Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 25 February 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 25th February 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
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

.
Okay.
Welcome to this meeting.
My name is Councillor Crichard and I'm the Chair of the Finance Committee.
Members of the Committee, I'm now going to ask you to introduce yourselves, starting
on my left and switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.
Hello, Councillor Sean Lawless, Two Team Broadway Ward.
Good evening, Councillor Jeremy Ambash, West Putney Ward.
Good evening, Councillor Earl Shaftesbury, Queenstown Ward.
Jessie Lee, St Mary's Ward. Claire Fraser, South Ballum.
Allie Richards -Jones, Northcote Ward and Leader of the Opposition.
Councillor Matt Cornyn, Nine Elms Ward.
Councillor Lindsay Hedges, Ballin Ward, and Opposition Spokesperson for Business Engagement,
the Voluntary Sector and Culture.
Thank you.
Councillor Lisa Graham, Wandsworth -Cotman Ward and Opposition Speaker for Finance.
Thank you.
We have Councillor Ireland here, who's the cabinet member for finance,
and we will be joined by Councillor Akinola a bit later.
Okay?
We've also got several officers present
who will introduce themselves when they address the committee.
Now, the minutes.
Okay.
Item five.

1 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Right. The minutes as published,
there's been a correction around item five and we need to add in a line which
is after, right, so that item five was the procurement plan. The third paragraph was
asking, a member asked about the inclusion of employers national insurance.
Officers explained the legal advice as part of their accreditation to the
Living Wage Foundation there was a mechanism in contracts which meant the
the Council would provide the uplift.
As there was no provision, and this is the addition,
as there was no provision for national insurance increases in the existing contracts,
then no significant changes were anticipated.
And are you happy to agree the minutes with that change?
Brilliant, thank you very much.
Excuse me, what I would ask, because
Mrs. Mary and Miss Burston, you are hiding behind a chair.
I know it.
Would you mind? Then I can see you if you wish to say thank you.
Or you can move the chair and have a different one. That's a very big chair.
I think they have your chair, so perhaps you'd like to stop.
I don't care.
I'm not I'm not I don't have I don't have large chair envy okay brilliant
thanks I need to sign
I have pavement envy from time to time but that's different okay um item two is
declarations of interest and members are aware of their duty to declare

2 Declarations of Interests

pecuniary interests and to keep their registered interests up to date. For the
benefit of any members of 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. Are there any declarations of either
pecuniary, registrable, other registrable or non -registrable interests for anyone
to declare? Nope? Brilliant. Okay. Thank you. And the next thing I'm going to say is I need
to reorder the agenda. Before we commence evening's business, may I seek agreement from
the members to reorder the agenda so that item 9, the setting of charges for environmental
services is discussed before item 8 for the council tax. And the reason is that the council
tax paper has the budget variations and that's one of the budget variations it
just is makes it happen in the relevant order is that agreed brilliant thank you

