on combating homelessness or money being spent
on tackling sexual and domestic violence.
Those are good things.
I'm sure the work that the organizations contracted under this grant program are doing is good
work.
What I query is how we can assert in paragraph 19 that the LCGS benefits the borough by bringing
economies of scale, efficiency, and effectiveness to the services provided, because we can see
in the paragraph above that that we're getting a two and a half percent share on one of the
funds and two and a half, it's almost exactly the same in terms of the percentage points
on the other, and yet we are paying, if we look at the appendix, 3 .7 percent of the cost
on the subscriptions.
In other words, subscriptions are not proportionate, or the money, the resources being given to
us is not proportionate to the subscription.
I appreciate that there's a central fund, but it does seem highly iniquitous, and you
could potentially modify that by looking at needs to say, well, other boroughs have higher
needs and therefore it's going where the need is.
Although there is a 16 -page methodology paper on the London Council site talking about how
it will assess the need, there is no information on what the need is in each borough.
There is a dashboard to which there is a link in the paper
which allows one to make comparisons.
So for example, we, of the 85 ,700 and a bit
total service users for the duration of the program so far,
we have 1 ,964, that's 2 .3%.
So, but look, say at Islington,
for another in the London borough,
they have 3 ,086, that's 3 .6%, and yet they're only paying in 2 .5.
So they're paying in 2 paying 2 .5 % of the cost and they're getting 3 .6 % of the service.
We're paying in 3 .7 and getting 2 .3.
Could you come to your point please?
Well I'll just make the final things. Well maybe that's because it's in London borough.
So let's look at Barnett.
Barnett, 4 ,761.
So they're getting 5 .6 % of the results.
What are they paying in?
4 .42.
So again, Barnett are getting more out
than they're paying in.
Completely different borough, completely
different characteristics.
How do we possibly assert in paragraph 19
that we're getting economies of scale efficiency
and effectiveness when we're getting 30 % to 50 % less
than what we should in terms of just a straight allocation and we've got no
data on needs how can we say that? Thank you. Mr. Overton, sorry
Councillor Corner is this about the same thing or something different? Thanks okay
right. Thank you chair and you know I can't dispute the figures of Councillor
has put forward. I think I would say that clearly this is a pan -London scheme, which
is about making sure there are services in place that are most vulnerable across London.
Some of these populations do move between boroughs. And undoubtedly, Wandsworth has
got less of a need than some of the boroughs. Now, I'm not saying the allocations are
all perfect, but I think there is a principle here where each council pays in to tackle
initiative is very much better tackled at a panel under level both commissioned
and in terms of referral pathways and the organizations that do it and the
learning across there so I think the so from a from a statistical point of view
absolutely council Graham's right we from a need point of view then clearly
want us need as a borough in terms of its wealth and demography is is less
than some of the other boroughs in here and so we wouldn't expect it to have the
level that's in terms of proportion level. I think I come back to the principle this
is a pan -London program that is aimed at tackling a problem that London faces and there can
not be a perfect allocation but we do work very carefully with the across the council
to make sure that the schemes are promoted with our services to make sure the referrals
go in and we get as much usage as we can out of them.
Thank you very much. Make it quick.
It will be a quick supplementary.
So first, I mean, so you're acknowledging
that the assertion in paragraph 19
is just an assertion without evidence.
But the second aspect is, Barnet is not an in the London borough.
Barnet seems quite comparable to Onsos in many respects.
It has an inner aspect of its southern end,
but very leathy, wealthy outer element to it.
Barnet is getting more out than it pays in.
So I would ask, given that I've raised this issue
and raised a lack of needs data for two or three years now.
Have you sought this data from London councils?
I think a couple things I'm unfamiliar with, Barnett.
So thank you for that.
I, we haven't sought that needs data as far as I'm aware.
We can certainly ask for that data.
I will come back to this in a pan London procured service
service and tackling the issues that this is supposed to tackle, perfection in terms
of allocation of money versus need is just not going to happen and I think we have to
accept that. So this committee has been asked to accept whether it is allocated and wishes
to allocate that resource to help tackle a London -wide problem which does undoubtedly
benefit one but also the rest of the boroughs in London.
Should we accept each year being told that you will seek the data and each year you are
not doing so?
Thank you. You said one supplementary and I've got two other people who wish to speak.
OK, Councillor Corner, can you be come to the point and then I'll come to you, Councillor Worrall.
Then Councillor Anfash.
Thank you, Chair. Mr Evans, I know you pointed out that there's a quirk to this, which is even if we were to reject this as an idea as a council, we'd still legally have to pay it.
Could you just explain how that mechanism works and also what the alternatives are for
the council to simply blindly accepting what the requested amount is every year and to
what extent the council might have negotiating power and leverage in the negotiations that
lead to this figure being determined?
I can only go on the face value of that.
Excuse me, one minute.
I know that Councillor Acunola has been to the meeting.
Would you like to add something to this, Councillor Acunola?
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, so there is actually quite a long process into deciding what the priorities of London
councils are, which includes myself, because I attend the Grants Committee for London councils,
and the leaders of all London councils as well.
So they decide the priorities, and then we have to look at the range of services that
need to be provided, and then we procure the services.
But because, like quite, as you can see from the organizations that are,
that the services are procured from, they're all very different and some are quite specialist.
So they need to be procured at this sort of scale to make it worthwhile for those organizations.
So there's quite a lot of negotiation, quite a lot of discussion before we get to the agreement
that these are the services that we all want to pay into because we all benefit.
it. Thank you. Is there anything else to add there Mr. Evans or you happy with? I
can get some detail of the legal provision to Councillor Corner if he wants
that. He's covered in the bit of it's covered in the legal comment. I'm gonna
say supplementary very quick. Okay I don't need to see then it's legal text so
and save yourself time with that,
but it would be good to see impact evaluations
that London Council have published
or made available in the last year.
I don't think they have published them
looking at their website.
And I just wondered if Councillor Acunola
could ask if the subject of proportionality
of contributions to money spent in borough
had been discussed at the Grants Committee
and what her contributions to that discussion might have been.
Yes, we have discussed proportionality,
but as has already been said,
the nature of the people who are being supported,
they move around, so there's no reason to assume that,
because a service is being provided in Brent,
it's not for a Wandsworth resident.
A woman who is fleeing, or a man,
fleeing domestic violence from Wandsworth
may well be placed in Brent.
So you have to think about all those other sort of factors
to understand why we're procuring these services,
pan London, and everybody is benefiting in fact.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councilor Worrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I find it quite sad that we rehash this every year
in terms of what is a service
that actually does benefit Wandsworth.
It's not only about numbers,
and I know certain members across the table
focus on the numbers a lot of the time.
I think in terms of the grants process,
It's also looking at what actually supports that process.
It's the research that goes on behind in terms of need
of the people who are using the service.
It's the research into what's actually happening.
I mean, it's the London Research Policy Partnership,
which this makes a contribution into,
in terms of giving us the information
for our own local organizations
to be able to tap into a national program,
I think, a London program.
I think the other aspect of this is a multilateral solution
that we're looking at.
It is about people who are in transit from time to time.
So there are times when ones with residents will be counted as a ones with resident temporarily,
goes across into another borough, counts it as said, and then comes back and then is supported by us once again.
It's about an integrated working process.
And I think what we also are making a contribution to is what goes on behind the scenes.
And I think it's actually really, really sad that we're quibbling over a small amount of money for
What is a very beneficial service for a very vulnerable and
marginalized group population in terms of those who are homeless or those who are subject to domestic violence.
And what I'd like to see is actually agree the principle that actually we are together as London,
working together, making a contribution, there might be slight differences in terms of numbers from time to time.
But this is a joint working process where we are actually working together.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Wourel.
Councillor Ambash.
I just wanted to follow up with John, one thing he said at the end, but I wanted to
support what Councillor Nacanola said about this is a very vulnerable population that moves around
and it's not always easy to say whether someone's Wandsworth or maybe having a service outside
Wandsworth and the scale of some of these projects wouldn't be able to be replicated
if we tried to do it on our own, so it may be more efficient to do it pan -London. I accept
that. I wonder with the 14 individual projects on page 8 and page 9, and they may change
from year to year, I'm not sure if they're exactly the same as last year, but I just
wanted to ask Mr. Evans the point he said about frontline staff. We have quite a lot
frontline staff in the housing department, children's departments, adults and community
safety who would need to know about these projects so we could make maximum use.
Do we have information about all 14 projects with all of the frontline staff in those departments
so that they're aware of all the projects and how they might make referrals?
I mean, that's my understanding.
I mean, there might be a gap or two, but certainly that is the case.
And just coming back to the – London Council does publish, as part of their grants papers,
I can see there's 50 pages here on their website of outcomes to the end of November,
I think, which goes to the grants committee that Councillor Acanola mentioned.
There's also a publicly available dashboard as well.
So it isn't true that the London Councils Grants Committee doesn't publish the information.
So that is there.
And I'm looking at information here which highlights sort of ones of case studies actually
in terms of their interaction with both council and other services.
Brilliant.
Thank you.
It would be quite good if you could share the link to the ones with case studies with
us.
Quickly, Councillor – oh, right.
Can I ask you Councillor Graham, Councillor Worrall and then you Councillor Acanola?
To be clear, it's not the outcomes data we're talking about, it's the needs data.
It's the needs data that we know, because there is a 16 -page methodology document online,
we know that London Councils has got.
It's that that will tell us whether or not we're getting a fair share
and whether the resource being allocated here is proportionate to the need here.
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.
We shouldn't be having to have this debate every year because we've asked consistently for this data and it's reasonable to have this data
The data exists
Whether she has given it miss Johnson from her position on the grass
I think I remember slightly earlier in this conversation that
Mr. Evans agreed to go and look for this. Is that not the case? Mr. Evans? I think you did for the needs data. I
I think it's fine. I think we've heard that request.
With respect, Jo, I've had that same answer two years in a row, and he hasn't thought it for two years.
Well, we'll see what we can do. It will be on our account.
So why is it going to happen the third time it's asked for?
Thank you.
Every year it doesn't happen.
Right. Thank you for your observation.
Er, Councillor Worrall and then Councillor Acunola.
And then we'll finish.
Fine. Okay.
Councillor Acunola?
Final word?
Yeah, final word.
I'm sorry. I'm unable to see into the future in the next four years
and who is going to need, how many people are going to need to use these services.
So I will be unable to give you that information.
But to respond to what you said, Councillor Corner, we actually also have feedback.
We have webinars at lunchtime where these services come and they report back to us on how the service is going,
what they're learning, things that we can take back to share with our staff here.
And they are not all the same services,
because some of them have been re -procured
and some organizations have decided
that they're unable to deliver the kind of service
that we need because the needs of people
have increased quite a lot,
especially around things like mental health support.
Okay, thank you very much, Cattesra Canola.
Okay, and my comment on this is this is very much
a sort of arrangement where it's from each according to their ability to each according
to their need. I now suggest we move to the vote.
We have an amendment, Councillor Critchard, which I'd like to introduce.
Oh, sorry. Quickly.
And also, as we've already established, there is no data to underpin your assertion there.
I think that's as unevidenced as the paragraph in the paper I pointed out.
Right, yes, your amendment is to make representations.
I think we've covered, you talked about why you think that's necessary.
Just to be clear for those watching online because they won't know what it is, it is
just simply asking for this lack of publicly available data to be made available because
we're not asking Councillor Akinoda to get out her crystal ball, we're asking for data
we know exists because they've published the methodology they used to calculate it, they've
just not published the results.
I say that she doesn't have the results.
We're suggesting that she should make representations and the council should make representations
to London councils to get those results so we can see whether it's being allocated fairly.
That is all, but our residents deserve their fair share of their money.
Right, can I have a seconder for that please?
Councillor Hedges, thank you very much.
Okay, so the amendment in front of us is about making representations.
I would comment that it does seem to be that we've already
Commented that we would do this those in favor of the amendment. Please raise their hands
for
Those against please raise their hands
Five the amendment Falls. We now ask to agree the council's continued involvement in the grants
Just looking at page 11
Paragraph 28.
So it says the approval of the recommendations above will ensure that the Council's compliance
with obligations under this scheme.
So is it fair to say that if we don't vote with the recommendations, we are then in breach
of our obligations under the scheme?
Sorry, I don't think that question was directed at you.
Who's going to comment on that?
I thought the council's free to take a decision.
I don't think it's in breach of anything.
It's free to take a decision.
We've been asked to take a decision by London councils about whether we're contributing
that money.
And then if we don't, I think they look at the entirety of London and what each council
decision is and then enact whatever legal provision is there.
but again I'm not an absolute expert in that particular provision. No okay right
okay we've now been asked to agree the councillors continued involvement in the
grant scheme and approve contribution for next year as detailed in paragraph
29 those in favor please raise their hands. You can break your whip, Councillor Corner. Those against please
raise their hands those abstaining okay thank you very much counselors okay we
now move on to yes
right okay next item on the agenda is the trading company annual report okay

4 Wandsworth Trading Company Annual Report (Paper No. 25-23)

and Mrs. Mary would you like just say please say just one or two words about
this before we can move to it. So this is the annual trading company accounts
which comes to this committee every year. We have this is the only trading company
the council has and we have it for very particular reason which is to provide
for some services that used to be part of the council and no longer are and they operate
under a kind of a mutual spinoff. So we needed this legal entity in order to provide services
to them. The services have reduced over time as they've started to become more self -sufficient
and we're left with a small turnover. We charge admin costs against that and this year the
overall position is a very, very small loss. We will obviously be looking into that for
future years, but really the paper is as it has been in previous years.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Murray. Just as a reminder, I'm one of the directors of the
trading company. Does anyone have any questions on this, please?
Right, let's go the other way round. Councillor Worrall, would you like to go first?
Okay, thank you. My question might sound as if it's coming from the party opposite. It's
just a quick question as to why do we keep this going?
Very good question that we ask ourselves every year when we're doing the paperwork, because
Because we have to, legally we are not allowed, we are not entitled as a local authority to
trade in this way with these entities, so this is the only way we can do it.
Thank you.
I was just going to say, Chair, that tempted as I was to ask you whatever you did as a
director to lose £794, it is a de minimis sum and we are happy to approve the paper.
Thank you.
Okay, right, so we've been asked to note the performance of the company.
Everyone, those in favour?
Yes.
Agreed unanimously. Fantastic.
And I would like to thank my fellow directors, of which I can as well,
a note of thanks to the other directors for their work with this.

5 Wandsworth's Annual Procurement Plan (Paper No. 25-20)

We now move to the annual paper 2520, which is the procurement forward plan and annual
update.
Mr Glaister is going to make a short introduction to this paper before we discuss it.
Thank you, Chair.
My name is Mark Glaister.
I'm the Assistant Director of Procurement.
A brief introduction, because I'm aware that a lot of people here probably weren't at the
purposes committee in December, I think it was December.
That general purposes committee in full council introduced the or approved the introduction
of the sensitivity matrix so we could determine which contracts are considered by the procurement
board and which sensitive contracts are considered by the appropriate OSC.
Within appendix A, I've included details of that sensitivity matrix, the nonsensitive
contracts, the sensitive contracts in commissioners' opinion, and I've also included within that
the process we go through to determine in terms of contract management platinum, gold,
silver and bronze.
Members can, of course, ask for those items to be moved from sensitive onto the nonsensitive
list and vice versa.
We're going to be in six monthly – sorry, we're going to be providing six monthly updates
at the June, July round of OSCs, not only finance going forward.
And my team is currently working on providing just a very brief description of what each
of the contracts are, especially when you start to look at things from ICT.
They don't really make much sense to anybody unless you work in ICT, myself included, I
have to say.
Some of the changes that were also made at the General Purposes Committee and agreed
by full council, yes, the introduction of the sensitivity analysis, but we've also increased
the threshold for seeking quotes and tenders from £1 ,500 to £20 ,000.
An important point to note there, though, is that if commissioners do choose not to
seek quotes up to £20 ,000, we would ask them to keep a rationale for why they've done that,
just really to ensure value for money.
And then the other sort of material change that was made was to increase the delegation
level for officers to agree entering into contracts from £214 ,000, which it was before
That's the services threshold to three million pounds and total lifetime value unless the subject matter of the contract is particularly
Sensitive or if there is cheapy transfer of staff into or out of the council. I'm happy to take any questions. Okay. Thank you very much
Councillor and bash
The report mr. Glaister, yeah, I must admit I was at the general purposes committee
But I just wanted to go over something about how you get the results in the appendix.
Looking at para 3 on page 22, the sensitivity analysis talks about there being eight factors
considered for each projects.
And then the result appears in the appendix A, which gives us two lists, one that goes
to offices and the sensitive ones that come to OSCs.
And it gives us the value of the contract and the classification.
So it just gives us two of the eight factors.
But please can you explain the methodology more clearly that leads to contracts being
on one list or the other list eventually?
What have you done to come up with that result?
I facilitated commissioners doing that piece of work.
I don't know the ins and outs of all of those contracts.
I contribute obviously in terms of cost
and contract classification,
but taking for example strategic outcome
on that sensitivity matrix.
Working across there,
if you look at direct contribution
to more than one strategic outcome,
a good example of that for example
will be leisure centers.
Leisure centers, yes, they're there,
partly they're providing an income for the council
through a concession,
but also used by adult social care for example
in terms of health and well -being for individuals.
So if it's something like a leisure centers contract, that would receive a four.
Things like public safety, obviously the waste contracts, if our waste wasn't being collected,
that would be very significant.
So that would score a four.
But actually the cleaning contract for the highways and things like that, that's not
actually a public safety issue, so that wouldn't score so highly.
This is commissioners' views of these things.
This is the first time we've done this.
I think it's worked quite well, but I think one of the important things actually is that we
Engage more with the lead cabinet members so for example
we just set up and buy monthly meetings with Councillor Henderson so we can constantly keep under review the
Portfolio of contracts in his areas, and we did we'd encourage other kind of cabinet holders to do exactly the same thing
Sorry can I just clarify am I right for each contract
They get a score between one and four for each of the eight factors, and then you just add up the number
And it's anything over 20
As part of the change program we worked quite hard on this
It's quite challenging sometimes with some of the commissioners thinking
Oh, can we just push it up to 22 because they were trying to keep some off the list and someone's thinking we bring it down
to 18
Eventually we kind of had to agree on on a figure and 20 seemed about right
Okay, thank you very much. I can't hedges
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your work you've done on this.
Just a quick one on paragraph 8 in terms of the cost pressures on council contracts.
I know this is probably going to be a bit of a laborious question, but I just wondered
if you had a rough average percentage of how much the price of tenders and quotes have
gone up compared to the pretender estimate costs.
And I get it's probably going to be quite different across different sectors.
It is very different across sectors.
I don't have that figure to hand and be quite difficult to calculate.
In housing, for example, with construction, the pretender estimate we have is often very
different to the tender that comes back.
And part of that actually is the time that's elapsed between something going to the capital
program board in terms of budget being agreed and actually going out to tender and getting
prices back.
Things fluctuate as well.
I mean, you know, the cost of living up and down, it would be a very difficult calculation
to make I'd have to say, but I'd guess year on year you're probably looking at something
about 5 % increase on our contract costs, and that is just a guess.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Fraser.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wondered, with these contracts, are you aware of, are these all now stipulated
that they have the living wage within them?
Yeah, I mean, it's part of our accreditation to the Living Wage Foundation that since we
We signed up to the Living Wage Fact, I think I gave a number here actually, of 254 contracts
that have been re -let or renewed over that period of time.
Even when we're extending a contract, even if there's an extension provision within that,
we're triggering the requirement for living wage at the same time.
And then within the contracts themselves, we have a, because we don't know what the
increase is going to be in the living wage or the national minimum wage year on year,
so there's a mechanism in the contract so that the supplier will be no worse off, so
actually we'll just align.
They provide us essentially with our staffing figures.
That goes through our financial control to make sure that we're giving them the right
uplift.
Thank you.
Councillor Warrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to go back to the sensitivity matrix for a second.
And thank you for putting it in here.
It really helps understand the context.
I suppose in terms of the – this is a work in progress, I understand, because this has
recently been introduced.
I suppose in terms of the way that this works,
some of it is quite subjective.
If a potential contract is somewhere around 18 or 19,
and so it's right on that borderline,
if it's my understanding,
you would go back to the cabinet member for clarification
whether it should go on group A or group B,
or how does that actually make this work?
Because, as I said, the subjectivity bias
can let you come to this.
I absolutely appreciate that.
After Grenfell, for example, anything
that was coming through housing to do with fire
was instantly sensitive.
That's kind of dropped off over time.
I think the really important thing
is that list is not set in stone.
The whole reason for it, well, not the whole reason,
but one of the reasons it comes to this OSC
and it will be going to the other OSCs,
so actually if officers think something
is nonsensitive or even sensitive, it's there.
It can be discussed.
than actually between us, we can move it across.
If you could kind of consider what, how we were doing it before, it was basically me
just using my kind of professional knowledge and judgement to put a list together for what
I thought was sensitive.
This is a much better way of doing it, much better way of doing it with the commissioners.
The continued engagement as well with the lead cabinet members as we're working up to
these type of meetings should ensure actually that everyone's in agreement in terms of politically
and the commissioners.
Thank you.
I have two questions on paragraph 6 on the real living wage.
It was explored in your answer to Councillor Fraser's question a moment, but it is the
last sentence that says the terms and conditions that have been introduced into the extended
or relit contracts that provide a mechanism to inflate the contract prices in line with
the rise in the real living wage rate.
Does the increase in the contract price, sorry, I'll put it the other way, I think it's easier
to understand, does the increase in the real living wage rate directly inflate the contract
price?
So is the Council picking up the entire increase?
Or is the contractor expected to pick up some of the increase of the real living wage?
No, if we left an element to the contractor, they would have to front load their prices
to try and factor in what the increase might be.
The least risky way and the most control that we get out of that is to agree to fully cover
any increases in the real living wage, and exactly the same as the national minimum wage.
You know, there are some councils where they don't build any inflationary provision into
their contracts at all.
So if I'm a bidder, I have to try and factor in what's going to happen over the four or six year life type cycle of that contract.
Therefore, the way I look at it, you're going to be paying inflated prices in those earlier days.
With a mechanism like this, you kind of fix your risk as far as you can.
I can follow that and actually possibly that increases the council's negotiating hand when it's deciding the contracts,
because the contractor can't say, but this is an uncertainty we have to hedge for.
Just my second question then is, the paragraph says that 234 contracts have had these terms
now implemented in them.
How many contracts roughly remain that don't have these real living wage terms in them?
There are three contracts left, three.
The reason there's only three is they are very long -term contracts.
They had eight -year fixed terms and eight -year extension terms.
They're into the extension terms now.
They are the, off the top of my head, it's a couple of the cleaning contracts on housing
estates and the grounds maintenance contracts.
But we've also had a, you know, by April the 1st, 2026, we have to move everything up to
the real living wage rates in any case to maintain our accreditation.
And what we've done over the last couple of years, we've been incrementally increasing
it above national minimum wage rates to try and close that gap.
Thank you.
Just a final question, if I may, because we're pretty much –
Is it related to –
Yeah, we're pretty much at the end of the project, which is good.
Approximately, what has the cost to the Council been of this?
Don't hold that figure. I'd have to get that from financial control.
Thank you very much. Councillor Graham.
Yes. So, following on from what Councillor James was asking,
I'd already understood that when contracts are renegotiated,
the impact of the employer's NI increase will obviously have to be borne in mind.
And I was going to ask whether that was properly factored into the annual values we're seeing
for these contracts that are due for renewal in the immediate term.
However, I'd also thought that for the contracts we had, they were just being purely assessed
on a CPI basis.
But is there any scope additionally for our contractors to use the real living wage and
employment cost element to actually seek for compensation for NI increases through that
mechanism?
Thank you for the question.
We've always sought legal advice on this, actually, because we've had some contractors
primarily in housing so far already asking us if we're going to cover the cost from the
national insurance increases.
We did highlight to them, actually, that national insurance rates dropped about three years
ago and they didn't offer us a refund on our contracts.
So it doesn't seem unreasonable that if national insurance costs go up that they should bear
the costs for that themselves as an employer.