3 Proposed Additions to the General Fund Capital Programme (Paper No. 25-84)

very much okay our first paper tonight concerns the
additions the proposed additions to the general fund capital program and mrs.
Murray mrs. Mary's going to say a few words about this before I open it to
questions. Thank you chair. So my name's Fenella Mary, I'm the Executive Director of Finance.
So this is the annual capital additions paper which brings together the current approved
capital programme for the Council's General Fund and then also adds in additional schemes
which have been assessed as being of priority for the Council. So the paper shows you both
the existing program and then a summary of the proposed additions and then it pulls those
two together to set the revised capital program and there's a summary of that in paragraph
50 on page 17. It also funds the capital program that's being proposed and there are a number
of different funding streams available to the council which are listed in the paper.
One change that you'll see with this paper compared to previous years is the introduction
of the development pool as opposed to the committed capital programme. This is something
that we spoke about at the December Finance Committee where there was an appendix B I
think it was to one of the papers that showed you how we are going to use the concept of
development pool, new schemes being added into that pool which will then track
progress against feasibility studies, business cases, available funding and
things like planning permissions in order to then promote through these
gateways which are referenced via the Investment Funding Board, an internal
officer board to then be promoted into the committed capital program and then
that means they are ready to start delivery. I'm happy to take any questions, Chair, if there are any.
Okay, excuse me, right. Councilor Worrall and Councillor Graham. Okay, off you go, Councillor Worrall.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mayor, you've mentioned the investment funding board in your introduction there.
I'm just wondering, in relation to the workings of it, I wonder if you could just expand a
bit more on how it works, but also how it actually makes the decisions and remains politically
neutral, because accusations can be made, and I know have been made in the past, that
certain investments have a political bias built into them.
I want some reassurance that the neutrality is there.
Okay, thank you for that question.
So, to be clear, the Investment Funding Board is an officer board.
It's chaired by me with various senior officers in attendance.
It is about ensuring that schemes are put forward in line with council and investment priorities.
So the bids will have been assessed independently and at the initial stage by the investment
funding board to then form part of the proposals in this paper.
So we've had a look to see that those kinds of things are the types of things that the
council's corporate plan, for instance, is looking to invest in, meet our net zero credentials
and our investment priorities around leisure and open spaces, etc.
It then tracks when schemes are working through feasibility studies, business cases, strategic
business cases, getting funding in place.
Some of the schemes that we've put forward are linked to Invest2Save, so we will only
progress those schemes through the investment funding board when they have shown that they
are saving more than they are investing.
So we may have to borrow for those schemes,
but we will only progress them if the business case proves
that that's the right thing to do.
In terms of the decisions on what's
added into the capital program, that is a member decision.
That is a decision that is made via recommendations
from this committee into the executive
and then to the full council.
The discussions you're having are
the ones that should be the ones that determine where investment
is in terms of geographical or priority and services.
Sorry, Councillor Weller. Okay, brilliant. Okay, Councillor Graham.
Thank you. So this administration obviously inherited a position where there was no general
fund borrowing, where there had been significant general fund receipts generated by the Council's
activities in previous years that, in addition to still in Section 106 and grants and contributions,
allowed programs to be funded.
Obviously, the paper here now is looking at borrowing of the best part of $140 million
by 2029 -2030.
I just wondered for example in paragraph 14A and B, we've got investment for almost 31
million in highways and public realm and 27 million, sorry, C, sorry, 30 million in leisure
infrastructure plan and services and facilities.
Of those 31 million and 30 million in A and C, what percentage of that money is going
to be borrowed?
Thank you.
So, just to clarify the position on borrowing, we've been talking about the need to borrow
since about 2020 and the figures in, I was just trying to check the figures actually
when they first started to appear. But future year borrowing has been on the agenda since
at least 2020. So it's not that this administration has started to borrow or planned to borrow
and that wasn't the case before. So just to make that absolutely clear, capital receipts
have been running down for a number of years. They've hit an all time low and we've got
a couple of sites in the pipeline that will generate capital receipts and when we get
those, we will be able to apply them to capital program. But that's a position that's been
kind of on the steady trajectory downwards for a number of years, hence the need to borrow.
The paper here adds additional borrowing on the additions to the existing program, and
as you say, comes up with around 136 million, of which some of that, as I said earlier,
is investor -save. So that borrowing will only happen if those schemes are generating more
than an equivalent saving in revenue to cover the borrowing costs. The specific schemes
that you mentioned, borrowing to fund public realm investment is around 72 % with the rest
of it used to be funded from strategic sill. And on leisure, about, we've assumed about
70 % of that will be from borrowing with the rest of it funded from strategic sill. We'll
we do, how much of that we can use CIL to fund.
Could I ask the...
Sorry, Councillor Graham.
Did you want a supplementary, just checking?
OK.
Can I ask the cabinet member in that case, the council has promoted these schemes and
the investment in roads and in leisure as a result of its sound financial management.
is borrowing over 70 % of the cost sound?
This administration is correcting years of historic underinvestment from the previous administration.
We are invested in schools, leisure centres, parks.
With you, with your administration, the borrow is in decline.
we think that we need to upgrade and the borrower is on the up. Now the total
borrowing on the program is only about £264 million
of the cost is funded by SIL and Section 106 receipts, which
means developers are paying for that. That's 54 % is paid for by developers.
Okay, thank you.
Specifically, the two schemes that I talked about, the publicity, is over 70 percent borrowed.
Now, you might argue, and I would disagree, obviously, with your characterization of the
inheritance in this borough, but you can argue that if you wish to, that you want to borrow,
that there are good reasons to borrow.
What you can't say is that the borrowing is a sign of your sound financial management,
can you you're actually introducing massive liabilities the borrowing is
affordable that's demonstrated in this paper and another paper on the agenda we
think we need to invest in the borough that's why thank you sir Graham you've
had a long time to do this excuse me cancer Graham thank you I've got other
people asking, waiting to ask questions.
Councillor Ambasch.
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to support one aspect of the paper,
and then I wanted to ask some questions
about the development pool for Mrs. Mary.
The bit of the paper that I want to support
is para 14A, page eight and nine,
to do with highways and public realm,
the 31 million that Councillor Graham talked about.
And I wanted to say how badly neglected the public realm
has been.
I'm pleased that this is the next six years,
but this is part of a 10 years investment strategy
in roads and pavements.
And I think it will benefit the whole community,
but particularly older people and disabled people,
as well as cyclists and car drivers and walkers.
So it will benefit the whole community.
And I think that's a really worthy priority.
The question I wanted to ask about the development pool, indicative budgets, was one, the improved
access to Richmond Park.
Now, when I became a new Councillor in Roehampton 11 years ago, we were discussing improved
access to Richmond Park, which would make a tremendous difference to people on the estate,
being able to access the park rather than have to go the long way around at the moment
to Richmond Gate. I wondered if on that scheme and on the Granard specialist nursery base,
Mrs. Mary can give us any more details at the moment. I realize they'll be subject to
a fuller appraisal in due course,
but I would be supporting the merits of both schemes.
Oh yes, sorry, Mrs. Barry, yes.
Yeah, sorry, so I can't give you more detail
than what's in front of you, Councillor Ambach, I'm afraid,
but obviously the access to Richmond Park
has been, I think, wrapped up in some of the
Alton Renewal Plan work, which is being funded,
and that's included in the development pool.
As we progress that forward into a full business case and go out to tender, etc.,
that's when you'll start seeing it progress through and updates will come into this paper
as part of that. The same with the Granard base, but I can get more information for you outside of
the meeting if you would like on those two schemes. It's reassuring to see they're there in black and
white after 11 years.
Thank you.
Okay, Councillor Cauler.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just like to ask a question around the investment of £27 million being put towards
net zero decarbonisation.
Firstly, it could be, I think it should be argued that that is not a glowing vote of
confidence in our ability to meet net zero by our target date.
So it would be interesting to know why we feel that money is needed.
But it's perhaps more concerningly being invested under this invest to save framework, which
is possibly a new framework.
So I wondered if Councillor Ryland could explain what the invest to save framework is beyond
what those words in the title mean and how the success of that investment will
be measured. So excuse me, Councillor Cornyn could you just point us to where
the investor save bit is in relation to decarbonisation. That was something I
wasn't, I hadn't picked up. Apologies, it's page 9 paragraph 14
subsection B. Yeah sorry yes I know where that is. I just didn't realise that it
was an investor save.
Mm -hmm.
Commitment by the council to invest in net zero
decarbonisation improving value for money through investor
save.
Sorry, I didn't see.
A commitment to invest in net zero decarbonisation
with investment, reducing the impact on the environment,
providing value through money through savings and utility
costs.
I didn't see it as.
Anyway, perhaps we can get that clarified.
Okay, so just as a follow up then, are we saying that there will be over £27 million
worth of savings in utility and energy costs over the next five years?
No, so what we do with Invest2Save is we would look at the annual revenue cost of the investment.
So, for instance, if you took out an investment and you borrowed for 30 years, does the net
present value of the revenue saving of those 30 years mean that the revenue investment
is more than the capital investment that you've expended in the first place?
It isn't limited to the five -year period.
That isn't how it would work.
Councillor Hedges, I also wanted to check if there's not anyone who has anything from
our side, from the other side?
Okay.
Councillor Hedges. Thank you chair. I may have asked this last
year or the year before that but where we talk about the general capital programme framework,
paragraph 52, page 17 paragraph 52, we talk about in order to minimise borrowing, the
council will maximise all external funding avenues. I would be really interested to hear
what the external funding avenues are and how much they will be utilized given how much the council plans to borrow. Thank you.
Thank you, so
we would look at things like external funding grants. So a good example is the net zero
decarbonization spend that would be investor save and we would borrow if that was the
the funding available to us. But if we manage to get some grants, there's public sector
decarbonization grant, for instance, which we are bidding for at the moment. I think
round seven, if we got some of that funding, that would help. So that would obviously minimize
our need to borrow in order to deliver the investment. Same thing with contributions
from Network Rail, from Transport for London. The government's got a new pothole fund.
There are different avenues that we will bid for. We've got some money for, for instance,
capital investment in our waste fleet from Defra. There are different types of
funding out there and we will always try and maximize that funding where we can
in order to minimize the cost of the council.
Mrs. Merry, I just was thinking as I was hearing that discussion, presumably the
other thing about this program is this is looking 10 years ahead but we don't
yet know, we aren't in a position to know whether further sources of funding will
come through from other areas which we would then bid for. So for example six or seven
years ago we wouldn't have known about the pothole fund. Yeah, we didn't know about that
but we can bid for it. And presumably if that happens that will make a change to how we
view our investment.
Can I just add to that as well? You might remember we've invested on a pilot two -year
program. We've got two fixed -term posts specifically looking at external funding
funded from the change program, not just maximizing our external funding bids and
making sure our bids are as robust as possible, going out looking for more
external funding, but also leaving a kind of a legacy of good quality external
funding shovel -ready schemes. That's the idea is to get some shovel -ready schemes
that are ready to go or would potentially sit in our development pool or our pipeline
waiting for external funding sources to become available and we can maximise those opportunities
when they come through.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Lawless.
Thank you, Chair.
Really welcome the investment in our schools, in our local centres, our parks outlined in