These are the employer's costs, not the wage costs.
And our contracts are quite tight in terms of what they can actually increase.
So I'm not saying we're not going to get national insurance increases come through.
I think when we're retendering for contracts, we have no control over what bid price somebody
comes in and it wouldn't surprise if I'm a bid, if I'm a contractor, I'm going to factor
in all of my costs in new procurements.
But within our existing contracts, there's no provision in the contract itself in terms
of the terms and conditions for an increase such as this to national insurance.
And picking up the point around CPI, we look at each contract on its merits.
So a cleaning contract, for example, most of the costs there are going to be staff -based,
not CPI -based.
So therefore, with a contract like that, it would probably break down of 70 % of the increase
would be linked to the national minimum wage or the real living wage, and 30 % of it would
be linked to CPI, to other things like that, back office costs, increases in utilities,
et cetera.
Something like a waste contract, we'll break that down into one of the big costs there,
obviously staffing.
But it's also the cost of diesel.
So actually, we look at each contract and its merits.
We don't just use CPI for everything.
we put an indices in place that reflects the cost the count the contract is gonna have
to bear. Thank you. Because I did also ask whether the annual value attached to the contracts
listed in Appendix A already accounted for the employers NI changes or not. Are those
annual values reflective or not? No it doesn't. Right so so we could see significant pressures
coming through on all of those contracts when they return to this. Not on existing contracts
because there's no provision within the terms and conditions for an increase of the employers'
costs.
On the contracts listed in Appendix A, which are up for renewal, we could.
Likely when they're retendered.
One specific point also about those contracts listed in Appendix A, and then I have a separate
question which I can come back to later.
I had raised this before the meeting.
On page 26, it's got communication service, £442 ,000, which seems extraordinarily high
Given we have our own comms team now understand it is quite high for Richmond and there was some debate about whether the
442 ,000 figure was incorrect because it was actually accounting for Richmond's costs. Could you just clarify that?
It is a Richmond contract. It's not a ones of contracts
I do my best to kind of cleanse these but there's there's always gonna be something in there
I'm afraid it's the perils of working for two councils. That's fine. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you
Okay
Any further question?
Yeah
Yes, my other question was actually following on from some of the earlier points mentioned which is the sensitivity matrix
I mean, there's no problem doing a sensitivity matrix
But it is quite amusing to note that something could be of national political
Interest and significant public interest and yet fail to come to committee
Which I don't think in practice should really be the case
I'm sure you'd have spotted that and moved it out anyway.
But I was going to ask you, you mentioned that the papers were run past the cabinet member.
Did the cabinet member see the division of contracts into those that were due to come
to committee and not and agree them at least on a tentative basis?
Not in this iteration but as I've said, moving forward in preparation for the July round
of committees, we've already established the bimonthly meeting with the Councilor Henderson.
We'd be looking to do that with other Councilors.
But the thing I can't really write into the sensitivity matrix is usual common sense.
If something's very high pro...
You know, using the Grenfell example again, you know, if you know as an officer that this
is a very sensitive issue, the fact is you're going to put it up to OSC.
You know, this is a guide for our sort of general work.
Okay, thank you.
Right, Mr. Glaister, I've actually got a couple of questions myself before we move to the
amendment.
The ATMS software procurement, I just wondered how that was going, that you've rolled it
out already, but obviously that's something that helps support the contracting.
It comes off toward it, so we're quite keen to know.
I'm quite keen to know.
Sorry, the ATMS?
The Paragraph 7, 7 .1.
The procurement software.
Oh, that's nice.
That's nice, sorry.
I thought you were asking me about a particular contract.
No, no, I've got one of those as well.
I know quite a lot about most of them.
I don't know that level of data.
Atomos is going very well, actually.
I've learned some lessons myself, actually,
because I'm on a very commercial basis.
I do give other people quite a hard time
when they're actually implementing their own software.
So it's been an interesting journey for me, actually,
in the team implementing a brand new system.
It's going very well.
I mean, we're about to have some sessions with commissioners
looking at our spend analysis.
We've got lots of details here in terms
of the contracts we've got.
But the software actually also allows us to look at it in detail, a lot of contracts spend,
and there will be savings opportunities there.
It's allowed us to start to bring together our contract management, so we've been working
primarily with adults and children in the first instance.
We're not going to be doing that contract monitoring for them, but actually what the
system allows us to do is to interact directly with the contractor so we can actually keep
an eye on the fact that contract management is taking place, and at a very high level
we can see where there are issues with contracts.
So therefore, me and my team actually can get involved
relatively early where we think there's a potential failure
coming up in a contract.
I can keep a very close eye in terms of the tendering
activity that's going on within my team.
I couldn't do that before.
Now I can click of a button, I can see exactly
who's working on what and exactly what progress
we're making with everything.
Social value's a big area we've been working on
at the moment.
Although the system could record the social value
commitments that have been made, what it couldn't do
initially it has now because we've had it configured.
It couldn't actually record the information
that's coming back in from the contractors
to validate they've actually delivered
their contract management.
So that's a very big step forward.
You know, I talked to one of my category managers yesterday.
They were all very resistant to it when it first came in
because we've all had to learn a new system.
And I'm lucky I've got some younger people in my team
who take to these things quite well.
But actually they love it.
They all love it.
They love the visibility they get over the system,
the ease of use.
We've got the new procurement act coming up and I think a lot of other councils are quite
worried about that.
We're not really because actually we've configured our system so it automatically takes you through
the process.
You don't have to kind of think about it too much.
All of the new notices already automated into the system so again, there shouldn't be a
huge requirement for us in terms of additional resources, but I think it's going to be an
issue for some other councils.
It's been a really worthwhile exercise and I think it's really value for money to have
person or people doing what this is doing with taking about three or four
additional individuals in my team. Okay thank you obviously very passionate
about that it's good to hear and then I had one small detailed question page 27
the digital ID checking it struck me because it's only eight hundred and
fifty seven pounds is that a typo or is that really? I can share prior so I would
thought so. Okay. I would guess, I'm just guessing, I would guess that's £8 ,570.
This will be a software system. Okay. Right, thank you very much. Now we have an
amendment for this paper. Councillor Warrell, I believe you would like...
Do I need to read that out? Yes. Okay, fine. Just double checking.
My amendment is that the committee recommends that the following three
contracts should be moved to the table on page 29.
This will mean that the Health OSC considers these
before approval by the executive.
The three contracts are services for people with a substance use
disorder, the extra care scheme for Prince of Wales Drive,
and Western Lodge homeless reduction.
The reason for the change is due to the sensitivity
of these contracts and the likely public interest
in the awards.
OK, thank you very much.
Do we have a seconder for that?
Councillor Hedges, thank you.
OK, all those in favour of that?
I just wanted to make a point.
So we're very supportive of this,
not least because we believe in principle
that if members of an OSC wish to scrutinise something,
they should be able to do so.
And we hope that this will be borne through
in other respects and areas, but we're
happy to support members' rights.
Right.
OK, all those in favour, please, for that amendment?
Unanimous.
Lovely.
Thank you very much.
and we've been asked to now agree with the paper,
which is to approve the list of contracts,
which is as amended now, for the forward plan,
and note the general updates.
Is everyone in favor?
Right.
For 2A, all those in favor?
Yeah, we're all, great, and 2B, all agreed?
Excellent, thank you very much, councillors.
Okay.
It's actually one of my favourite papers but it's a bit nerdy as well.
Okay, next paper is paper 2524 which is about the appropriation of land adjoining the Alton
Activity Centre for the housing revenue account to the General Fund.
For this paper and the next paper, Mr Richardson is here to talk us through and I think it's
probably worth saying is these are legal changes around to make, to enable the
planning agreements that we've already got in place. Mr. Richardson. Thank you.

6 Appropriation of the land adjoining the Alton Activity Centre from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund (Paper No. 25-24)

Yes, Joe Richardson interim director of Durant and Place delivery. Paper 25 -24
really concerns you to say approval to appropriate the land from the HRA into
the general fund really to deliver an objective from the ultimate renewal plan
there. The second recommendation in the paper is to delegate powers to purchase
gardens and immunity land. I think on reflection we would acknowledge that
actually that perhaps could have gone in a more general update paper but
nevertheless we recommend we do recommend the the approval of that and
it will certainly help the Homes for One program continue its momentum as
and when the need to purchase gardens and immunity land arises. Okay. Thank you
Mr Richardson, are there any questions on this one or comments?
I thought Councilor Lawless had something to, okay.
Councilor Graham.
Yes, I'm grateful for the acknowledgement that perhaps recommendation 2C should have been placed somewhere else.
Because it does have nothing to do with the rest of the paper.
And I'm not insinuating anything about that, but it probably would sit better elsewhere.
Could Mr. Richardson just tell us on that point
in terms of gardens being bought up
for the wider Wandsworth program,
where some of these sites are
and how many sites he anticipates this power being used for?
I can certainly tell you where they have been,
notably Kirstenfield was one of them.
So in terms of future, we don't expect this to be enacted very often.
It's really a case of as and when they come in, it would just allow those terms to be
negotiated by the evaluation team and we can move on more rapidly in the program.
But we don't know if this is happening a great deal of times.
I couldn't give you a real number right now.
I'd have to come back to you for something more specific, I'm afraid.
Just for clarity, there's not a further question, just for clarity, we're happy to support the
A and B about the activity center but we won't be supporting C because some of
these sites that may be affected are sites that we do not agree with being
developed and say we would be rather unwise to do it.
Well thank you but I think you've sort of pre -emptied this obviously Councillor Louris also has something to say.
Thank you for sharing that. Councillor Louris.
Thank you. I've got a specific question about the site itself if that's okay but if you can't answer
I'm happy to take it away.
I use the center a lot as a kid,
because I grew up on Norton State.
The parcel of land that we're looking at at the back,
have we considered alternatives around the development
and could we fit what we want to do elsewhere?
And could we just explain a little bit more
about the necessity of capturing that land?
Cheers.
The specific part of the land in the hatching, I mean, I really would have to come back to
you.
We're getting into, I just don't have that to hand.
I'll come back to you if you don't mind.
Thank you.
Would that also be something that we might find in the discussed at planning?
I don't think anyone here goes to planning, do they, which is a bit of a pity.
Not anymore.
Okay.
Some other people quite enjoyed planning when they were on it.
So we've now got three things to consider for this.
So let's go for where we are.
My understanding is everyone's unanimous on point A and B. C, which is to delegate the
powers to delegate the powers in order to negotiate terms and complete acquisition of
any other gardens. Those in favour please raise their hands. That's five. Those against
please raise their hands. Those abstaining. Thank you very much. Thank you councillors.
We now move on to paper 2519, which is a similar paper about appropriation and it concerns
the land adjacent to Farnborough House, Rushmere House and Chilcombe House. Again, Mr Richardson
is going to tell us a bit more.

7 Appropriation, Land at Farnborough House Garages (Paper No. 25-19)

Firstly, I must apologize for the late adjustments to the paper.
You'll note, I think, from you when you look at the pack, the Appendices 4, 5, and 6 were
just not published in the original report with packet error.
Appendix 4 is a list of the properties subject to the appropriation.
5 is a copy of the notice publicizing the Council's intention to appropriate the land,
and Appendix 6 is the quality, impact, and needs analysis.
There's one point of clarity in the text which you'll see on page 10.
Sorry, I'm afraid it won't be 10 in our packs.
Sorry, apologies. Let me reference it. It's appendix 1 and it's paragraph number 3 and it's the middle paragraph of that section, number 3.
So Appendix 1, number 3.
So we've just got more clarity in there, which we hope explains the principles more clearly.
I'll just continue with the introduction, but again, I'll come back and work with many
further questions on it.
Basically, the paper concerns the appropriation of rights, as you say, that will facilitate
delivery of homes for council rent, 38 homes for council rent that were consented.
Sorry, excuse me, could you take it a little bit more slowly please?
Oh yes, sorry, no problem.
Yes, so to recap, so yeah the paper concerns the appropriation of rights that will enable the
delivery of 38 homes for council rent that were consented under the planning application number
2023 forward slash 4762 which is three blocks of flats built
that will be built to full passive house certification
on adjacent to the landing question.