this.
and the leisure infrastructure plan, which is going to bring 30 million pounds to our
leisure centres, including the summit of 220 Broadway and my ward is really welcome. Can
we explain a little bit more about the benefits that residents might see?
Yep. Just checking the status of the paper before I referenced it. So the leisure infrastructure
investment plan effectively commits to ensuring that our current leisure
centres are not just fit for purpose but are we put additional investment into
them we are going out to tender in the not -so -distant future for a contractor
to run those services for a period of time and we will be working with the
contractors to make sure that the offer that we put forward to our residences
is fit for the future and is a modern up -to -date leisure
offer that, as I said, ensures the future of the leisure
centers that we've got, the external playgrounds that we've
got, the parks, the sports pitches, et cetera.
So this is about making sure that investment takes
our current assets forward and make sure that they are not
just fit for purpose but relevant to what our residents want to see and the
leisure strategy which has been to Environment Committee picks out that by
looking at our current offer and where our gaps are and you know what
the what the move is and what people are looking for so for instance paddle
courts are all the rage you know we've invested in that and that's the kind of
thing that the leisure strategy is reflecting it's reflecting what we want
going forward not just what we've got now. Thank you very much. Okay, Councillor Corder.
Thank you chair. My question relates to paragraph four. Under removal of budgets from the program we
can see that Nine Elms Highways pedestrian and public realm has been removed from the
capital program to the tune of and that accounts for 21 million pound. The Nine Elms Park is being
added to the program further down the list to June of 4 .6 million.
That's approximately a net removal of funding from Nine Elms of 17 million pounds.
Now it was always the case that capital improvements were needed extensively in Nine Elms to build
the sense of place and that the sale collected in Nine Elms would go towards making that
happen.
and indeed businesses and residents invested in the area
and chose to move there based on that assumption.
So it's quite alarming that such a large amount of money
is being removed from the area.
Could Councillor Ireland or Mrs. Mary, as appropriate,
just detail, itemize some of those projects
and give a bit more detail as to the reason
for that money being removed from the program
beyond simply saying that the money had been on ring fenced which of course
happened last year. Okay Mrs. Murray. So just to clarify the removal of the
majority of that funding is linked to our negotiations with Transport for
London and the fact that they have agreed that our contribution is capped
so any budget above that amount has now been removed from the programme it isn't
necessarily linked to a reduction in the schemes that are happening in that area
which I think is a slightly different issue around D ring fencing and so so
that isn't why this that that money has been taken out of the program at this
time okay thank you very much and mrs. Murray just one other call one other
comment on this is I'm quite interested to see the nine Elms Park which has been
carrying on for a long time and people who've been on planning committee will
remember thank you stick your hand up because yes I just wondered if we have
actually got any idea about when the linear park is going to open or whether
we can get some information on that I can ask for an update for you brilliant
thank you right oh sorry I've spoke counts of Graham thank you so I think
we've got to the point where we'd established that the money being spent
on public realm and leisure wasn't the beneficial outcome of sound financial
management but rather the cabinet members argument was that it was affordable, that
that debt was affordable.
So could she tell us if it's affordable what the cost of the debt interest payments on
that borrowing will be?
You said it was affordable so you must know.
So I'd like to know from, I would not like the answer from officers, it was your assertion
it's affordable.
So I'd like your understanding of the cost.
Councillor Graham, when you're talking to other members, okay, I think we heard the question.
Let's sort out.
Councillor Ireland, are you okay about -
I'll just repeat that it's not affordable, but I'll refer to the officer.
Excuse me, one moment, Councillor Graham.
I'll defer to the professional officer.
Councillor Graham, can you let her answer and let us all hear the answer, okay?
Excuse me.
Councillor Ireland.
Yes, I'm satisfied that the boring is affordable, but I will defer to the professional officer
to give the technical details.
Thank you.
Okay.
Before that happens, I would like to have Councillor Ireland's understanding of what
the cost will be, not that it is affordable.
It sounds like she doesn't know that the assertion of affordability was based on nothing.
Councillor Graham, this is a lot earlier in the meeting where we get to this stage.
Let us hear from the officer as well and then see what the officer says, okay?
Right.
Thank you, Chair.
So as the officer that does have the detail of that, I wouldn't expect Councillor Ireland to have at the top of her head the specific details of every single individual line.
The way we have presented this and spoken to cabinet members both before this meeting and as it's presented here is the quantum of this paper and the proposals in front of you are, in my opinion, affordable based on the assumptions that we've made.
Now if you want the specifics of one line I can get that for you, but I haven't shared line by line with Councillor Ireland so I don't think that that would be information that she would have to hand this evening.
Has Councillor Ireland ever asked you how much it costs?
That one specific scheme, no.
But we have...
Oh, sorry, yes.
Yeah, because that's part of the assessment that we've been making about the revenue cost of the additions and the capital programme.
So yes, that's all part of our discussions around not just the medium -term financial strategy,
but the council tax and budget setting paper includes an assessment of how much that
Capital program borrowing is the rule rule of thumb is that 1 million pounds worth of capital borrowing
Is around 75 thousand pounds of revenue cost per year
That's the rule of thumb that we use as you know and I've repeated this a few times. We will use that
We will use internal borrowing to avoid external borrowing
So we're not actually incurring that additional cost at this moment because we're not externally borrowing yet, but that's very much
Right. I'm just going to ask and follow up that with Councillor Ireland. I think
Councillor Ireland, we've talked about how the schemes will be managed. Perhaps that
would be something that would be helpful to hear as well about how the plan for
the management of the schemes is going forward.
Yeah, yeah, please. So that's the Investment Funding Board that considers
all the schemes starting with any pipeline schemes,
but then if they require a detailed business case
to move into the development pool.
And once the board is satisfied
that there's capacity to do these schemes,
they meet with our priorities, the funding is available,
then, and this is supported by a detailed business case,
and the decision will be made about whether to go ahead and then it becomes part of the
Committee Capital Program. So the Investment Funding Board will consider what's happening
with the projects that are in progress. We have monthly meetings with the Cabinet members
involved, the Director, representatives from Finance to make sure the costs are monitored
and the information is fed back to the investment funding board so that they can take that into
account when they are making decisions about whether the council can afford to fund them.
So this programme will be very carefully monitored to ensure that it remains affordable and where
it is necessary to take action we will do so.
Thank you very much. Councillor Richard Jones had his hand up for a question.
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Mary, can I go back to page 5, paragraph 4, and Councillor Cornyn's question on 9 -Elms.
So my reading of the table at paragraph 4 is that the previous budget allocation to
9 -Elms was of the order of 21 .6 million.
million, that's now been taken down to the allocation of 4 .6 million for the Nine Elms
Park. So there's a loss there of 17 million from Nine Elms.
Now, I followed your answer earlier that part of that results from the negotiation with
TFL to cap our contribution, and that's also stated in the paper itself. But presumably
The TFL is not standing up the full 17 million that's been taken out.
The total envelope of investment in 9 -Elms is being reduced under this scheme.
Can you tell us by how much the total envelope of investment in 9 -Elms is being reduced?
I don't know the answer to that, so I would have to get an update from the 9 -Elms team
on that.
But just the technicality of this paper is around releasing the excess funding that isn't
required from the council that isn't the same as there's been a reduction in the
scope of the scheme to that value but I appreciate the question and we'll take
that away okay thank you very much I'm just going to say is we have obviously
we've got quite a lot of things to ask and our council tax paper is the last
one on our list. Currently we've spent about 25 minutes on this one. If we have any very
quick questions, let's deal with them, but they need to be quick. Very quick then. If
it isn't, that will be... It's a quick question. So, well, you yourself said that this program
was looking 10 years ahead. The figures we have are only looking five years ahead. There's
which are my estimates based on what Miss Mary said is likely to about 80 million in debt interest payments on top
What is planned beyond 29?
30
In the five years that following these five years how much more borrowing is intended given that we're looking ten years ahead
And what will that cost?
Yeah, miss, yeah, so just to clarify this isn't a 10 -year plan you're right cancer Graham
it looks five years ahead and we haven't plotted what happens in years six, seven, eight, nine, and ten,
but obviously we would bring any proposals that come forward for those years to this committee
this time next year and following that as well. What we've tried to do, which I think is probably reflected
quite well in this the quantum of the figures in here, is we've tried to take an overall
longer term view of the investment and I suspect that this will be, you know, significant investment.
for instance with the leisure strategy, this is about investing in our leisure assets for
the next short to medium term into the long term. So I don't expect us to come back next
year with the same amount of additional funding requests. But as I said, beyond the programme
here, we haven't got to that stage yet. We've got some good things in the pipeline that
we would be working up in terms of additional investment.
We've also, as you know, got some big potential capital receipts or headroom available in
the pipeline as well, and so we would obviously bring those forward as and when they come
together effectively.
So, for instance, releasing the Frogmore site when we get there.
If you remember this time last year, as a committee, you invested half a million pounds
to move the Frogmore site and the contents of it to Sargent's Industrial Estate by 2028.
That will then release Frogmore and then we've got potentially some additional resources
that we can use to fund future capital.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Richard -Jones, last one and quick, and then we'll move to a vote.
Thanks, Jo, I'll keep it quick.
It's on page 12, first paragraph on there, which is 24.
Just picking up the themes of negotiations with TFL, there's a reference in this paragraph
to the ones of town centre transformation scheme.
Is it still being held up by TFL and has the council made any progress in trying to get
TFL to stand behind its own investment on this scheme?
That is definitely beyond my knowledge.
I know that conversations are ongoing and we are still committed to the scheme, as this
but I don't know the detail of that and again can get you an update.
I think that's been to Transport Committee rather than this one.
Brilliant, thank you very much.
No, I'm sorry there's...
I'd like to briefly explain our position on the vote.
Right, sorry.
Councillor Graham, sometimes I just quite like to chair the committee rather than...
Right, we're now going to move to a vote.
Well, you normally talk about the benefits of those watching.
I would like to explain our position for the benefits of those watching so they realise
we're not necessarily against the schemes.
Can you tell us, just explain what's going to happen.
We're moving to a vote, you've got something to say about it.
Tell me briefly.
Thank you, I should be very brief.
Yes, so as I say, there are many schemes in this paper.
We are supportive of many of these schemes.
We would like to see all of them funded if possible.
However, we do not feel able to support this paper because of the level of borrowing it involves,
combined with the level of borrowing elsewhere on this agenda.
We don't think this is sustainable.
We don't know what's going to happen after five years, but it appears that borrowing will go on.
Thank you.
And we feel that the lack of progress on getting capital receipts from aspects like Baltimore,
from things like the town hall where there were plans -
Let's move to a vote.
OK, so I understand your position that you'd like to support it,
you don't feel you can.
Now, we've been asked, there are four things we've got to deal with here.
The first one is to approve the updated capital programme,
which is in Appendix A.
All those in favour, please raise their hands.
That's five.
All those against?
OK.
Abstentions? I must have four. Thank you. I know I didn't vote. Okay. B, approve the additions to the
General Fund Development Bids with indicative budgets alongside the
schemes as in Appendix B. All those in favour? Anybody against? Do I have four
extensions as well. Okay right the capital strategy for 2526 as in Appendix
C who's in favour of that? Okay and I guess against or are you are you against
the capital strategy? Thank you that's for against 5 -4 and I'm not casting a
vote and the sill statement in D hopefully we could all agree that?
Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you councillors. Okay, right, it's 10 past

4 General Fund Revenue Budget Monitoring Position (Paper No. 25-85)

8. We will move to paper 2585, which is the General Fund Revenue Budget and Monitoring
position. This is an update from the paper that we saw very recently, so I hope we can
this quite quickly. Miss Mary have you got any comments on this before we move
to questions? Okay right so have I got any questions on the latest update on
the budget monitoring? It's on page 41 I've lost it. Sorry two seconds while I find my page.
Councillor Richard Jones.
Thanks very much, Chair.
This is a preliminary comment before I've got a specific question.
It's disappointing to see overspends again reported to this committee of about 4 million
when paragraph 5 on page 42 reminds us that it wasn't very long ago that actually an increased
budget to accommodate overspends of 16 million was agreed not very long ago.
So we are in effect dealing with 20 million pounds of overspends.
But looking at a specific one, paragraph 6 talks about the budget pressures in health.
What I found surprising that that paragraph didn't detail, of course, was the impact of
the national insurance contribution increase, because we know that in particular the social
care sector is going to be very vulnerable to that.
So we know the industry is incredibly concerned about the cost pressures that that will visit
on the industry, which in turn will be borne in part by the Council.
What assessment has the Finance Directorate and the Adult Social Care Directorate done
to date about the additional pressures that are going to arise as a result of the Labour
Government's national insurance increase?
One thing I keep hearing is it is always said as an insurance increase.
Obviously as chair I am trying to be a part but actually it is changes, there are significant
changes to the National Insurance Policy and I do think we need to be.
Obviously it is a different position from you but there are changes and some people
are paying less and some people are paying more.
That is my only comment on that.
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Mrs. Merry.
Yes, so just to clarify, I think what you're referring to is the increase in employer contributions,
which is across the board and not linked to an individual employee's position, yes.
That comes into force from April 2025, which is why it isn't rearing itself in paragraph
six, because paragraph six is referring to the current year.
But in the Council Tax and Budget Setting Report at the end of the agenda, we have included
an assessment of what the additional costs may be.
We've increased our inflation pressures contingency to reflect around 2 .4 million pounds worth
of additional costs potentially in the care sector.
We don't know is the short answer what that impact will be on care providers.
Government does provide a market sustainability grant which is money that we are directed
to give directly to the care market and so we are passporting that through at the moment
and that will continue in April 25.
So that could take some of the pressure off,
but yeah, we've just got to see how much starts to come through.
On our contracts, our contracts across the board,
not just care contracts, are linked usually
to an inflationary CPI or RPI or industry -led indices,
which means that actually we wouldn't technically
suffer any additional cost whilst we're in contract.
but obviously there's a risk that as contracts come to an end and we go back out to the market,
the market will reflect the going rate, which potentially, you're right, will incur additional
costs to the council based on employers' increased national insurance contributions.
Thank you.
Yes?
Just on that point specifically, so the, as you say, it's difficult to forecast what the
impact is, but it obviously will be inflationary.
And the market sustainability grant might provide some relief.
But given that, for example, the government grant relief to this
council didn't relieve our own extra liability under the
increase, it's a fair assumption that the market sustainability
grant won't do the same for these pressures.
But my specific question was, where we're in contracts,
we might be shielded from those, the immediate increases that
providers face unless the pressure on providers is so acute that there's a risk of them going
bust, at which point they would approach the council and the council, mindful of its duties
to the service users, would actually reopen those parts of the contract to save them,
and in doing so would incur further budget pressures.
And that is something that we do, we have been doing over the past few years, particularly
with some of our adult social care providers. We have been negotiating contract price increases
that are above the contractual amounts because exactly as you say, our priority has been
to make sure the market is sustainable. We work with contractors. They know that we can't
be the bank of last resort kind of position because ultimately we cannot take all the
potential in cost increases on our figures.
So we will work, continue to work with contractors,
but recognizing that where there is an unstable market,
you know, we will have to have some serious conversations
with contractors to make sure that they continue
to deliver our services, which is what we did during COVID,
if you think, with our leisure contractor,
with our leisure center contractor as well,
and then our parking contractors as well in some of their discussions around hourly rates.
Thank you.
Councillor Ambasch.
I'm pleased that the adult care and the housing department are looking at their own budgets
within their own OSCs and I'm pleased to see the management action that those departments
are taking on page 44 and page 45 to try and reduce their overspends and reduce the overall
projected overspend of 4 million pounds. I particularly wanted to congratulate on the
finance budget because it's important that we look at the budget that we're responsible
for in this committee to congratulate those who are responsible for delivering well and
delivering more than we expected on the investment income. That's made a difference to the department
and the council. But we do have some areas where we have some concerns, and they've been
identified on page 46, revenue services and 47, change in innovation directorate, the
customer care, and particularly in relation to recruiting and retaining staff. And particularly
we've been concerned in this committee about customer care being the front of house and
being challenged on the performance indicator of prompt response and all of that. So I'd like to ask
what are we doing for revenue services and the customer services in terms of recruiting and
maintaining and retaining and do we need to do anything further because it's a challenging market
I think. Thank you Councillor, good question and I think the answer and
actually the question are relevant to services wider than revenue services and
customer services. There are some really acute recruitment pressures in a lot of
areas. There just aren't enough people in the market, good people but people and
people are tend to be quite transient, some people can be quite transient and
move around quite a lot. So there is this constant churn in some areas particularly.
And we've got our great employer workstream in the change program where we've been working
on this for a good 18 months to try and improve the overall position and make the organization
an attractive place to work. And that's not just about the salary that we pay but about
the culture, the flexibility that we offer, the career potential, the non -financial remuneration.
So there's a great employer workstream that is working on a lot of that. But ultimately,
it is still very, very difficult to get good quality staff to come to us and stay.
You know working on frontline customer services is a really demanding job
You know nobody calls the council to thank them anymore
So you know they are just really incredibly difficult roles and the same with council tax business rates
Rent accounts housing benefits within revenue services. You know we're dealing with very difficult conversations day in day out
So often it can be easier to go and work in a call center where you're you know fixing someone's
problems with their mobile phone or some you know some other some other
service area so we're trying the best we can as I said but not just in these
services but across the board.
Just on supplementary.
Quickly Councillor Amber.
As well as conditions of work are we looking at remuneration to make sure we have a
competitive package?
Yeah we are and you know we're constantly looking at pay scales and how we reward good performance as opposed to less good performance
but we are obviously working within budget constraints.
So a lot of what we're doing has to be about
not just the remuneration, but the wider offer to staff.
We are a large organization and well regarded,
so that should go some way towards it.
I can't just uplift all my staff by 10%,
because I don't have the budget for it.
So we are constrained to that.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councilor Graham.
Yes, I just wanted to echo your point about time.
So I'm not going to ask a question.
I just wanted to reiterate what we said before.
We are concerned about overspends on overspends, as Councillor Richard -Jones was talking about,
and we are concerned that despite the demand management measures that are outlined here,
we're still seeing more pressure coming through that doesn't appear to be under control, and
Indeed, even Children's, which was somewhat successful in getting its position back, has
got a $2 .2 million overspend within social care and on the agency side.
So we are not confident that this is under control, and we think that that is going to
have an impact on the budgets of the set and have been indicated for next year, because
the way things are going, the overspends we've seen so far are going to be repeated next
year with additional overspends and action does need to be taken, potentially quite radical
action to address that.
Actually, given that I probably won't be complementing the Labour government too much
at this committee.
They have taken in certain areas, I mean they've got massive things wrong, killing Mark Heffern on
grace, but they have taken some difficult decisions in certain areas and there are things
that can be done to ease these demand pressures and to reduce some of the larger claims that
are problematic and the burden that that's placing and also to ease some of the regulatory
burden of stopping competition.
So I hope that given that all governments are a mixed bag, we may see some progress
on that that we did not see under the last government.
But if we don't, I remain very concerned.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Lawless.
It was not really a question, it was more of a point and I'm glad Councillor Richard
Jones has returned.
It's a bit rich trying to pin all of the social care budget pressures on national insurance
contributions.
If you look at what happened under the last government, social care was, there was no
proper lack of funding increases year on year, record NHS waiting lists, record ambulance
waiting times, record A &E waiting times, like corridor care has been normalised.
You've got huge staff vacancies in the social care sector. Staff are demoralised, devotivated,
and during Covid like it was an absolute shambles in the way it was run. So I don't think it's fair
to put all of those pressures on one film. Thank you, Councillor Norliss. Okay, Councillor Fraser.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to welcome in the first paragraph of the summary that
there has been a $315 ,000 reduction compared with Course 2. And just thinking about where
it goes on to explain in there about this upset against the increase in housing overspend,
I think it's no secret. And obviously, it's talked about a lot at the moment, the pressures
on things like temporary accommodation, which are absolutely crippling the costs of councils
across London right now.
And just wondering kind of if, and thinking about that reduction, so it's to be welcomed
in light of some of those pressures on temporary accommodation, but just on that, is there
anything that you can share about, I know there have been lots of reports about that
market, but about any changes that might be coming to councils or any pressures that might
be able to be relieved in that area at all. Mrs. Murray. I mean so much work is
going on across London on homelessness, homelessness prevention and trying to
reduce the cost of temporary accommodation. I know there are some
pilots not necessarily in London and specifically linked to housing
associations about trying to take ultimately benefits that are paid on
on behalf of temporary accommodation clients, so local housing allowance, and instead investing
that funding in purchasing additional properties in order to alleviate.
So there's a few pilots going on nationally.
But ultimately, the government has put more funding in for homelessness prevention, so
we've got an increase in homelessness prevention grant and some rough sleeper grant.
We've actually, we got, I think, an extra allocation this week, even in the current
financial year.
So they are definitely recognizing that costs are going up and that some of that is wholly out of our control and funding that, but ultimately not funding that gap in full, which is why you're seeing the pressures coming through.
Okay, thank you very much. And Councillor Ireland, I noticed you wanted, were thinking of saying something?
Okay, that's brilliant. Okay, well, thank you very much. This is a paper to note.