The paper basically seeks approval to appropriate the,
to proceed with appropriation process
that will ultimately be concluded subject to approval
by the Secretary of State.
I just want to be clear
that the appropriation process very much allows for compensation to be made to those residents
affected, very much subject to the surveys and further analysis that are referenced in
the paper that will indeed follow.
And just to conclude, approval of the paper will just mean that the process of determining
the compensation levels will continue and ultimately allowing works to start once the
contractor has been selected, which we expect to be in place in the autumn, again, subject
to further approvals on that day on that basis okay thank you very much and
before we go to questions I'm just going to remind the committee that this has
already gone through planning so we're looking at the appropriation of rights
and we should try and maintain our concentrate the discussion on that
matter and not on planning matters to do with the previous application that's
committee. Okay, councillors. Right, Councillor Ambash. First of all, yes.
Yeah, I understand that may be a technical answer but I just really want
to understand it a bit more from Mr. Richardson. Obviously we want to do
anything that facilitates the development of 38 affordable housing
units as part of the Thousand Homes but the paper seems to say that we're
appropriating land from the housing revenue account
to the general funds, and then we're sending it back
from the general fund to the housing revenue account
so it costs nothing.
So I just really want to know why we need to do this.
I'm sure there's a good reason.
Yeah, and I'm sure that, I need to come back to you.
The reason is a very technical one, I'm afraid.
I don't know if Mr Riley can come in.
Mr Richardson, Mr Riley's happy to answer that one.
Probably unwisely, but I'll have a crack at it.
So basically, when it's in the housing revenue account land, there are rights over that land
that residents and leaseholders will have around being able to walk over the areas,
non -derogation, et cetera.
Those rights would enable residents to injunct against development.
So, if you move the land into the general fund, those rights disappear.
You can then develop your housing, which is what we will do, and then you transfer that
back into the housing revenue account once that process is over.
So, that's rightly where that affordable and social housing should be.
What happens in the intervening period is that people who had rights that may have been
impacted by the development have a right for compensation rather than the ability
to injunct and stop the development. So there's an approved formula by which
anybody who raises complaints around non -derigational rights to sunlight,
daylight will have those considerations looked at and consultation will be
awarded if appropriate. That is my simple guide to appropriation.
Thank you very much Mr Riley. That was very helpful.
Okay, right. I think everyone is very clear now. Councillor Graham.
Yes, so just a phrase in paragraph three of the main report where it says it is expected
any residents affected by the development would have engaged with Newsteer Limited,
which suggests that we don't know if they engaged and more to the point, if we don't
they engaged, then clearly we haven't taken any heed of whatever they may have said in
the proposal.
So I just wondered if that could be clarified.
Yeah, no, very happy to.
This is a, the paper is very much a moment in time.
And certainly in terms of the engagement that has been made, the Council has written two
letters ourselves, two residents, and New Steer, the appointed agent, have made two
further attempts.
We'll continue making those attempts to do so and I'm sure we'll you know it's absolutely our commitment is to do so
So this is that the report is a moment in time and as we say in the report
This is a process that will continue and as you say ultimately
Once those findings from the assessment are made and then then yeah, it will be closed off at that point
But there's still a way to go
So just for clarity have any residents engaged and if they have what have they said?
It is very early in the process.
I need to come back to you.
The process is very much the request for approval is that we continue with the process.
There is still a way to go on that basis.
I will happily come back with you with figures on the number of responses.
We have had to the letters to date.
But again, there will be more anyway.
Sorry, Mr Riley, did you?
That's fine.
I mean, I think within the document, I suggest one person had responded thus far and others
may well do as Mr Richardson says.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions on this?
Okay.
One thing I'd just like to say is it's quite clear we've tried a few times and I would
want to stress because there may be residents watching that obviously we want to get involved
with them and the details about who they who to write to obviously they can
always contact Mr. Richardson or even the committee clerk will forward
anything on that's necessary and I think I would like to try our best you know we
obviously want to do the development but we do want to make sure that residents
are compensated where if and when that is appropriate thank you okay though we
have been asked to approve items agency the appropriation authorized the
director of property services to follow up and following the appropriation seek
the Secretary of State's consent. Councillor Graham's can ask are your side in
agreement with all three of those things? Right okay all those in favour can we
please raise their hands. Thank you very much. All those against and all those

8 Cost of Living Update (Paper No. 25-21)

abstaining. Right, thank you very much Councillors.
We just need to count them. We won't get going on abstentions.
Okay, thank you very much. Okay, councillors, we now move on to item 8 which is our latest
cost of living update and Mr. Threadgold is come to give us a very short introduction
and draw our attention to a couple of key points.
Thank you, Chair, and good evening, everyone.
So the last update was back in October, and so the focus of this paper has been very much
on what has happened and changed since then, and I think it's fair to say that from all
of the things that we're seeing, the number of entitled to calculations, the demand for
crisis grants, the feedback we're getting from partners, that it is still significant
pressure on local residents, communities and businesses and it's important that the Council
and our partners are continuing to deliver a wide programme of activity and support.
The paper also highlights progress against a number of the recommendations of the Cost
Living Commission which was reported to this committee February 2024 and there's a really
strong alignment between the work they were doing in response to the Commission recommendations
and the other activity that ourselves and partners are delivering which will absolutely
remain integral to the work we do going forward.
The focus of the program is increasingly on developing those longer -term strategies to
support individuals, communities and businesses by building their financial resilience, recognizing
that whilst there may not come – there may come a point where it's no longer a cost -giving
crisis per se, there are still ongoing pressures that are creating a kind of new normal with
higher levels of need, complexity and demand across services.
So we're very much now, over the coming months, looking to mainstream activity where evidence
demonstrates effectiveness and to ensure sustainability by seeking alternative funding sources, working
with partners to think about how things can be embedded into their standard delivery.
Just to highlight specifically around the household support fund, because when we came
in October, we didn't have confirmation about the figures and so on that we'd be having
to work with.
Having had that, there is now an outline of the spend, and although we've had confirmation in the autumn budget,
the household support fund will be extended through until March 2026.
We are still awaiting confirmation of exactly what the figure will be.
There is an anticipation, it will be a slight reduction from that we've had previously.
So although the spending says that it will continue to be spent, or the proposals are to continue spending in the same areas that we have done.
holiday vouchers for free school meal, people eligible for free school meals,
crisis grants, uniform grants and so on. There may be some decisions to be taken
as we go through the year about whether to top up some of that funding from the
cost of living reserve should there be ongoing need or indeed to revisit
proposals and we'd love to report that back as appropriate when we next come to
committee. What I would also just like to draw attention to is to a couple of
corrections to make in the paper and
Page 65 paragraph 7 there are two references to Richmond which should very much say Wandsworth
And beneath that in paragraph 8 there is some reference to the outer London Borough and so on which should actually be talking about
The private rental prices in Wandsworth being amongst the least affordable in London accounting for more than half of resident income
And the final point on page 69 on the fourth row, there is some missing text there that
should be referring to the extension of the Citizens' Advice Wandsworth cost of living
project through until March 2026, continuing to provide support for residents through a
further two winters that are expected to be challenging financially, and that this will
help to maintain staffing levels to meet hard demand for advice and support as well as higher
level of complexity of cases. So thank you. Yes, thank you. The clerk's just confirmed that
you'll obviously email that to go in because we haven't got paper copies.
So hopefully everyone's picked that up. Before we take questions, I just wanted
to say I'm going to try and take it in chunks, okay, if that's possible. I would
do my best. So on the first four questions or comments on the main paper,
then if there's anything on the appendix one and then we'll move on to the cost
of living Commission progress update I mean there may be some overlap but I'm
gonna try and keep it try and go through in it without jumping about too much if
that's possible okay cut so hedges and anybody else is interested just let me
No.
Chair, may I ask two questions in my capacity
as opposition spokesperson for business engagement?
Thank you.
So the first question, and thank you, Mr. Gold.
The first question is, in terms of redundancies,
what estimates have been made
in regard to the cost of living program
in light of increased unemployment figures
and the upcoming hike on employer national insurance
contributions, which will ultimately lead
to higher shop prices?
And then the second question is, I'm sure you've all seen today about Sainsburys,
they announced that they're going to cut 30 ,000 jobs sadly.
And we obviously expect more companies to do so given the higher tax bill.
Can you please confirm what the impact will be on the local stores in Wandsworth as well,
and ultimately the cost of living on our residents and our businesses? Thank you.
I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary question for...
Sorry, excuse me.
Councillor Ireland, I can hear a mutter.
I can hear something.
I can't actually see you.
Sorry?
Okay.
I just wondered if one of you wanted to make any comments.
Mr Threadgold, are you okay to answer that or is that...?
About all I can answer is those are very good questions.
I'm afraid I don't have responses to either of those directly.
We'll continue to work through a number of work streams,
including with our economic development colleagues and so on,
to understand what some of the implications will be.
And I will very happily turn those questions back
and feed them into those meetings.
Thank you very much.
Sorry, will you email me back if you just want to?
Sure, I can certainly respond to you.
Brilliant, thank you very much.
Sorry, you said you had two questions.
That was two.
Can I just comment, the only thing I sort of remember, I may be wrong here, is that
the majority, I thought a lot of our local businesses are actually quite small and therefore
will actually pay less.
I don't know, Councillor Acanoe, does that matter?
I mean, you're absolutely right.
Just addressing Sainsbury's, I mean, they have huge profits, so I don't know if we can
really relate the fact that they're,
well no they don't qualify.
Because they're billionaires, right?
So I don't know if we can, well,
no, not the people that work there,
but Sainsbury's the shop.
Sainsbury's the shop, however, make huge profits,
millions of pounds worth of profits.
I don't know how many people,
I don't know how many businesses are planning redundancies,
Maybe you know the names of the businesses if you share that with me, then I can contact them and find out what?
Redundancies that well if you ask that question I can only help you as a as I can but you're absolutely right
Councillor Crichard most of the businesses in one in Wandsworth are SMEs because we are a borough of SMEs
So a lot of them will actually benefit from
from the increased small business rate relief, as opposed to they'll actually pay less national
insurance over the next year. But I don't want us to get bogged down in into that conversation
right now. Okay, thank you, Councillor Cunola. Councillor Fraser. Thank you very much, Chair.
I had two points, so page 69 on the lift track and page 79 on the U -Lads grant. So just two
observations with the lift, I'm really glad to see that.
I really love that platform and the data that it provides.
Just trying to understand, is there still,
with that extension, is there further capacity
or capability we're looking at there?
And secondly, on the ULEZ grant,
obviously that was a really great kind of resource
for our residents to be able to use.
Is it, we've seen now that that's kind of done a good job
and run its course now.
I think, yes, I was talking to the colleagues earlier today and the numbers of applications
have slowed almost to a dead stop and there are some people who were starting to do applications
who have then stopped and abandoned it and so on.
So I think quite likely, yes, it has run its course.
I think in total about 120, 930 applications to that had been paid out.
So still did some good things, but I think it's probably run its course.
In terms of the lift track, yeah, I mean, we felt it was a really important thing to
extend the access, and there were some economies of scale from actually extending it for a
longer period.
You're absolutely right, that needs to go hand in glove with a real understanding of
the resources to use that effectively.
We will continue to do that primarily through the cost of living program team whilst that
exists and the contracts for that the resource have been extended through
until April in line in April 26 in line with the the ongoing need that we're
expecting but part of our work is also to continue to work with service areas
to understand how they can utilize it and how they can then embed it within
their work going forward as well. Thank you. Can I just, following on from that,
Actually, in the appendix, I did say I wasn't going to do it,
the appendix, I think we allowed a million for the EULES,
but if we've only had 129 applications, that means it's 129 ,000.
Hopefully we can address that,
because obviously if that's money that was earmarked
but we think we don't need in the future,
perhaps is it likely to be used for other projects?
Yes, it will be considered as part of the available funding we still have from this
point forward. Brilliant, thank you.
Councillor Pawner. Just on that precise point, the application
for the Wands us Community Transport Bus to the Programme Board specifically cited the
U -less thing and then said, hence it was considered appropriate to seek funding through the cost
of living budget rather than seek funding via the Roehampton Committee Paper.
In other words, the program board, when it approved the bus, not only did say because
there was money available, but then took that money, and so it's already spent, surely.
I think it was considered as part of that, but as you would see from within the papers,
there is still a wider part of funding that is available and we will continue to think
about how best to allocate that.
Okay, but there's less left than the buses cost, so I don't see how the bus can be an
ongoing, sorry, the U .S. can be an ongoing factor.
Sorry, I think we moved on to the bus rather than the U .S. If it's been marked incorrectly,
you know, if the two things should be shown differently or shown separately in that.
It was the application to the cost of program board that specifically linked the two together
and said that the shortfall in one was going to pay for the other, which is why it had
hoiked out of a regular budget and put another cost of living which rather makes
my point about this being a slush fund to ease pressure on other budgets thank
you rather than being generous I think one of your colleagues would like to
speak council corner yes thank you chair I have a question about the school
uniform grant that is offered by the council I appreciate it's a relatively
small amount of money we're talking about here so I recognize that if you
don't know the precise details but from the... Oh sorry what page please council corner?
So it's predominantly page 74 so in the last year 138k was spent on the
school uniform grant and there is estimated to be a 17k increase in that
to 155 for 25... 26. Do we know why this is? Is it purely inflationary or do we
anticipate more children and families being eligible for that grant perhaps because of
otherwise rising uniform prices for other, increasing for reasons other than inflation.
The school uniform grant is almost exclusively for people who are eligible for free school
meals and as a result of increases in the number of people who are enrolled for free
school meals, which actually is partly as a result of the work we've been doing to auto -enroll
people through the low -income family tracker, that has then led to an increase in the number
of people who are also eligible for a contribution to the school uniform.
So would it, in a very quick supplementary, would it be fair to say that the council is
satisfied that uniform prices haven't gone up significantly since the last year.
The reason I ask this is because it's quite a significant intervention by the council.
Worthwhile one, absolutely, but it might have impacts on the school uniform market in the
borough.
I couldn't say definitively.
I think we know most things have gone up in price over the last few years, but most of
the schools have statutory guidance which says that they need to make sure they've
got as many of the school uniform items are not branded to try to keep costs down and
so on. And certainly from talking to colleagues, most of the schools that were sampled recently
were certainly compliant with that. So I would hope that that's being factored in.
OK, thank you very much. Councillor Lawless.
Thank you.
We'll talk about baby boxes, which is on a few pages, page 84 mostly.
And we've seen the impact that these have had in other countries.
And I saw the piece we had on BBC News about this.
It looks really, really great.
Can you tell us a bit more about what's entailed in them, like physically, but also we talk
about the family hub connector, I think.
Could we talk about the impact that that's having as well?
I will be honest, I can't tell you exactly what is in a baby box.
But what I would say is what's really important is it's a kind of starter box if you like.
But the real value that comes from that is not only about what's being given out in the box.
It's actually about the wraparound support and as you say the family connectors and so on.
So in some respects, the box is a kind of a hook, if you like,
to start those conversations, through which then to have
informed conversations and to really help people to access
all the wider support that's available to them.
And I think that's where the real value comes.
OK, Councillor Ambasch.
I wanted to make a comment about something
that I don't think has been as fully covered
as it should in the paper, really for officers
for the future.
but then I've got two questions for Councillor Akinola,
one about support for businesses and one about food poverty.
So the one for officers is there are three members
sitting around the table who are part
of the Voluntary Grants Committee.
And this year we've had the Cost of Living Grants Fund,
two rounds and allocated 14 grants
to small organisations on the whole.
They haven't really been covered,
And I think why it's important for future reports to cover it more in the body of the report and in the appendix is to encourage
More voluntary groups and local community groups to keep keep applying because they're very important
so there are 14 projects and
Nearly nearly 200 grand that's been allocated to that. So could you bear that in mind for future reports?
The questions for councillor Aquino low is could you say a little bit more?
Councillor Acanela about the support to businesses struggling in the cost of living, particularly
perhaps elaborate on Para 16 on page 66 in terms of what we're doing to support struggling
businesses.
That's the first one.
Yes, thank you.
So as you know, you know
council
finances
Are quite tired when it comes to supporting private businesses anyway
but the pleased to say that the housing and housing the high streets team were able to put together a
Cost of living hub which is online and also with that able to access some of the high streets
offices to help them if they had any issues.
We also have a project that was going out called,
I think it's Greening Businesses to help businesses
reduce their costs, their heating costs, their energy costs.
And so that's the sort of support
that we have given businesses.
There's quite a few training connectors
that also have come online through the arts team
for new arts businesses and creative businesses as well.
The second one was really about food poverty
and I genuinely don't understand exactly what we're doing.
The report talks about the ones worth food partnership
on page 68 and page 70 on 68.
I think there's 196K to develop
the food partnership and strategy.
be interested to know how we're spending 196K
to do that and what we're hoping to come out
of the strategy.
And on page 70, could you elaborate,
Councilor Acanola, about the Well Family
and Food Bank service?
Where is it based and who's the service targeted to
and what's the service doing?
Thank you very much.
The food partnership, that will be the combination of a food strategy that has been written and
supported by the policy team.
It will be about connecting all of the different players within the food system, schools, our
and our sports centres and anyone that really brings food.
And if we're thinking about food insecurity as a hook
to actually reducing health inequalities across the board,
that's the kind of strategy that we can look forward to.
So that money will be used to bring all of the players
together to write and co -produce a strategy
that everyone has bought into,
quite similar to what we're doing
with the voluntary sector strategy as well.
I'm just gonna pass over to -
on a point of order, on a point of order, on a point of order which I'm entitled to make,
no point of order, could you, you're not chairing the meeting Councillor I can know that,
on a point of order, this is an important point of order relating to a declaration of interest,
the Wandsworth food partnership is convened, excuse me, Councillors, right, let me
take advice and I know where we're going with this one,
Yeah, okay, so can you make your point of order?
Yes, my understanding is, and certainly often the latest information available online,
the Wandsworth Food Partnership is convened by Be Enriched, which is Councillor Acunola's
charity and her disclosable pecuniary interest.
The person acting as the secretariat to the Wandsworth Food Partnership was her personal
assistant at Be Enriched.
How is it possibly in order for Councillor Acunola to be discussing this, let alone to
involved in decisions where she has a direct conflict of interest where her income in her
day job relates to this money.
Sorry, councillors, I'm about to take some advice.
I would appreciate it if you would all let me take some advice.
Yes.
So yes, if Councillor Acanola considers that there is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest
relevant to the item under discussion, then she should declare it.
And if it is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that would prevent her from voting on the
matter, then she should leave the room.
However, Councillor Acanola is not a voting member of this committee.
She is here in her capacity as a cabinet member with a relevant portfolio.
She may, if she wishes, to make a declaration for the sake of transparency that she is not
a voting member and she isn't providing – she isn't determining the recommendation before
this committee on this particular issue.
It isn't a disclosable pecuniary interest that would prevent her from participating in this,
because she is not participating, Madam Chair, as a voting member of this committee.
Thank you.
Just following up that point, but Councillor Acordinola's comments clearly indicated that
she is involved in this aspect of the Council's work.
In other words, she's involved in the transfer of taxpayers' money to her own organisation
from which she derives her income.
Sorry, excuse me.
That is a conflict that should not be occurring, isn't it?
Councillor Graham, I think you'll find that Councillor Canola has declared this on her
register and we have just discussed that the point of order is around whether or not she
would be able to vote on this and it is clear because...
My point of order is should she be on goal to do this area as well?
Councillor Graham, I wish you would let me finish, right? The point of order we've discussed
is whether or not she can vote. It's been clear she can say things but she isn't a
voting member of this committee. If there are other things I would suggest you
deal with this outside the committee. We have had a discussion here about is
Councillor Acunola allowed to vote and you have there's been a question about
the food partnership which she has answered. Just precisely the point if
with respect I have previously sought assurances and been told that Councillor
that Akonola was excluded from and not involved with anything to do with her charity,
because that would be improper.
That is why a decision previously was transferred from her to the leader of the council to take.
Now she has clearly indicated that she is involved in that work.
That is highly improper.
That is what she herself has disclosed.
Sorry, excuse me.
One of the things I would say is, obviously it is your opinion that it is highly improper.
Let me take my advice.
So Madam Chair, if there is an issue relating to that matter, that's something I will discuss
further with Councillor Acunola. My advice to members of this committee remains the same
in terms of whether it's a matter that prevents Councillor Acunola participating. If Councillor
Acunola wishes to make a clarification statement at this point, she can do so. Nevertheless,
if she wishes not to do so, the point that Councillor Graham has made, I'm happy to take
outside of this committee. It is not for this committee to determine that issue today.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Akinola,
would you like to make a statement or would you,
I mean the choice is yours as to whether or not you make a statement, but you will
then carry on.
So,
yeah, we don't run the food partnership, so
anyway, what I was saying is I'm going to pass over
to the
officers to answer your questions on the food bank because I don't know all of the details
about where exactly it is held, but I do know that the Council is overseeing and supporting
several food banks across the borough and I think that's really important.
Okay, so Mr. Evans.
Just to pick up, the money allocated from the fund has helped deliver some consultancy
work around how a food partnership might be developed in the borough.
The boroughs are something that many boroughs, if not most boroughs have.
Indeed we feel it's important.
It came out as a recommendation from the cost of living commission that we should develop
that.
Certainly during things like COVID, we had no coordinated and coherent mechanism which
to work with the sector in terms of food and food security.
That was definitely a gap.
The money will be looking to recruit an officer
with the skills to help develop that partnership further
with the voluntary sector.
That post will sit within my teams to develop that.
So that work is underway.
Thank you.
Councillor Ambach. Oh, sorry, Mr Tregg.
Well, sorry, I was just going to add very quickly that pot of 196 also includes a delivery
pot for some of the actions that come out of the strategy and so on as well to help
to address some of the concerns that have been identified and raised. Just to pick up
the other point that Councillor Ambach raised about the Wandsworth Family Food Bank continuation
bid and that service is actually a mental health and wellbeing service that visits food
banks across the borough in order to provide support to people, recognising that the people
who are accessing the food banks may well also be experiencing other challenges that
means they're having to reach out for that.
And so the wording of the bid I appreciate perhaps suggests that it's a food bank, but
I know that, for example, they've done a lot of work at Elswood Food Bank and at Wandsworth
Food Bank reaching out to the people who are already attending.
Sorry, and which, was that, which, could you remind me of which, which allocation it was?
I think I…
Page 17.
Thank you.
There were no remaining inclusion.
That I was asking about.
Super.
Okay, thank you very much.
Yep.
Okay.
Councillor Graham, you had a question?
Yes, so I'll preface my question just with a reaction to something said earlier about Sainsbury's.
The fact of the matter is we produced for this committee a report in which we
appended a letter from the British Retail Consortium that shows that the Labour Government's budget
impose new costs of seven billion pounds on retailers,
but through changes to the cost of their employees,
and through a two billion pound packaging levy.
The same letter shows that they only have margins
of around three to five percent profit margins,
which amongst the lowest on anything anywhere,
and pay 55 % of their profits in business taxes,
which is one of the highest anywhere.
The fact of the matter is that although people, and we may all have our own gripes for supermarkets
when we go...
So is there a question coming out of this?
It will in due course, but the idea...
Sorry, can we make it quicker than in due course?
Well, no, it was dismissed that somehow Sainsbury's or other supermarkets were making billions
and could easily afford to meet these costs imposed on them by the government.
Not if they're going to remain profitable or not.
They're not charities, even though some other things are.
They have to make money, of which more than half of their profit is then returned to the
taxpayer, it is ridiculous to suggest that costs which are making it uneconomic for them
to employ staff and are causing them to lay staff off are down to them and not down to
the government.
This is an employment crisis.
Thank you for your observation and your perspective on this.
I'm not entirely sure that everyone shares that.
Have you got a question, Councillor?
Yes, my question relates to winter support payments because the other paper that we produced,
which again was not discussed at the last committee, was about why having voted against
producing a support scheme of full council, the administration then turned around and
made one anyway and produced it on an incredibly narrow basis so that it only helps a thousand
additional pensioners, which is fewer than the numbers that they themselves agreed to
be vulnerable.
and why, as we see from this paper, they are only assuming that the weather will be cold this winter
and that next winter no support will be provided.