5 Treasury Management Policy 2025/26 (Paper No. 25-86)

Is it all agreed? Okay, thank you very much councillors. Right, we now move on to the Treasury Management Policy.
I think it looks like Mrs. Mary is still in the hot seat. This is a bit like…
I promise I will leave after this paper. So, I've just got three very quick things to say about this.
Firstly, thank you for recognising in the previous paper the great work that we're doing
on Treasury and the investments that we are managing to achieve.
In this paper, it shows you in paragraph 11 that we're currently achieving a rate of return
of 5 .2 per cent.
And all that hard work is obviously not down to me.
It's down to Catherine Burston, who's sitting behind me and her team, so I'm pleased that
she was here to hear you say that.
That was the first thing I wanted to say.
The second thing that I just wanted to point out was that this paper comes to you, and
you see a few of these updates during the year and you're probably sick of seeing them.
This one specifically is about approving the Treasury policy statement for the coming year,
which is effectively the Treasury Bible that we work to as officers.
And there is one change that I have been asked to explain in that policy.
It's pretty much as it has always been, but on page 69 of the pack, paragraph 3 .4,
we've shown the track changes there of the change.
And apologies to any lawyers in the room, but some of that deletion is, I think, linked
to very legalistic wording that doesn't actually make sense in practical terms.
But what that change is doing is it is recognizing that when we do need to go out to borrowing,
which is becoming as we know more of a reality now than it has in the past.
We will be guided by the current interest rates when we decide how long to borrow for.
So this is very, whereas previously the policy talked about making sure that you had kind
of an overall average borrowing length of period of around six years.
We all know with our mortgages that if, you know, if interest rates are high, we're not
going to lock in for 25 years, are we?
We'll go for a short -term rate and then go back to the market after that has ended.
So this is doing effectively the same thing, saying that the interest rates will guide
how long we take borrowing out for.
That's the only change of any significance to the policy statement.
Ms. Murray, did you also want to say something about the liability benchmark?
Yes, sorry.
And then of course the favourite appendix, which is the Prudential Indicators.
Now these have to be set by the council each year based on the SITFA Code, Prudential Code,
and they're very defined in their definitions.
Some of them make absolutely no sense whatsoever
in terms of practicality because they assume things
that haven't yet happened and we don't plan to happen.
And I'm sure there'll be some discussion on particular ones.
One of the new ones that we've had to include
is on page 81, which is called the liability benchmark.
And there is a graph on page 82, which if you're printed,
it's in black and white.
So let me just get my screen because I've got the colours on there.
So I'm really pleased actually that this slightly impenetrable graph has been included in the
prudential indicators because actually what it shows is that the Council's ability to
avoid expensive external borrowing continues until at least 2028.
So, what this is showing is the red line at the top is the borrowing.
It's called loans CFR, but it's a quasi -borrowing line, and that's how much the Council will
need to borrow over the next 8 to 10 years.
And they're the figures that we recognize from the reports that we've been talking about.
It then also shows how much cash we've got, which is the orange line.
And assuming that we want to keep some cash in the bank, we don't want to run our bank
balances down to zero.
So that's the dotted line.
So if the dotted line hits the zeros to the x -axis,
that's when we need to start externally borrowing,
because our internal borrowing headroom, so our cash,
is running out.
Mrs. Mary, we're just attempting to put this
on the screen, which is going to be quite radical for anyone,
was she?
In colour.
Has it got there?
Yes. Right. So I will very quickly, so the red line at the top is borrowing. You see
that goes up and then it plateaus because we don't have any plans beyond year 10.
The orange line at the bottom is our cash. So we've got more cash than we've got borrowing.
And the dotted line is the cash that we would like. We would like to keep about 200 million
in the bank because we don't want to have to redeem volatile money market fund investments.
So we are going to have that buffer.
So as soon as the dotted line crosses the x -axis, yes, there we go, that's when in
theory we would need to start externally borrowing.
So every time I come to you and say we'll of course minimize our external borrowing
by internally borrowing, this graph proves that we've got the headroom to do that.
OK.
I hope that makes sense.
And thank you, Miss Rishi, for showing us that on the screen.
Okay, do I have questions on this one, please?
Right, I'm going to let Councillor Lee go first
and then Councillor Graham.
I think, yeah, it's a really positive paper with,
as you mentioned, the rate of return,
the emphasis on prudence and our use of internal borrowing
where possible to minimize the external debt costs.
I think you sort of answered my question because I wanted to ask about fluctuating interest rates and how
we will adjust our investment strategy to
Optimize our returns world while minimizing risk
Question so
when we
Approach Treasury management. It has to be there's something called the sly principle
which is in priority order, security, then liquidity, then yield, so return.
So absolutely our security minimizing risk is priority and our treasury policy and our
strategy statement, they hard code that assessment of risk into the parameters that we as officers
work to so we can't put too many eggs in one basket.
We use money market funds because they have a good rate of return, but as I said, they're
quite volatile. So we have minimised the risk on those by putting aside funds to protect
us in case those capital values go down at any time. So we've got what's called an investment
volatility reserve. So our risk approach is linked to the quantum of cash that we have.
The more cash we have, the more we can put more into those money market funds. But as
our cash balances reduce we would obviously make sure that our risk profile was adjusted
accordingly. At the moment local authority inter lending is on the up. It went down to
pretty much next to nothing about 12 to 18 months ago. That's very safe debt because
ultimately a council has to repay its debt. So our whole risk approach is linked to the
of our investment. So when you look at that rate of return, whilst the average rate of
return is 5 .2%, you'll see that there are different types of investments, different
profiles, different risk profiles, and different rates of return on the back of each of those,
and that's how we manage our risk.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Graham.
Yes, I'll do the internal debt first and then turn to borrowing as a whole if that's
So, just on internal, I obviously accept entirely what you're saying, that borrowing internally
is preferable to borrowing externally, and that it may be possible for a few years to
come to continue to borrow internally.
Likewise, I think the fact that the debt is assumed to be external for the purposes of
setting these figures is absolutely the right thing to do.
Can you just confirm, though, that even when the debt is internal, there are still revenue
implications and implications for departmental spending and other things, and that there
is still interest that has to be covered on these, the debt that's taken.
Yeah, Mr. Murray.
Yes, a good question. Thank you. So there is an interest that needs to be covered. What
you've actually got, so effectively what we're saying with internal borrowing is we have
got cash in the bank, and it's earning, as you know from this Treasury paper, it's earning
interest. If we choose to fund capital from our own internal borrowing, effectively what
we're saying is we're not going to get a loan to fund that, we're going to run down our
cash balances. So we've got less cash in the bank which is earning interest. That's the
charge. There isn't another charge on top of that. There are then accounting entries
that sort all that out which are linked to average rates of return and weighted averages,
etc. But there isn't actually an interest charge. There is an accounting entry interest
charge, but ultimately the net impact is that our cash balances are lower and therefore
the interest that we earn on our cash balances are lower as a result.
I was using that interest as a shorthand for MRP and all the other things that are here.
So, I accept that.
Sorry.
Was that not answered? Did you have some more then?
I just wanted to turn to the amount we've been borrowing.
Right.
So, obviously, on page 77 in Appendix G, sorry, page 79 in Appendix G,
we can see that the gross external debt limit set, in other words,
the credit card limit is £1 .3 billion before we even got to the end of the period
in which borrowing is anticipated. I appreciate that that is in effect the credit card limit
rather than the amount to be borrowed. Can you confirm what the total amount to be borrowed
by this administration will be in terms of what has been approved and what has gone before
the council in papers. Yes, thank you and I will use that phrase
credit card limit to explain that figure in future. Thank you, that's a good analogy.
It isn't what we're planning to borrow. So we've mentioned before and the housing committee
received the HRA business plan last month that confirmed the investment in the Thousand
homes program and our development schemes incurs debt of around 780 million.
That's a figure that has increased. It's increased largely because of the switch
from 60 % affordable housing in the previous administrations, borrowing plans
to 100 % social rent under the current administration. And then as we saw in the
capital paper at the start of this agenda there was a hundred and thirty
of general from borrowing over the next five years.
So some of those two figures would be, I think, what you were referring to.
Thank you.
We never get just one question, right?
Did Mrs. Mary not answer your question satisfactory?
Mrs. Mary did and I have a follow -up question related to that.
Thank you. Well, let's wait for that one. Let's leave it.
OK, Councillor Richard -Jones wanted to say something and I'm...
Can I, sorry to ask this, can we get the graph back up, the page 82 graph?
Because I've got a technical question on it.
OK.
I'll just explain it if you can't get it.
No, no, no, we will.
We're very excited with this technology.
But it just takes a moment to come up.
We're thinking this is something that we should be considering in the future when we have
graphs.
Do you want to take another question whilst it comes up?
No, it's there.
So, my question is, so, Ms. Mary, you explained really well that the orange line at the bottom
is the cash that we have.
The red line at the top is the total borrowing requirement.
And so, if you like, the dotted line is the difference between the two.
You explained that the reason the orange line never goes above zero is because we want to
cash reserves. And you said that was 200 million, 150 million in the general fund and 50 million
in the HRA. But looking at the orange line where it plateaus, it doesn't plateau at 200
million. It plateaus at what looks to me to be 50 million. So is the graph there just
showing the HRA or is it showing something else or have I misunderstood?
Yes, very good question. So you have slightly misunderstood what I said or I've not explained
it very well. So the orange line is the cash line and the cash does, as you say, carry
on with a – it's a positive cash balance, although it's a negative on the graph because
the graph's kind of upside down, isn't it? Borrowing is showing above and cash is
shown below. So the orange line, if the orange line cross the x -axis we will be in trouble.
The point I said about we want to retain reserves, we want to retain cash balances, we want to
have the flexibility not to have to cash in our money market funds because this graph
is telling us to. So we are setting the dotted line as our marker of when we think that cash
balance will be expended and therefore external borrowing will be required.
Which is why that, so there's a 200 million pound gap between the orange line at the bottom
and the dotted line, yeah, which is your 50 million you mentioned and then the money market
funds.
Sorry, can I just say, so that means because that 200 million is investments that, and
I mean I would say we're incredibly lucky as a council to be in a position where we're
gaining money from investments, but those investments are so lucrative, would that be
be worth saying is we really don't want to or are they just long -term
investments and there'd be a I can I can see this person nodding in the background
they're long -term investments and therefore if we cash them in there would
be a fee to pay or no so going gosh please don't quote me on this but it's
like crypto it's it's the kind of thing that you want to you don't want to be
forced to sell it you want to sell it when when it suits you and when the
market suits you. So we don't want to cash these out because the cash borrowing position
is making us do that. It's not about there being penalties on cashing them out and it's
not about them being necessarily long term but the point is you've got to ride the market
and we don't want the cash borrowing position to force our hand on those investments which
is why we will always want to keep a minimum level of investment in those so we can choose
when to come out of them if we need to.
OK, thank you very much.
Right, Councillor Graham, if this is going to be a very quick last question, yes, if not?
Well, I'd like to ask the cabinet member a question that she should be able to answer, because I've...
Sorry, Councillor Graham, let's just ask her.
Well, I've put it to...
Well, this is relevant, I've put it to her in several council questions,
but the answer hasn't actually been in her answer to those council questions.
But it at least means that she must have been aware of it and put the question herself,
even if she didn't provide it.
So we've heard that there is total borrowing already, without knowing what's going to happen
on the General Fund after five years, of over £900 million.
Can she tell us what the revenue cost on the shorthand, the interest cost, but what is
actually as technically as Mrs Marius pointed out, the revenue cost of that will be and
whether it is more or less than the principal borrowed?
Sorry.
Councilor Ireland.
You're referring to the HRA?
I'm referring to the HRA.
I can give you the figures if you like.
Sorry.
The HRA is $780 million.
The interest on that over 50 years is $885 million.
On the general fund, we're borrowing $136 million,
and the interest is $81 million.
I would like to say that if the previous administration had taken advantage of zero or near zero interest rates,
we wouldn't be forced to pay these high interest rates.
And if you think these figures are scary, try 60 million pounds a year on temporary accommodation, which is money down the drain.
Right.
Ooh, sorry.
Councillors, just a reminder is when you finish speaking, can you turn your mic off,
because we've just been having a little bit of glitches due to too many mics being on.
Councillor Graham, I think actually I've got to the point where we ought to stop on this paper.
I would now move to a vote.
So we are being asked to -
No, let me sum up what we're being asked first, okay?
We're being asked to approve the change to the Treasury policy, to approve the operational
boundary of, so the Treasury policies in Appendix C, to approve the borrowing limit and operational
boundary of 210 million in paragraph B, to approve the minimum revenue provision in Appendix
Next, we approve the prudential indicators and to note the new liability one, which we
have seen plastered on our screens.
Okay, so taking them in order, you...
I just want to note our position, which is simply that...
Can you just tell us how...
Just tell me how you're going to vote, please, okay?
We've had a lot...
We've used to vote in favour of some aspects...
Actually, Councillor Graham, stop.
Please do not talk over me.
You have had ample time to state your position up till now.
Thank you very much. We are now moving directly to a vote.
Well, I didn't. You were having questions, not time for stating positions.
Well, I didn't offer you a...
Before being able to tell members that the implication of this vote is that...
Councillor Graham...
£1 .9 billion.
Excuse me. Councillor Graham, please do not do this.
Right? I've asked you politely.
We're going to move to a vote on this.
Okay, those in favor of item A, please raise your hands.
That's the treasury.
B, sorry, that's ten.
The item B, the local government agreed on that, everybody?
Okay, those in favor raise their hands on item B.
That's six, five.
And those against, sorry, Caz Corner, are you for this?
or are you just anticipating?
You're saying news against, not going back to that.
I'm about to say that.
That was nearly three and a bit against.
Four against.
C, the minimum revenue provision.
Those four please.
Okay, and against.
Abstentions.
Thank you.
To note the updated prudential indicators.
Those in favour? Five. Against? Okay. Thank you for, no I'm not casting a vote, and the
liability benchmark today. We're all happy with the liability, excellent, we do like
a graph. Thank you very much councillors. Okay, we are now starting, we now have item