Okay, thank you very much, Councillor.
Who would like to take that one? I can't see everybody down the end.
Councillor Ireland, would you?
I'm afraid Councillor Graham's completely misunderstood the
administration's intention now we continue. Sorry excuse me, Casa Ireland
would you be able to move your mic right close to you. Okay did you get what I said earlier?
Start again yeah. Okay I'm afraid Councillor Graham's completely
misunderstood this administration's intention now we will continue to
support pensioners and all residents that need our help through this cost of
living crisis created by your government and we aim to direct funds where they are most
needed and where they can do the most good. Now we partner with the, our reinvigorated
excellent voluntary sector because they are experts in this field and they also help our
residents. Now we were working, at the point of fact we were working on a possible alternative
when the government announced that they were restricting the winter fuel payment to those
who are claiming pension credit. We were working on that all summer, which meant when we were
ready to announce it, when we had full information, we were able to bring it in very speedily
and for all those eligible residents where we had their bank details, they got the money
before Christmas. And I want to thank Mrs. Mary and her colleagues and Mr. Threadgold
for all the work they did on this. Now, we are considering options for next year using
the same process, once again using the learning from this year's process, and when we're ready
to make an announcement having all the information, we will do so. But really, I gave a speech
on this in Council a couple of months ago, the key here is we've got crisis support,
but we've really got to help our businesses and our residents to try to build financial
sustainability and we have got a number of measures including the LIFT program
and the entitled to program on the council's website. We have had three
campaigns, might be four by now, to sign up residents for pension credit and
attendance allowance because that is where it's at. Making sure we can
maximize the household income for these residents so that they are able to
to absorb financial shocks in the future.
They're not just sitting around waiting for help, you know.
So when I gave that speech, I think I estimated that the benefit from pension credit is up to 10 ,000 pounds.
My colleague tells me it's more like 13 ,000 pounds.
And that's the key really, making sure people claim what they're entitled to.
And we apply the same logic to attendance allowance where we've also had sign up schemes.
So yes, this is constantly on our radar.
We've been working on it.
Unlike the minority party that think the cost of living crisis is over
and wanted us to wind up the fund, we are considering options.
And we'll be ready to make the announcement.
We will.
Thank you.
A follow up question.
Can I ask why, if she was always going to do it, she voted against doing it?
I don't think she didn't vote.
She is not a member of this committee.
Thank you very much.
For counsel, every single member of the Labour group who was present voted against developing
our own assistance scheme.
Every single one.
What was that?
That is a fair point.
One who stood aside from that.
However, the point is, Councillor Ireland and the administration argued against and
voted against producing a scheme.
She's saying that throughout that period it was her intention to produce one.
Why did she vote against it?
We voted against your motion. We didn't vote against paying the money to our vulnerable pensioners
and we went ahead and did it.
Now, you know very well we've been working on this for months.
You want to try to jump on the bandwagon, that's fine, but don't pretend that it was your idea all along.
Our motion was to come back and our motion was to include a simple one that asked about the principle.
It didn't go into any further details.
Please, I am trying to say something. We had this debate in council. Thank you. We've re -heard it. You've had an answer. Enough.
Councillor Richard Jones.
Thanks Chair. I've got two points and a question. I've not said very much during this committee so I hope I can get this out.
Swiftly would be lovely.
As I say, I've not taken up much air time in this committee, whereas others have, so
I'd be grateful for some of my fair share.
First of all, an observation.
You keep pressing members for questions.
The committee isn't just for questions, it's for discussion, right?
Members like Councillor Worrall have fairly made observations and not questions.
That's entirely right.
Members of the minority party should be allowed to, too.
Secondly, the Cabinet for Finance, in the discussion about the wind -fuel payment, just
said that she had been working on this all summer.
When I wrote to the leader in September, urgently asking for work on this, it was met with radio
silence.
When we got to the committee on the 9th of October, the cabinet member wouldn't divulge
any information whatsoever about this work that had apparently been going on since the
summer.
That is, I'm afraid, absolutely contemptuous of this committee, and I'm really disappointed
to hear that.
On my question, it relates to disclosable pecuniary interests.
I don't want to talk at all about Councillor Akinola's personal circumstances.
That's been ventilated enough in this committee, and I'm sure it will arise again.
I have a very important question about the advice the module officer gave a moment ago.
So I understood the advice to mean that a member participating in this committee only
has to disclose a pecuniary interest if they're a voting member.
If they're not a voting member, but they have a pecuniary interest that's relevant to the
agenda, that's not disclosable.
Now, if I've understood that advice correctly, that is very surprising advice to me, because
a member that partakes in the discussion, even if they can't vote, is influencing the
discussion and would influence the outcome of any vote.
So presumably, if there was a pecuniary interest
relevant to an item on the agenda,
the member, whether voting or not, would have to declare it.
I just think I raise this because it's very, very
important that the committee and all council members
understand what the position is.
So Councilor Graham, sorry, Councilor Richard Jones,
you said it out, sorry, I'm used to addressing
Councilor Graham.
I wonder why.
Councillor Richard -Jones, yes, you've set that out perhaps more clearly than I did earlier.
You're right that the specific prohibition around disposable pecuniary interests and the voting provisions
are to prevent members from committing what would be potentially a criminal offence and taking part.
But in terms of whether members who are not members of the committee who are participating
in debate and might have an interest, whether that's a dislodable pecuniary interest or
some other interest, the advice I always give to members is if it is a dislodable pecuniary
interest and therefore prejudicial, you ought not to participate in that discussion.
If there is an interest that is not a DPI, but nevertheless for the purpose of transparency,
or to let members and members of the public who are watching know, then that is something
a matter for you to determine.
So we are at one on that, and if I was not clear earlier, I apologize.
I can't obviously talk about the specific issue with regards to Council Acanola, and
this is not the appropriate place to do that.
So that's what my intent was, to move that discussion away.
If there is a DPI that is relevant,
then I would look at that and give advice appropriately
to the relevant members.
Okay.
Well, thank you.
And did you then have a question on the cost of living?
Or a comment, whatever.
Given my comments on the cost of living.
Right, okay.
Anybody else got any other, one moment.
Sorry, just talking to my part.
Anybody else got any other things they wanted to say on paper relevant to the paper?
Council, oh yes, before we move to the, we've obviously got two amendments on this.
Can I just make a comment about the presentation of the table with all the lists in of the
things that we spent our projects on.
For the next time we see this, could we have a look at reviewing that so it's clear which projects have finished
and which are carrying on, because that was one of the things that was quite hard to see.
And that would be very happy to work with you to come up with something that makes that clearer.
Okay, we have...
So just to check that, you mean the table in Appendix 1?
Table in Appendix 1.
Fine, no problem.
Yeah, brilliant.
Okay, we've got two amendments to this.
Oh, Councillor Worrall.
I do have just a quick question I need to ask the officer in relation to LIFT.
In relation to?
LIFT.
All right.
Can I just clarify in terms of the LIFT program, the LIFT work that's going on at this moment in
time that you are actively seeking all the time people who might be eligible for different
benefits or who might be at risk in terms of cost of living related issues so that it's not
static, you've done your work and then you've closed it, that this is an ongoing program.
The reason I ask is that it is my understanding that in terms we are always seeking people
who are eligible for different benefits or support from the Council and this is an active
program that we are doing all the time.
Yeah, absolutely, as you're describing, Councillor, it's a platform that is drawing in data from
a range of sources both from the Council and externally, DWP and so on, enables us in part
to track the impacts, hence when we can claim the numbers of the people who are now claiming
who were not before, it's because we can see that those people are now claiming there will
be other people who are coming on and off those lists at various points, which is why
we repeat the campaigns throughout the year as well, so that we continue to say to people,
we believe you are eligible, we would encourage you to apply and this is how you should apply.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, there are two amendments, so Councillor Graham, could you just briefly introduce those
amendments?
I thought you said you were going to turn to questions on Appendix A.
Oh, sorry, right, okay.
I was.
I was hoping.
We've just obviously spent a long time on this and I'm thought, is it quick on Appendix
A?
Well, it's relatively quick because I've been pursuing on page about financial travel
and support for residents, which is page 95 of the pack.
We once again have the Roehampton University bus cited with journey figures which are stated
emphatically as an increase of 30 ,000.
Now, a point I put repeatedly to officers is that, certainly as I understand it and
has been reported to me, although I've never travelled on this bus, the bus service prior
this year involved in Roehampton had no machinery, digital or otherwise, on board
for recording passenger numbers. That the drivers were not recording individual
journeys prior to the council giving them hundreds of thousands of pounds. In
which case the baseline figures on which this uplift is being compared are
are doubtful at best. There may be no uplift at all. If the bus journeys, the figures that
are being used for last year to calculate this increase are actually down to guestimates
at the end of the day or a driver just recording what they thought at the end of the day or
the company deciding it would massage them down a bit in order to try and re -attract
the money in the next year.
Mr Tredgold, is this something that you could handle or is this something that we need to
take away and refer back to the transport team? Which is it?
I'm happy to provide some information that I got from the transport team about this,
but I suspect that it may be helpful to take this away and provide a fuller briefing if
that would be helpful for Councillor Graham once I've fed this information in.
I mean, from their perspective, the University and, indeed, TFL,
continue to fund this bus and provide licenses for and had done for some time.
So we think it's probably fair to assume that they wouldn't continue to do that if they didn't have some
assurance about the numbers that they were previously as the baseline that Councillor Graham is referring to and
It's not only about drivers counting people on and off. There are also on board cameras and there is also student feedback
and
We have put a number of things in place in the contract going forward to ask for more detail
and to be more precise and robust in their data collection than perhaps that may have
happened in other contracts and so on.
But I'm happy to stop there.
It sounds to me that this is something that we'd be able to handle outside the committee.
I accept that, but I have tried to get it clarified outside the committee on several
occasions so far and not been able to do so.
The other point about this bus service, a separate point, on page 82 it says that the
the point of this service is to provide access to affordable food in what is otherwise a food desert.
I mean, Roehampton does have a small supermarket.
It does have other buses.
It does have other means to connect.
There are food services we all know that will deliver supermarket food to your door.
I find this surprising phrase, but equally, the previous papers didn't mention food at all.
They said the justification for this service was to allow people to get to work.
And I would point out that on both counts, it's still a food desert if one considers it so,
and it's still impossible to get to work from if one considers it so for the whole of the holiday period when the bus doesn't run.
Thank you for your very long observation on this. We now have two amendments on this paper.
I have an answer on that point. What is the justification for the bus service?
Is it because of food or is it because of work?
and how does EVA justify it when for a lot of the year it's not running?
Right, excuse me. I want to move to the...
Am I going to get an answer to that question?
How... No, we aren't going to get into this because none of us actually live on the estate.
I'm asking why we're paying hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money towards this.
We don't need to live on the estate to ask that.
That's our job to scrutinise that money on this committee.
Thank you. Right.
You have two amendments. Would you like to move?
Have I got...
Are you going to move Amendment 1 about the winter fuel payment?
I think it's absolutely extraordinary that you're suggesting
we shouldn't get an answer to that question.
But if that is your ruling, we will move on
and members of the public can make their own assessment of that.
So our first amendment is asking the administration as a new recommendation in paragraph 2 to
commit to expanding the Wandsworth Winter Fuel Payment Scheme to vulnerable pensioners
who are not eligible for council tax reduction and to continuing a local scheme for the duration
of the cost of living programme.
Do you have a seconder for that please?
Let's have Councillor Rich Jones have a different name in the box.
I just wanted to, Councillor Allen, I know you've already answered, have you got a couple
of points to make on this or further points?
I do have some questions but I think I'll leave it to my colleagues.
If they don't ask them I'll address them.
Oh, well, specifically, and then I'll give you one.
Residents who are not eligible for the council tax reduction, so...
So could you move your mic again?
Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by residents who are not eligible for the council tax reduction.
Do you have an eligibility criteria related to income, for instance?
For example, it's vulnerable pensions, not residents.
If for example, one of the council tax reduction scheme criteria is that if you have savings
of more than 16 ,000 pounds, no matter how low your income, you won't qualify.