6 Connect to Work (Paper No. 25-87)

6, which is Connect Work, and we have also been joined by Councillor
Acunola, who is the Cabinet Member for the voluntary sector, business and culture.
Okay, nice to see you, Councillor Acunola, and I hope the trip in Piccadilly went well.
Councillor Acunola, are you happy for Mr Diamond to go
straight through on this one or you yeah of course you might if you want to say a
couple of things Piccadilly was amazing and I'm really really pleased that was
borrowed I know but it was it really was amazing so I hopefully you will see the
the footage on the council website bit later and also the event this morning
which was just so wonderful I'm so proud of all of us actually because it was a
cross -party agreement that we would be borough of culture so I'm looking
I'm looking forward to sharing that with you.
But onto Connect to Work,
which is also something really proud of.
We all know our Work Match team do really great work.
And we were the first organization,
sorry, the first council in London
who said that we really want to deliver
the Connect to Work scheme ourselves
using our existing Work Match team.
And this paper just sets out how we're going to go about it,
how we're going to support people with disabilities and long -term sickness.
Through the programme, we're very confident that we're going to be able to meet the numbers
because this is how WorkMatch operate already.
It's their bread and butter.
And I'll pass it over to you, Steve.
Mr Dymond, is there anything you feel you need to add or should we go straight to questions?
Just a couple of quick points.
So Steve Diamond, Assistant Director for Economic Development, just to add on that in terms
of planning this, there are some key changes to predecessor programs.
Perhaps the critical one is in the past this was contracted out to providers and the delivery
risk was passed out as well, which I think tended to mean that perhaps those who were
most in need of this support didn't receive it.
This new program isn't that sort of payment by results model.
I think it's much more of a collaborative approach with DWP, which is very welcome.
So just to reiterate Councilor Econota's point,
I think it's something that we can really work to ensure.
Not only this reaches those who need it most, but
it also reflects the conditions on the ground in the borough itself.
and that sort of devolution approach is one that we think is really important.
We're really excited by it, but perhaps I'll just take some questions.
OK, brilliant, thank you very much. Can I have indications for questions?
Hold on, right, let me answer Hedges.
Okay, Councillor Hedges, would you like to start with your opposition speaker, Hattie
Hall?
Yes, thank you, Chair, and Councillor Ekinola, my sincere apologies for not being able to
make it this morning. Unfortunately, my day job took precedent, but had I not had that,
I would definitely have been there.
I'm glad to hear it was a success.
Mr. Diamond, thank you very much for this paper.
I really do welcome it.
And I think it's a really, really good scheme
to get individuals with disabilities
the support to get back out and to have suitable employment.
So thank you for that.
Just one quick question for me on it's more around the comments
from Mrs. Mary, actually.
It is in paragraph 32, page 89.
We talk about it is important to ensure that expenditure is monitored closely so that we
do not exceed any grant funding.
I just wondered what the monitoring was going to be on that point in terms of expenditure.
Mr Dymid?
Yes, so I guess some of the figures that are in here, which are actually a bit of a work
in progress at the moment, reflect the approach that will be taken.
So there's a unit cost approach to this, and that determines the budget that's available.
Obviously, behind that, we then need to turn this into on the ground delivery.
Work match itself is very much used to working with external funding and reporting to the
funding bodies we will report to DWP through the City of London, that's the accountable
body for central London forward.
I'd refer back to the fact this isn't payment by results and to some extent the public built
into the process is close involvement of DWP and other partners on this to understand who
who is receiving help and how that is reflected
in terms of the resources that are available here.
Obviously, we will be closely monitored on this.
I'm not gonna go into all the details.
There are very prescriptive CRM systems
that need to be put in place.
It will be monitored through DWP administrative systems,
so there will be very close understanding
of how we're delivering against that,
how we're meeting those targets,
but also it's not a hands -off program by any means,
and I think that if it looks as though
if we're talking down to different client groups,
as we've mentioned in here, and the numbers are slipping,
there is scope to understand how to rectify that,
which may be shifting provisions to meet the numbers,
or it may be that DWP accept that it's better to try and work
with a particular group at the risk of lower numbers.
That's the sort of narrative that we're getting on this,
which gives us confidence that it will be delivered.
As I said, we could sort of slip into that old model
of being a contracted provider.
and will always make the numbers work.
But I think that misses the point of what this program is
trying to achieve.
So hopefully that's the best way of doing it.
I talked a lot about the governance in here.
And there are a lot of, obviously,
this committee is an important part of that governance.
But we'll also be posting to Health and Wellbeing
Board and ICP governance, as well as Central London Forward.
So there will be a lot of monitoring on this,
is the best way to put it.
But as Councillor Rachanola was saying, I think this fits well with Work Match's current
approach, in particular how we engage with employers.
I think their involvement in this is really important as well.
And look forward to the progress on this.
Thank you.
Okay.
Councillor Worrall.
Thank you, Chair.
And I really welcome this paper.
I think it's yet another tool to help people who are often
on the margins of society and excluded
in three different ways.
So it's really good.
I just want to pick up, though, on what
you were saying about the mechanisms used to involve
people within the program.
So in paragraphs 19 and 20, it outlines
some of the mechanisms used to find people,
so linking in with social care and within the WP.
However, in your introduction, you also mentioned this will also work with people with complex
needs, and you mentioned people who are care -experienced, refugees, and I assume that's people with
recourse to public funds in relation to that, and victims of domestic violence who might
not be on disability -related benefits, which would be on the criteria that you'd use, people
who might be at high need but might be on mainstream universal credit.
So I suppose I would be interested in more detail about that mechanism of actually engaging
with people and finding them, because they come from very different strands and how it's
all coordinated.
Yes, so in terms of the core of the program, as I said, is people with disabilities and
with health conditions, and there is a model, whilst this is a devolved program, there is
delivery model which is actually quite prescriptive and we will be monitored on that.
It's a model that comes from, largely from the health service, IPS, and that is about
delivering the employment support within a health related or community related delivery
context.
It's part of a service that that individual may be receiving that isn't in a job center,
it isn't in a normal employment support.
So I think that will drive this and part of the eligibility are a group of individuals
who will have particular, particularly a disadvantage in the labor markets, the group that you've
mentioned, which they may not be disabled or have a health condition, they may be from
those groups.
I think the key thing is they talk about eligibility here, but they also talk about suisability,
So it has to be suitable for connector work.
I think that delivery model is really important.
There are benefit conditions as well, so it tends to be people who aren't on universal
credit or work -related benefits.
It tends to be focusing on the economically inactive, also those who are actually in work
but may be at risk of dropping out and heading into that.
So again, a slightly complex response about that.
I think on some of those groups, how they operate outside of the normal health NHS sort
of derived model, we're still to work that out.
But they need to follow that model, and that's probably the main sort of parameters about
who we help through in that group.
Thank you. Councillor Ambasch. And I was just going to say, I hope we can, if we're positive
about this, that we can deal with the questions quickly.
I agree with Councillor Hedges and Councillor Worrall. This is good news. So one of the
choices was to have a borough level and you've come up with a borough level scheme and said
that there are advantages of delivering stronger outcomes
and responding to local needs.
And so I'd be interested in what you think the benefits are
and why we can deliver stronger outcomes.
And two or three things about the development
of the program.
What training will Work Match staff
have on the needs of those, particularly
with health or disability or other conditions?
and paragraph 20 talks about integration of frontline,
with frontline health and care services.
How will we make sure this happens
within the Wandsworth context?
Mr. Dine, thank you.
Yeah, thank you for that.
So on the latter point, we've got a new strategic lead
for the program, a critical part of that is precisely
that integration agenda, as I said.
We have to follow a particular model that embeds that.
but we will be taking on someone who will be engaging
with the panoply of health and care services
that are out there to identify suitable delivery locations
and contexts.
If we weren't delivering this,
if this was delivered through the other model
which will exist, which is a sub -regionally contracted
provider, that's work that they would be doing.
and that's a choice that other boroughs have made, but I think our view was that
it was it was much better to do that in -house, not least because I think it
provokes a whole wider range of discussions about the role of
employment and improving people's position in the jobs market as a key
component of their own health and well -being. So this is a really
important broader agenda and I think we saw this is a really good opportunity to
do that within the borough close to frontline delivery and really broker
those close relationships with the with other service providers and of course
the individuals that we want to help.
Sorry Jeremy you've a counter in between you pressed your buzzer.
Alright okay thanks okay Councillor Fraser oh sorry Councillor Aconola you
had your hand up do you want to say something at this point or yes I just
wanted to add and the other thing is that it coincides obviously with our
London Borough of Culture which also offers that creative aspect that we can
offer to some of the people that need employment so we have that additional we
have that additional accolade and work that we're doing that other boroughs
don't have so that's the other reason we decided to do it at a borough level okay
thank you Councillor Fraser thank you chair and
I just want to talk about paragraph 12 talks about connect to it will require changes to
the current advice model.
Could you talk us through a little bit about what those changes are likely to look like
that are different to what is in place currently?
Yes, the fundamental change is to follow this model and excuse me I did not respond to Councillor
Rambach's question about training.
So that is something that will be required of staff.
Some staff have been involved in this before,
but other staff will require more training.
It will be about delivering in these different settings.
They could be GP surgeries,
could be with occupational therapists
or physiotherapists, for example.
I think it's fair to say, you can see that in some of the output targets we were talking
about, that this is likely to be more in -depth support with the individuals than we might
have been used to.
We would have probably helped a proportion of work match clients would have fallen into
these categories, but we'll be doing more working with people who face bigger disadvantages,
I'd say, in the labour market.
So in the end, it's more in -depth work with the clients,
which is the big change.
OK.
Thank you, sorry.
Councillor Fraser, was yours OK?
OK.
And Councillor Ritchie -Jones, I gather your question's
been answered, so thank you very much.
You're obviously thinking as a great mind with somebody else.
But we won't find out who. Jeremy.
Okay. If that sums up the questions, could we move to a vote on this?
Basically, it's about – we're noting the purpose and content of Work Match, agree
that Work Match is the right place to deliver this service, note the governance, note the
programme requirements and reporting, and delegate to the director of place in consultation
with the Executive Director for Finance approval to enter into financial agreements. Are we
all agreed with that? I get the impression we are. Excellent, thank you very much.