Now to take for example a pensioner in one of the FTSE blocks in my ward, they are having
major works coming down the line if they're a leaseholder for which they may get a bill
for more than £16 ,000. It's entirely reasonable for them to have those savings. They're not
touching them and can't touch them for their day -to -day cost of living needs because they
know this bill from the council is coming and yet they don't qualify. Now, I'm not saying
what the expanded nature of the scheme should be because we know that the administration
may have different views on that. That's precisely why we wanted them to bring a scheme to committee
so that we could discuss what it might look like and what those things should be. Instead,
the committee was bypassed, this went through under SO83A, and it went through in the narrowest
form possible.
Now, it went through in a form that was easy for the council to automatically identify
those people, but there are many ways in which it could be extended, including in allowing
a discretionary sum.
This is an incredibly small amount of money within the overall scope of the cost of living
program.
We're spending much more on that bus than we are on helping pensioners who the administration
acknowledges to be vulnerable and acknowledges are not covered by the scheme.
And I think that there are many ways in which this could be addressed.
We accept that this year they cannot be what this is now because you've already gone ahead
with your scheme.
What we're asking for is for the criteria to be made more generous next year and for
a commitment that that will be ongoing rather than a one -off payment this year and then
leaving them high and dry the year after.
Okay.
Sorry.
Councillor Iambach would like to make a comment and then if Councillor Ireland has a short
thing after that and then we'll move to a vote on that one.
There are two reasons why I'm not going to be voting for this, well at least two.
We've not agreed anything that goes on as long as the cost of living programme goes
on.
Councillor Ireland's explained very eloquently how we've been very limbal and had developed
specific programs as the cost of living problem struggle has gone on over the last year or
two or three. So that would not be advisable to agree a scheme to go on as long as the
cost of living program. The second is I'm a vulnerable pensioner. I've just had a knee
operation as you know and I'm recovering well it's a very loose terminology this
and there are many people like myself who shouldn't be considered eligible
for any such scheme and this motion would it would include me so I'll be
voting against okay thank you very much respond to that so actually all right
Sorry, excuse me guys.
We have now spent 50 minutes on the paper and we have spent an awful lot of time on
this.
It's a very straightforward amendment.
You've heard that.
I just want to respond to the criticism because the points have been made to me as to why
our amendment was inappropriate.
I should be allowed to explain why I don't think Councillor Ambash's criticism should
apply.
Right, 30 seconds then we're moving to a vote.
Right, so in the first instance there are plenty of elements to this cost of living
programs that are funded beyond this spring,
and that their intention is clearly
to fund them throughout, including, for example,
money going to assistance advice, money on staff,
money on many other things.
So it's perfectly reasonable to suggest
that this should go forwards.
And secondly, the council themselves,
the administration themselves, defined the vulnerable
pensioners we're talking about.
They talked in the paper they brought in October
about the pensioners who were just above the threshold
for pension credit, but would nevertheless be worse off than those on it.
And they specifically identified the group that we're talking about,
and they must acknowledge that council tax reduction does not actually help all of that group.
So it's quite clear and defined.
Right, thank you.
Okay, councilor Ireland, any other comments?
Let's move to a vote now, please.
Those in favour of this amendment, please raise their hands.
Four, thank you.
Those against this amendment, please raise their hands.
Five.
Okay, the amendment falls.
You have amendment two, which is to commit for the 25 -26.
Yes, so this amendment two is an alternative amendment, which is much more limited because
we anticipated that there might be some of the issues raised, that we just were, which
is to commit to funding Wandsworth winter fuel payments for the 2025 -26 winter period,
which is as in no further than some of the schemes that they've already funded, less
distance than some of those schemes, simply saying that there should be payments next
year for which there is a lot of available money within the existing cost -of -living program
and is unallocated.
All right.
Councillor Ireland, would you like to say a couple of words on that and then we'll move
to vote?
Right.
I think I covered that in my previous answer.
But yes, we are considering all options and we will continue to work on this.
As I say, learning from our experience in the first year of this.
So it's initially a one -off, but that does not preclude continuing with it.
We need to consider all options.
And I hope Councillor Graham has advised the leaseholder, resident leaseholder, I'm assuming,
in Fitzhugh that they should be eligible for extended repayment times of 48
months extended from ten months of the previous administration for their major
works. Yes but they still have to they still have to pay it and so that will
have to come after their savings so they can't spend their savings up front and
then get magically up some more savings from somewhere to offset their major works.
Enough, have you got a seconder for your amendment please.
Councillor Corner, thank you very much.
Okay, the second amendment.
I just wanted to ask Councillor Ryan, is she saying that the administration recognises
the need for winter fuel payments next winter and will provide them, yes or no?
If you continue, I'm going to have to ask you, as I have to do almost every single meeting,
to go away and just compose yourself for a bit, so please don't argue.
We're moving to a vote on amendment two.
Okay, those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands.
Thank you.
Four.
Those against the amendment please raise their hands.
Thank you.
Okay.
So, both amendments fall, so we now are looking...
Professor, I do hope that we won't hear in future that all along Councillor Ireland was
intending to do it next year and she just wouldn't tell us...
Councillor Graham, I don't think I actually indicated that you should speak at that moment.
I think I've been very generous with allowing you to speak.
There was no indication, oh excuse me,
Councillor Allen, can you turn your mic off?
Thanks.
There was no indication from me.
Please, normally, you know, you are quite,
you can be very respectful to how things should operate.
I didn't indicate you should speak.
Okay, so we now have to,
we've now got,
One, two, three. Recommendations A to F. Now, for Councillor Graham, do you have a view
on do you take them one at a time or on block?
Well, I mean, a lot of them to note. We're happy to note, but we'll abstain on agreeing.
Okay, so if we look at items A, B, C, D and F, which are all about noting various things,
that's agreed, thank you, unanimously.
E, agree proposals for continuing spending.
Those in favor of that, please raise your hands.
Thank you.
Those against?
And yeah, sorry.
Sorry, yeah.
I'm excited myself.
Perhaps there does need a cooling off period.
Those abstaining.
Thank you.
Okay.
Right.
We are now going to paper, she says, looking for her relevant paper.
Item 10, which is budget, oh, no, we're not going there.

9 Council's General Revenue Budget 2024-2028 (Paper No. 25-22)

We're going to item 9 which is our council's general revenue budget paper
2522 mrs. Mary
For you to say a few words on the chair. Thank you. Just briefly so and I also ask you to hold the mic
Simple when you do that
Yes, so I will be brief the the paper is the first stage of a two -stage process to set the
budgets for the general fund revenue
framework for 25 -26, so the next financial year. We use this budget proposal as the consultation
that we have to do under statute and then we reconsider the output from that consultation
and any changes and movements between now and the next Finance Committee meeting. So
we'll present a revised paper to the next meeting which will then go on to the Executive
and full council for formal approval of the budget and next year's council tax.
So as we've seen through the year, we've had some significant variation in our projected
forecasts of spend, largely as a result of demand pressures in some of our statutory
services, so homelessness in particular, children's services, social care and adult social care.
So I won't go through those in too much detail now because you have heard in this committee
What that has been looking like throughout this year and each of those service committees has also discussed
Those issues in detail in particular. We've talked about effective demand management and mitigating actions that we are trying to take as a council
To minimize the impact of those pressures not just on the council's finances
but also obviously making sure that the impact on our service users is appropriate.
So those issues are continuing and we projected those forward into the next financial year
and so there is a significant increase projected in demand -led budgets, which is reflected
in these figures as about £16 million of additional growth.
That's on top of about £15 million worth of additional inflation that we're expecting
next year. We have included some element of the national insurance impact in to that inflation
estimate for some areas and we will be looking at whether or not we need to potentially increase
that to reflect some of the indirect costs that we may or may not suffer, which was mentioned
earlier and we'll try and reflect that in the figures that come back in February. So
if you can bear with us on those please.
We've also got, as I've said many times before,
the good news of Treasury investment income
has continued to help us.
We've got about 24 million pounds worth of income
due this financial year from our investments,
and we're expecting that to continue into next year.
So that is continuing to help balance the budget.
And we are currently recasting all the Treasury figures,
and again we will update this paper for the next committee with revised estimates on there.
I just wanted to briefly mention the finance settlement which came through,
the provisional finance settlement came through just before Christmas.
There was a headline, I think it was 5 .7 % increase in local authority funding
that assumes a number of grants and it assumes a full council tax increase of
just under 5 % and that was the government's commitment to particularly
social care but also some other demand -led areas of homelessness as well.
Wandsworth did better than average, we averaged a 6 % core spending power
increase and that's largely led by some of our demand -led budgets and the new
So, we had about 13 .5 million additional grants in the settlement, which was good news, but
as I mentioned earlier, we've had more financial pressure from demand and inflation than that.
So overall, we are – and sorry, the one figure I forgot to mention is we've got
additional business rates income of about 10 million assumed, and again, we'll recast
that figure for February. So overall this paper is showing that the demand pressures
continue and are expected to continue into certainly next year. As we go into the future
years, we're more unsure of what will happen both in terms of that demand inflation and
the government's funding settlement. So the projections get a bit more, a bit less firm
in future years, but we do iterate around and review those a number of times before
we actually commit those budgets into the framework. So overall, as we stand, we've
got a net drawing down on reserves to balance the budget as we stand. Even with a full council
tax increase next year, we would need 8 .6 million from reserves, and that's on top of
the use of reserves that we talked about in terms of our cost of living programme, access
for all and some of our refugee support. I'm happy to take questions if anyone has any.
Okay. Oh, sorry, and just to say there are detailed
budgets in the appendix and some of those obviously come here and are collated into
this paper. For the first time this year, we are also going to present those detailed
budgets to service committees for information so that they can discuss the detail of those
service budgets alongside their conversations around the quarter three
forecast. Okay thank you very much. Okay so let me find my relevant bit of paper.
Okay who has questions on the paper please?
Right Councillor Caulley would you like to start? Thank you Jay yes this is actually a
Very quick clarification question.
Why is the referendum limit for future years 2 .99 rather than 4 .99?
Perhaps I've missed something.
Because the government hasn't confirmed what it will be in future years.
They've confirmed it for 25, 26, but not for future years.
So does that also, that's partly because it's always been made up of the council tax limit plus the other social care,
adult social care, is that anything to do with that or just?
Yes, so there's two elements to the council tax increase, but the point is the government
hasn't committed to what future levels will be. So we've assumed 2 .99. We've often done
that. If there hasn't been a future commitment, we've assumed a level that's more in line
with inflation effectively. We might get a multiyear settlement that hard codes that
referendum limit in for multiyears, which I suspect will happen, but we haven't had
that yet. Okay thank you. Follow -up it has been 4 .99 % for the most previous
years right? Yeah but it's an annual decision and inflation has been high
over that period which has led it to be 4 .99. I understand that but given that we
are looking at budget deficits here for future years wouldn't it be prudent to
budget based on the 4 .99 assumed increase in council tax? Seems
inconsistent to me. No I think that's the opposite of prudent that's assuming
there'll be more income than anybody's suggestion there might be at this stage.
Okay yeah maybe more reflective of the more realistic of what the likely reality is going
to be yes.
Right okay Councillor Graham.
Just before I turn to my question I think you may be right Councillor Critchard that
the social care levy aspect of the of the of the bill is not confirmed by the present
government beyond this year and so the underlying referendum limit this year is
2 .99 percent and that is taken forward and that probably is is the
I'm flattered that you consider I'm right. I always give you credit when I feel it's
appropriate Councillor Critchoff and that is more often than might be the case.
Okay right. Now my question relates to council tax was a different point which
is obviously the limit this year is 4 .99%. It's been reported in the media that local
authorities have been instructed by the government that if they fail to take the full Council
tax, potential Council tax increase, they will be penalized in future years' settlements.
Can officers confirm whether any of the information they have received is in line with what has
been reported. So may I just ask the source of the report? There was the main
report was in the Daily Telegraph but there have been other papers and media
outlets have taken up as well reporting different variations on the same theme.
Just wondered. Sorry Mrs. Murray you happy to answer that? Of course so we don't
know the detail and the government has committed to what's previously been
called a fair funding review so reviewing the national distribution of
funding and also multi -year settlements.