7 The Council's new Voluntary Sector Strategy (Paper No. 25-88)

Okay, right. We've now got two, no we've got another, we've got a meaty paper coming up and
then we're doing the environment ones. So we're now going to, we've got the new voluntary sector
strategy which is paper 2588 and I believe the cabinet member wanted, Councillor
Akinola wanted to say a few words or okay excellent. Thank you. Yep so this
report is a culmination of loads of meetings with the voluntary sector it's
an agreement between the voluntary sector and the council about how they
want to see and how we want to see, should we say, our voluntary sector grow.
I think it's a really great strategy actually and something that we're going to build upon
and it will be delivered by the, well, in partnership with the voluntary, the community
voluntary organization that's going to be commissioned to deliver our voluntary sector
service.
So these are, these are the voluntary sector's words.
I'm really pleased with that really.
Okay and Mr Evans, do you got a couple of things to add on that before we move to questions?
Thank you chair, thank you Councillor Econola.
I think just to re -emphasise this is a culmination of a couple of years work really of investment
from the current administration into our relationship with the voluntary sector.
We have also got, as members will recall, a tender out at the moment for a new infrastructure
service for the voluntary sector, so a CVS -type service, which really will be a step change
for the support to the voluntary sector and capacity building in ones of going forward.
And actually, that infrastructure service will be a key plank of how we deliver through
this strategy.
And this strategy is about – it's not just about what the council can do.
about how we can support the foreign sector and the voluntary sector can support themselves
as well in delivering an even more thriving voluntary sector in the future. Thank you.
I'm just going to say Mr Evans, when we talked about this earlier, you were also very enthusiastic
and I think perhaps we should, I should say I felt this was something that you were very
keen to see happening and I remember you saying this was a new thing for, particularly for
and quite groundbreaking for us in terms of how we're dealing with voluntary sector.
And you were very excited, is that fair summary?
I'm sorry if my excitement didn't come across in my introduction, but I am genuinely.
And you know, we've done loads, it's been a fantastic journey with the sector and we've enjoyed,
it's been challenging, they've challenged us and we've challenged them, and as Councillor Canola will know.
And you know, I think we've got to a really good space now where I think the sector
I've talked very positively about the relationship we've gone on and we've still got a journey
to go.
There's no doubt about that.
But I think this strategy really resets that, puts in a good position going forward.
So yes, absolutely.
It's the first of its type in ones that I can remember and certainly with the investment
into the CVS service, that is a level of investment into our corporate relationship, if you like,
with the sector that we've not seen for a long time.
Okay.
Thank you very much Australians. Right, I'm going to go to Councillor Worrall first because you were first last time.
Councillor Worrall, Councillor Hedges, Councillor Corner.
Okay, off you go and if anyone else wants to speak, oh, Councillor Anabash is going to say something as well. Excellent.
Great, thank you. I suppose as a starting point just congratulations to everybody in putting the strategy together.
Having been involved in some of the early discussions around this and reading through the initial needs assessment,
I know how much work has actually been involved in this and the way you've engaged with the
voluntary sector.
And I think this is a useful example of co -production in taking place.
Strategies like this can be living documents, and I think this is an example of a living
document continuing to work with the sector, develop it, set targets and measurement structure
as you go along.
So I said a huge congratulations and a big welcome to this.
But one thing that I was wondering about
is that the paper and the document here
has quite an interesting, I wouldn't say bias,
but highlighting more the care sector.
And I understand that because the health sector plays
a big part in the linkages with ICB as part of the initiative.
I was just wondering if you could comment about the number of organizations and the breadth of organizations that are involved in a strategy like this besides health, because I know we have environmental and other organizations as well.
And just as you might not be able to answer the second part of my question, and I'm happy for you to go away and come back to me, is on page 98 on paragraph 24,
You talk in your highlighted work with different, around ethnicity and around age.
I have a specific question about working with LGBT organizations as we form the 86 % of the
borough population.
I was just wondering if you'd comment about the work with LGBT organizations as well.
Thank you, Councillor Warrell.
Mr Evans.
Thank you, Councillor Warrell.
Yeah, so obviously the health social care sector
is a particularly important part of the
sort of one sector ecosystem in the borough.
And certainly we've worked closely with the ICB,
health partners.
So integrated care board for those.
Thank you, thank you, Councillor Critchard.
And they are co -funders of the,
well at least a contributor to the infrastructure service
that we sort of co -commission in effect.
So that's important.
But absolutely the breadth of organizations
has been really across the board.
I mean we've had youth organizations,
health, mental health, advice, faith,
children, families, older people,
sport, food, refugees, environment,
arts, LGBTQ as well, groups, engaged in it.
So we're pretty confident we've got a good spread
of that sort of engagement.
On the second part, I'd have to come back to you
on the specific side, if that's okay.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry, excuse me, can I, are you able to elaborate, sorry, cancer echinola, oh yeah, cancer echinola,
just if you can help with the answer then, yep.
Absolutely.
One of the first things that we actually did when we, well every time we brought everyone
together was ask everyone to raise their hands.
It was a way of them networking but also a way of seeing who worked in which sort of
area.
And what we actually found was that most organizations across the borough work with a wide range
of different people.
Obviously, there's organizations like Free to Be that work specifically with the LGBT
community, but most organizations will work across with a whole range of different groups
and protected characteristics, which is really wonderful, actually, for a borough like ours
that people are able to accommodate people from a wide range of backgrounds.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Hedges.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, Councillor Akinola and Mr Evans for all of the hard work that's gone into
this.
Really appreciate it.
Just wanted to say I really do welcome the work that's gone into it and I appreciate
this is a strategy document, but it would be great to understand what in terms of measures
of success. I know you've got there's a lot of information here but what would
really good look like be what would really good look like to you. Thank you.
So Councillor Hedges you're absolutely right to say that this is a sort of a
positioning statement strategy really and we wanted something it was a living
document that everyone could get behind and and use that doesn't sit on the
and doesn't help to sort of drive forward that relationship.
In terms of deliverable actions,
then clearly a lot of the stuff in here
we've said will develop action plans,
but we'll do that co -produced again with the sector,
so we get a shared understanding
of what good looks like in this space,
because what we don't want to do is,
for what the council might think is good,
it doesn't necessarily mean that
is a shared endeavor across sector.
Things like the infrastructure service
will have very key outcomes and KPIs attached to that
as a commissioned contract, so we're very clear about what we're trying to achieve on
that.
And actually, this committee received a lot of detail on that back in the summer last
year.
But ultimately, I think the test of this will be our continued dialogue and feedback from
the sector, as well as hard measures about, frankly, the growth of the sector, the support
we're giving it, the level of inward investment essentially into the sector.
There are things we can measure and get a bit of a handle on. So yes, hopefully that
helps some of your points.
Thank you. Councillor Corner I think was next.
Thank you, Chair. I'm very interested in the answer to Councillor Hedge's question really.
I wanted to go on the success criteria of this strategy as well.
But given the answer you've given, what funding do you envisage will be required to meet all
of the council commitments in this strategy?
And if you could just give a ballpark figure, that would be helpful.
and has there been any work done on value for money measures at this stage?
Chair, thank you, Councillor Corner. So one of the most, in reality the investment to deliver on this
has already been delivered by the Council, so an investment into the team
in my area that supports the foreign sector. You would also have agreed a
budget variation investment into the infrastructure service that the
Will supported that recommendation the committee did at the committee in July last year
And that is about three hundred and thirty thousand pounds annually into and into that infrastructure sport
Which will go a long way to delivering a good chunk of this
strategy and
Much of the rest of the rest of the strategy were delivered by us as officers and
and engaging the capacity we've got across the organization.
Actually, we don't own that relationship
with the voluntary sector corporately.
Actually, there are strong relationships
with children's services, with adults,
across environments as well.
And this is about trying to make us all point
in the same direction, actually,
which I think is really important to make,
without being too cliche, greater than the sum of our parts.
Okay, yeah.
Councilor Ambach.
I wanted to congratulate Councillor Akinola and Mr Evans in terms of the strong partnership
way that we have worked with the voluntary sector.
I think what has been very interesting is as Mr Evans just said, it has not just been
his team who work with the voluntary sector and the chief executives, it has been staff
across the whole council in different teams who you have brought together who have worked
with it.
So I think that's very exciting and a different way of working
with the voluntary sector.
What I was wondering about the future,
and particularly with the discussions in the Democracy
Review about the slightly different way
that OSCs might work in the future,
whether we might have a session in three or six months' time
looking at how the action planning is developing
across the seven areas that we're working in.
and possibly having representatives of the voluntary sector
presenting it as well as officers.
I kind of think the committee might have something to,
very interested to see how it works,
but also something to contribute.
Yes?
Do you think that's going to be,
that took the words out of my mouth, Councillor.
I think that's fine.
I should, do you think that's going to be possible?
I can't prejudge the decision on the democracy review,
but the, in terms of how this OSC,
might work in the future that feels a very sensible report.
And we usually have done haven't we any for the OSCE if we wanted to report in six months
time or whatever I mean do you think the one question I would have about that is do you
think there'll be there should be enough to further report by July which is six months
away?
We will to an extent yes of course we'll be in the early stages of the infrastructure
just sort of onboarding at that point.
So let's take it away and we'll come back to you.
Yeah, and perhaps that's something we can discuss
about when we'll be at an appropriate time.
If that also suits other committee members,
obviously who knows who's gonna be on the committee
after the changes.
I just asked a very quick clarification,
but I might have missed her.
Yep.
In answer to my question,
did you say the budget variation was 330K a year
or 30K a year?
I said the investment in the infrastructure is 330k.
The budget variation was a smaller amount reflecting that there was already some budget
there and some contribution from the ICB but there was a net contribution from the Council,
an additional investment from the Council.
It's back in the July 2024 paper which I'm going to send you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Richard Jones.
Thank you, Chair.
It builds on Councillor Worrall's question and to an extent Councillor Ambach's as well
but it's about reach and the breadth of engagement with the VCS.
I know that trying to get balanced and broad engagement is always a challenge in pretty
much every area of the Council.
I noted in paragraph 8, so on page 95, approximately 60 attendees attended the launch of the bimonthly
VCS network meetings.
And then paragraph 11, of course, 48 respondents completed the survey on the online consultation.
There are, I can only tell you better than I can, but there are hundreds of VCS organizations
in the borough, and I know you've been working hard to engage them, but how can we get those
engagement numbers up?
So something that we found out is that actually quite a lot of people that work for the voluntary
sector actually work for many different organizations.
So whilst it might be that we have 48 respondents, people like Sarah Rackham, for example, work
for several different organizations,
and we'll give a viewpoint back from that.
I actually think that our very first meeting,
we had like over 100 different organizations
in the Civic Suite, which is incredible.
Having 60 people online is actually like,
them taking an hour out of their day
is actually really incredible.
And that's every other month, because they
have so much to do and get on with to actually deliver
services.
So I think we have a really high sort of connection rate, communication rate with the voluntary
sector and we had like 500 people at the event this morning which was also really incredible.
They do want to be in contact with us and having a point of contact to meet and talk
to the council directly to officers, to councillors is really, really important and once the VCS
hub opens, then they'll actually be in the town hall, which is again another way that
they can connect with the council. I think it's evident that they just, they want to
be our partners and now we're opening the doors to them and I'm really excited about
how we move forward with the strategy.
Thank you, Councillor. Mr Evans, you wanted to add something, I think. Yes?
Only that we're really pleased that the reach of our newsletter is about a thousand subscribers,
of subscribers, which I think is fantastic.
And actually, the response rate to the final consultation
being 48, obviously 48 groups, so represented there.
But actually, the groups that,
there was no surprises there.
They'd been on a journey.
They reckon, we were consulted back on them
with something they had all been engaged and involved with.
So, you know, the engagement we got during the process
has been, is absolutely fantastic.
So we're really pleased with that.
Thank you. I think that seems right. Thank you all for your discussions on this. So we've
been asked, what we're being asked to do is agree the new voluntary sector strategy in
appendix A. Are we happy to agree it? I think we're all happy to agree it. Okay. Unanimously.
brilliant thank you very much okay we're now going to take the setting of charges

9 Setting of Charges - Environmental Services (Paper No. 25-90)

paper which was which was item 9 but it's now been moved in front of the
council tax because we need to handle that before we look at budget variations
Okay, who is... No, right, so we're going to just take, excuse me, questions on this.
Let me find the page. Okay, so are there any questions on the, excuse me, on the Environmental
services papers, okay, the charges. Okay, sorry, two seconds. Councillor Graham.
Yes. So page 161, paragraph 7, talks about the national rate of CPI reducing substantially
to 2 .2 % in August 2024.
I mean, it actually fell to 2 % in June.
But I'd assumed when I was looking at this
that we always use August as the benchmark
month for setting charges.
But when I double checked back to last year's paper,
we'd used September last year to set the equivalent figure.
And in September of this year, inflation was not 2 .2%.
It was 1 .7%.
So why has the month been moved, which is being used as a benchmark,
and is it purely for the purposes of cherry -picking in order to put up fees and charges
by more than the equivalent amount last year?
Mrs. Murray.
And actually, what I forgot to say because you didn't have an introduction.
this particular set of fees and charges is to do with regulatory services. So it
covers things like moths and getting rid of bed bugs and
also what else does it go and planning fees as well as other things. So Mrs.
Murray. Yeah thank you Chair. So you're right Councillor Graham we do try to be
consistent between years in order to kind of preserve the
the 12 -month rolling nature of the indices. This particular paper, I think has been linked
last year to the environment committee
increases which went through in November rather than
January, February, and I think therefore used August rather than
September.
What you'll see actually, and it is a guide, and that paragraph you referenced does talk about council costs not necessarily being limited by an increase with CPI,
because obviously we have other costs beyond that that work to different indices.
But you'll see that the charges that are being proposed are a mix.
Some have gone down, some have gone up, some have gone up by more than the indices that's been referenced.
Some of them have gone up by considerably more.
So it's a mixed bag of actual increases being applied to individual charges,
but linked to inflation as the kind of starting point
rather than the actual final figure, if that makes sense.
The consistency with this for next year to make sure that we don't
fatter that 12 -month roll inflation figure.
Thank you. Mrs. Murray, I was just going to check. Some of the charges also are directly
related to officer costs, and presumably those charges have gone up to reflect the pay increase
so the full value of the officer time is recharged. Yes.
Councillor Graham again.
I'm just a bit concerned because it does seem to be entirely arbitrary, the point that we're
using to set these fees.
I mean, if, for example, this time last year,
we just used the rate of CPI at the point closest
to the start of the financial year,
that increase would have been considerably lower.
As it happens, if we did that this year,
it would be higher, reflecting the fact that inflation is now
going up post the budget.
But that would be fairer.
If we can take any point in time,
Why don't we take the current point in time each year because to go back six months and then charge people more or less?
Than one could and then to vary that between years. It just makes the whole thing seem entirely entirely arbitrary and unfair
Okay, thank you for your comments
Yes, there is a reason why we can't take it as each year as the point see CPI at the point closest to the
financial year in question.
I mean, Councillor Graham, the one thing I would say is I understand your point, but
the proposed increase is in terms of the income we generate from some of these things.
The total is around 15 ,000 a year is what the increase is, would give us over and above,
because some of these charges here are particularly specialist.
I'm sorry, Councillor Lint, do you have your hand up or?
No.
Councillor Christian, I realise that these are very small amounts and that within the context of the overall budget is practically de minimis.
However, the principle of the thing does seem decidedly off.
I mean, £15 ,000 for the same reason is something that could have been swallowed by the amount the administration seems to be wanting to take out of reserves,
you know, without even noticing. It wouldn't even be a rounding error.
yet we are charging people more and we're charging people more than we would have done
on the equivalent basis last year.
Okay, well thank you very much.
Okay, is there any further comments on this one or?
Right, thank you, Doug.
Well in that case, we've been asked to agree the new charges that have been set out here
and apply them for the 1st of April and we have to approve a negative general fund budget
variation which is going to be picked up in the next paper. All those in favour of
this changed fees and charges please raise their hands. Five, okay all those
against? No. Any abstentions? Okay and as ever the Chair didn't cast a vote. Right, thank you
Thank you very much.
So we've now moved to the last paper.