We've always said, we've said for a number of years
actually, since the Fair Funding Review was first mooted,
we talked about the impact on councils with low council tax.
That isn't a new issue.
And we are at risk.
We are definitely at risk.
But our historic position has put us
in a position where we are significantly
below the average.
And there's something called council tax equalization.
If that comes in, it depends how the methodology applies, this concept of how much council
tax you actually collect compared to how much potentially you could collect.
And the government would have to remove the referendum limit cap if it were to introduce
that kind of penalty.
So until we see the detail, we can't really tell how that will feed through to the funding
formula.
It's as simple as that.
But I mean I have heard, there have been comments about council tax and levels of council tax.
So yeah, I recognize the point you're making.
So officers haven't had any communications and clearly that wasn't part of the funding framework documentation.
Could the cabinet member confirm whether the administration has seen any communication from the government,
from the Secretary of State, about the idea that councils that set low council taxes should not be rewarded?
I'm sorry, I haven't seen any correspondence to that effect.
I think we'll just have to remain.
Fascinating.
Well, we'll just have to wait until we hear, as quite often happens.
Councillor Ambash.
Thank you for your report, Mrs Mary.
The last Finance Committee, we had a report on the change programme and we were told the
program would deliver savings over the lifetime of the program. I think 6 to 9 million was
the kind of figure estimated. I wonder, are there any savings within the next financial
year, 25, 26, that are going to result from the change program?
Thank you. Good question. Yes, you'll see there are savings that we have taken in the
the decision -making accountability model that has been applied to the staffing
structures in children's services. We're doing more DMA for short, more DMA
reviews at the moment and potentially that will deliver some efficiencies. We
haven't banked more than what we've already delivered though through
children's services. The big thing that is coming up with the change program in
terms of efficiencies and delivering savings is the digital investment and we've got some
really good lines of inquiry of digital products effectively that we can buy either to add
on to our existing systems or processes or to complement what we've already got that
we know will deliver savings and we're going through quite a granular business case process
at the moment to understand exactly what we can do within which timeframe and how much
that is likely to deliver.
We've reflected some of that as a kind of an estimate in some
of the demand management figures that we've assumed in the paper,
but we're confident that there are definitely lines of inquiry
that will deliver digitally and are captured as part
of that change program.
But we'll bring those to you as they develop.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, further questions?
I can't believe it.
Well, I'll tell you what, I'll ask a question.
I just wondered, in the school's budget, Broadwater School, obviously we're hoping everything,
the changes will be made so we've got special needs there.
Have we factored anticipated savings in for that change?
So not in this paper because that would appear in the dedicated schools budget paper which
is imminently going to children's committee.
But we would reflect pupil rolls, pupil numbers and the knock -on impact of additional SCM
places, as you say, is a saving of a higher – it's an avoided cost effectively from
educating those children elsewhere.
So that would be in the figures.
Yes, oh, sorry, but I was also thinking it's one of the costs we incur with special needs children often is the
Travel costs in and out of borough. That's quite big would would that not be affected?
Yes, sorry the SCN transport budgets have been reviewed and they are in here apologies. Yep brilliant. Thank you very much
Councillor Worrell
Just a question and I'm very happy for you to take it away and come back to me with an answer
I suppose it's the establishment of the ICBs and the aspect of how much shared integrated
care, the integrated care boards, my apologies, they're due to come online next year, although
there's some confusion around how they're going to work, and a lot of commissioning
is being devolved down to that level, which will involve joint work with local authorities.
I suppose my concern is what do you think the impact of that change in commissioning
intentions and the way the money that's being spent through the ICB structure have
on us and how are we factoring that in in terms of our services, especially in terms
of health and public health?
Gosh, that is probably the biggest question that I cannot answer at all.
I'm not even going to try.
So Jeremy de Souza is actively involved in the Southwest London ICB.
He's our lead on adult social care and public health.
And I know he's got this covered in the health committee, so I'll ask him to specifically give you a briefing,
because I don't have an answer.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Right. Councillor Graham.
I've got two even, but it's only two.
So the first, and this is Mary, which is obviously she mentioned that there are further consequences
of the increase in employers' national insurance that will hit these figures.
I mean, obviously, we've had discussions in which she said that she was relatively confident
that a lot of the direct impact would be met.
Could you just give the committee some wider understanding of the other costs, indirect
costs that are likely to come in and put some, if she can quantify the parameters on that?
Yeah, happy to.
So obviously this links to the conversation earlier on the procurement paper and Mark
Laster gave some good answers about the impact on our existing contracts where actually this
is not something that the council holds the financial risk on for existing contracts because
contractors need to deal with that as part of their contract price. We do know though
that we have got some spend in our services that isn't contract driven, so we have what
we call spot purchases in social care, which is where we go to the market and request a
particular package for a particular person at a particular time. So those spot purchase
prices are definitely at risk because suppliers will immediately try to pass on and will,
you know, we expect that and the government is expecting that.
They will try and pass on any additional cost straight away and they're allowed to do that
because ultimately the price that they put forward for a package will include that increased cost.
We've done some sums around what potentially that could look like with adult social care
and we think it could be about two million a year.
I mean, but we'll have to see.
Obviously, it depends which packages
we go to the market for, when, and which suppliers
are bidding on that.
So there might be about two million pounds.
And that also includes the element
you picked up earlier in your questions
around increases in the living wage.
So they're all kind of mixed in together as part of the price.
So the figures in this paper already include about 1 .4
million, so we've put about 10 % provision
on top of the inflation estimates
we've used to identify that there will be an additional cost, but I think we're going
to have to put more in, so just flagging that between now and the next paper, I think that
figure will increase. That's specifically spot purchase in adult social care. There
will be other contracts where this will have an impact. Notwithstanding we will hold contractors
to their contracted inflation, so we won't, as a matter of course, be increasing our contract
prices for this as those tenders as you rightly picked up earlier as those tenders start to
come through and contracts start coming to an end we do expect there to be an increase
but we can't put a figure on that so again it's going to have to be a bit kind of finger
in the air at the moment but definitely will be overall you know those those cost increases
will be passed on at some point I have no doubt. The government has covered or has promised
to cover the direct costs, so the Council's costs or public sector costs, and we have
some initial modelling that's come through, not from government, but some projections
that suggest that we might just slightly not cover our full costs with the amount of grant
that we get, but again, we won't know that until February, so that will be reflected
in the paper that comes to the next committee.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, that's very helpful.
Well, my second question comes off the back of that to the cabinet member for finance,
which we obviously see on the front page of the pack that there is, even assuming, a 4 .99
percent increase in council tax.
There is still over 8 million pounds worth of budget gap.
Now, in previous years, we've seen similar gaps, maybe not quite as large as that, come
down.
But in previous years, there's largely only been good news left to come in.
We now see, and I've just heard, that there's some bad news still to come in as well.
Is she still committed to setting a balanced budget, which is what she said in the past?
And if she can't this year, when we get to February,
does she agree that it would be inappropriate to fund any freeze in council tax rates off the reserves?
Excuse me, I just want to check something. I think you said does
Councillor Graham, Councillor Ireland commit to, yeah exactly, is...
In previous years when we asked what she was going to do on Councillor Fek's...
No, no, you asked about setting a balanced budget. The fact you might take the money out of
reserves, I'm just concerned that... The budget isn't balanced and that's what happens.
If I could explain, rather than you trying to tell me, what concerns me is I
sense the implication and I would hate for you to do this to imply that
Councillor Ireland might be breaking the law because as you know we all have to
set a balanced budget so perhaps you might like to rephrase that to remove
that. Councillor Ireland there are two ways in which one can take the phrase balanced
budget one of them is where their income matches expenditure the other is whether
you've literally got no ability to fund it whatsoever the other is unlawful it's
It is entirely lawful to set a budget in which expenditure is greater than income and to
make the difference up from reserves.
However, that is not a balanced budget in the internal sense.
It is a balanced budget as far as the government is concerned because the money is coming from
reserves.
It is balanced by reserves.
It is not balanced in the internal sense.
I am referring to the internal sense.
I think Councillor Arlen knew I was referring to the internal sense, but if she didn't,
then she doesn't.
No, sorry.
So, members of the public might not, and obviously it's a very serious obligation that all councillors
have to have that we balance our budget.
If the money comes from reserves or doesn't, you need to make it clear.
Councillor Mary, sorry, it's late.
Mrs Mary.
Good grief Mary.
The question was to Councillor Hough.
Mrs Mary.
Yes, so you know I'm going to say this, but I just feel I need to, just for the record,
We go by the statutory definition of balanced budget as the government does and that does include
reasonable, you know as a reasonable assumption of using reserves.
We have done that in the past and I'm in no doubt that we will do it again in the future.
We've put money into reserves in the past and I've got no doubt that we'll do that in the future as well.
Whatever the internal definition of balanced budget is that isn't the definition that we have to abide by.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Critch, in an effort to be helpful, then I'll rephrase the question, because
it's what you asked me to do.
No, I think, no, Councillor Graham, I think we've grasped it and I think we've made
the point.
Councillor Ireland is now going to comment, hopefully.
Councillor Ireland, we're, brilliant.
Okay, I want to thank Mrs Mary and colleagues and also want to thank my cabinet colleagues
for all their hard work in setting this budget this year.
They work really hard, identified and achieved savings.
We are, local government is in a stressful, financially stressed situation and we are
doing our best to manage increased demand including temporary accommodation costs, I
think that's going to cost us 33 million pounds next year and also costs for social care for
adults and children.
And so thank you very much for your help.
And I think the one question about, I think -
Shall I rephrase it then?
No.
Let me have a go because I can usually do it more swiftly.
I think what Councillor Graham wants to know is, in order to balance the budget,
are we likely to use reserves?
Simple?
Simples.
We will make a decision about council tax in the normal way, in line with the constitution, when we have all the information.
I know that might be boring to people, but I don't believe in making uninformed decisions.
The reserves are there to plug budget gaps. The decisions about council tax will be taken in due course.
And you'll hear as soon as we know. Thank you.
I'll just come back with one supplementary on that.
Does she think it would be inappropriate to create a budget gap by taking less than the
maximum council increase?
Yeah, I think I have answered that.
She hasn't said, sorry.
Actually no, I think we get through this every time.
You know, we all know, this is paper that obviously goes out to business in terms of
the way we have to consult.
We will not know until the February meeting what is going to happen and how it's going to work.
And I think it is, obviously you can poke trying to get an answer, but I'm pretty sure this is not going to be very productive,
because Councilor Ireland last year and the year before was very specific that she won't know until...
With respect, Councilor Ireland doesn't need to know that to answer the question,
which is whether it would be appropriate to create a budget gap by taking less than the maximum council tax increase.
Now, she can refuse to answer that, sure, but the appropriateness or otherwise of that should be answered now.
Does she think it's appropriate?
I'll say it again. Decisions about the level of council tax have not yet been made.
We have not formed our opinion about what is the appropriate amount to levy.
We won't until we've got all the necessary information.
I wasn't asking what the appropriate amount of council tax was.
Councillor Graham.
Sometimes you ask a question and you ask it three times
and you don't get the answer you're angling for or you would hope to get.
You get a different answer. That's how it is.
Councillor Ireland has always been very consistent in how she has approached
these questions. Okay there aren't any more questions I suggest we move to. Vote
on the budget paper. Councillor Graham we've got recommendations A, 1, 2 and B. Are
we likely to agree all of these or is there going to be any difference in
We will abstain on A and approve B.
OK, so can we take that? We'd better have...
Do it so we've properly counted.
Those who...
Agree... Right.
Those in favour of...
Three A.
Three A, approving the basis, this budget basis.
Please raise their hands.
Five.
Those against? And the abstentions.
We've got four abstentions, thank you.
and those in favour of B, to approve the summary report as the basis of the statutory consultation.
That's agreed unanimously, everyone. Great. Okay, the final paper we have is,
excuse me, if I can find it. Right, it is item 10, the budget variations, paper 2525.
Okay and I think I'm correct this budget variation has already been discussed at
Housing Committee yesterday. Yep that's confirmed. Okay agreed?
It relates to the appropriation that we agreed so we have to agree.
Okay all agreed. Thank you councillors. Thank you officers.

10 Budget Variations (Paper No. 25-25)

Thank you.