8 Council Tax 2025/26 (Paper No. 25-89)

We've got there in the time I thought slightly differently, which is the Council Tax Paper.
And I just would comment, one of the reasons this is coming last, because it also covers
the, it covers budget variations, and we always take budget variations last in this committee.
Okay I'd like to ask Miss Mary would you like to do a brief introduction for this one please.
Yes thank you so very briefly this paper as you have said is the annual council tax and budget setting paper that will go to full council in March for final approval.
It builds on the paper that came to this committee in January which set out the proposed committee service spend for the coming year.
And that paper, as has been referenced earlier, flagged a number of areas where we are continuing to see significant service pressures and cost increases.
So this paper takes that service committee position forward and it also reflects the
final local government finance settlement that came through.
The previous paper had a projection in there but not the final figures.
The final settlement was more or less as we thought it would be and so that figure hasn't
particularly changed for this version of the report but it still does show the government's
increase in core spending power being 6 % of which Wandsworth has benefited above average,
although the 6 % includes an assessment or an assumption of a full council tax increase,
which obviously is not what's being proposed in this paper.
It then, this paper then also looks at our use of reserves and it revises our projections
on planned use of reserves. So we've got a number of initiatives being funded from
specific reserves, particularly around our cost of living response, the access for all
programme and some of our refugee and homelessness asylum response. And this re -profiles some
of the spend between years. It also assumes an increased business rate, as I said, in
with the local government finance settlement but recognizing the impact
locally on retained business rates and it concludes with a planned use of
reserves of around 16 million pounds for next year as I said linked cost of
living access for all the change program and refugee support. It also then
balances the budget with a use of reserves this is something that we spoke
about in January. It is a reasonable thing to do in the current climate I
think particularly with those cost pressures to rely on reserves that's
what they're there for. We've done it before and the suggestion here is that
if there is a freeze in the main element of the council tax we continue to take
the adult social care precept increase of 2 % which we've taken every year since
it was introduced in 2016 and actually linked to as we talked about adult
social care pressures that feels like the right thing to do. The balanced
budget use of reserves is highlighted in paragraph 19 in the table there of just
under 11 .3 million for 25 -26. The paper then shows what the average and
majority bandy bills will be based on that that revised level for Wandsworth
also referencing the Wimbledon and Putney Common Conservatives increase and the
Greater London Authority. It does flag that there is a continuing budget gap
beyond 25 -26 so we've successfully balanced the budget in 25 -26 but there
is still a budget gap beyond that that we will need to deal with. It flags the
proposed funding reforms from government which we will know more about the detail
of that in the summer. That should include multi -year settlements, but I think it, as
we mentioned in January, it does pose a risk for boroughs like Wandsworth, particularly
in London, compared to the national distribution formula. The paper then briefly talks about
the introduction of the second home premium
and empty property premium being brought forward
from a two year window at the moment
to applying for one year
and the second home property premium of 100 % increase
which was agreed this time last year by council
but will be implemented for the first time
from the first of April.
I am happy to take questions if there are any.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, so Council Corner, Councilor Worrall,
Councilor Richard -Jones, Councilor Lee, right.
Councilor Hedges, okay, right.
Let's start with Council Corner.
Thank you, Chair.
Clearly, this budget is proposing to use reserves
to balance the budget to the tune of 11 million pounds, 11 .3 million pounds. What is that
as a percentage of current reserves that are usable at the present time?
Oh, Mrs. Berry, are you?
It's about 5%, so 204 million is our current balance.
Thank you.
Councillor Worrall?
Yes, thank you.
I just want to take you to page 120, paragraph 42, which is about the Council Tax Reduction
Scheme.
In terms of this paper, can you just elaborate a bit more about the impact of this in terms
of those most vulnerable and who we're trying to support?
Thank you. So the council tax reduction scheme was amended if you remember and the current
financial year is the first year that we've had that revised scheme which was simpler
to understand, still complicated but simpler but more generous than the previous scheme
and removed the requirement for residents to make a minimum contribution. That does
mean that somehow some households the lowest income households in the borough will pay
no council tax bill, and particularly those households, even with the proposals in this
paper will continue to pay no cancer tax. Yeah. Okay, Council Richard Jones. Thanks.
I've actually got a quick question as well if I may just on the back of counselor worlds,
I'm really in sync with Councillor Worrall this evening, it seems.
On the revised Council tax reduction scheme, I did note in the paper the claim that it's
simpler.
If you recall the consultation, the majority of consultation responses thought the proposed
new scheme was more complicated than the scheme it replaced.
So I wanted to know on what basis does the Council say the new scheme is simpler, and
What has been the experience of administering the new scheme,
given the apprehension that the response to the consultation
clearly felt?
Thank you.
So my recollection of that consultation response
was not the conclusion that responders found it more
complex.
They found it difficult to understand,
which is not quite the same.
Those people that did understand the scheme
found it simpler and fairer.
So, what we concluded from that was it is still, as I said, it's still a difficult scheme
to understand.
If you remember, the reason we chose to move away from the way the old scheme works was
because that was absolutely going to be impacted by almost monthly universal credit changes.
So, what we've seen is a simplification because we haven't had the number of reviews that
need to do on a monthly basis based on those households have got variable income based
around their work salaries which then impacts on universal credit and that's why we made
the change. So that's how I know it is simpler because I know that we are dealing with fewer
reviews on the back of the change that we've made.
Sorry, just following up from that. I noticed that I think we had a paper in July last year,
we had a paper at some point last year about the effect of the counts of the
council tax reduction scheme are we likely to see anything or would you be
able to provide us by the end of the financial year early next financial year
some sort of indication about how well it had worked and well we can give you
some stats the definition of how well I'll need to think about how I can
evidence that I think, as I said, the number of in -year reviews will be an indicator of
whether we've managed to simplify the scheme, and of course that was one of the drivers.
But also we have done a lot of work over the past 12 months on increasing take -up and making
sure that people who are eligible for council tax reduction are claiming what they're entitled
to. So that might come out in the figures as well. But we'll look at what we can do
and bring something.
Yeah, would that be, I'm just thinking about the,
Councilor Ritchie -Jones, would that sound
like a reasonable thing to do from, excellent.
And I think I interrupted you before you carried
on the rest of your question.
Thanks, that's a fair answer.
I'm glad to see that the scheme is working out.
My main question then is page 115.
So paragraph 14 raises the specter
that we've been worried about for some time,
which is the funding formula review, which is likely to be predicated on the principle
of council tax equalization. That's going to be nothing other than adverse to Wandsworth.
What this budget does, as far as I'm aware, it is unprecedented because it is a raid on
the reserves to maintain an artificially low increase in the council tax. My understanding
is always when this Council has dipped into the reserves to balance the budget, it did
so only after it took the maximum Council tax increase it was able to do so.
So that is a radical departure from the previous policy of sound money and sound financial
management.
But surely, given the contents of paragraph 14 and paragraph 15, this is the worst time
to be rating the reserves to keep the head just the main headline artificially low when we know
that we're going to need those reserves probably very soon when the funding formula is visited on
this council by the Labour government. Right Mrs Mary. Yeah thank you, Chair. Yes so it's a fair
point that we know that council tax equalization is going to impact on Wandsworth there's no
out about that. The point here is we just don't know to what extent that will happen.
We don't know whether council tax equalization will be applied in full to the whole or part
of the formula and with what speed it will be implemented and what transitional protection
and what caps on cash floors and ceilings there will be. So we just don't know. So notwithstanding
that the point about using reserves to balance budget we've spoken about before
you know that's what the reserves are there for we've got work to do in order
to tackle what is a continuing budget gap but as I've said before we've
started to see some good stuff come through particularly on our digital
investment plans that we hope will tackle help us to tackle that and the
point about foregoing council tax income is a fair point not taking the full
Council tax increase means that we forgo £2 .2 million worth of Council tax income and as
you say that would by definition therefore be taken from reserves instead. The point
about the Council tax level and what we set that at relative to the reserves that we've
got available and all the other factors that are being taken as part of that decision all
play together and I think come together in this report as referenced in the cabinet members comment and
Probably that's all I can say on the overall position
I suppose
Yeah, I think that
Despite the fact that that council Richard Jones has points out the fact that we're using reserves. It is another year of
a balanced budget and we are prioritizing important services for our residents whilst
also maintaining affordability for our residents.
I wanted to ask about the cost of living reserves which we will be using and ask if there are
specific projects or reasons for this use?
Mrs. Mary and possibly the cabinet member, that's the reserves in page 126 and 127.
Thank you. So specifically in relation to the cost of living reserve, this committee
has seen a number of initiatives over the past couple of years that have drawn on that
reserve, we're looking at how much of that funding and the initiatives that we've put
forward, we've managed to hard code into our mainstream business and where we have, that's
fantastic, where we haven't, we need to consider whether that's something that we want to continue
to fund or whether we want to deliver something differently or stop doing things.
So that review is going on in time for next financial year, sorry, for 26 -27.
One of the things that we are still working on that will be funded from that reserve is
our response to the cost of living commission report.
And there are a number of initiatives that have come on the back of that, of which quite
a few of them have already been put into play.
We were already doing some of them, and we've got an action list of things that will come
forward as part of making sure that we continue with that cost of living
commission report and its response. Thank you. Council Peter Graham. Yes.
This is an 11 .5 million pound hole in this budget. It's not balanced. This
hole is being desperately plugged from what are in effect savings. And when
When you are in a position where you are funding your day -to -day expenses, your outgoings from
your savings, that is the very opposite of sound financial management.
That is what most people regard as profligacy.
Now the hit on reserves we see here is over $37 million in just two years.
The HRA is being hit by the reserves there going down by 53 million over the same period.
So that's 90 million just till April 2026.
However, the HRA, we know that the plans for the following two years will add another 60
million being taken from reserves, sort of take away, deplete those reserves by another
60 million.
So that's producing over 150 million
that the Labor Administration wishes to spend,
removed from savings.
Can the cabinet member of finance
tell us what her plans are in those equivalent two years
for general fund reserves?
What are the plans for 2027 and 2028?
Thank you for your question.
I think the paper talks about the planned use of reserves.
We've just been speaking about that.
We are not, we are working very hard to reduce the projected budget gap and we don't anticipate
having the budget, let me say, how can I say this?
We are working very hard to reduce the budget gap and we will not know how much reserves
we need to use until we've done that calculation.
Okay, if I can come back then.
So it sounds like that actually this is going to continue, because that budget gap relies
at the moment on the council spending no more in the next financial year than it is in the
one coming, which has never happened before, and I very much hope it will happen for the
next year to save that situation.
So we're now looking at a position where this Labour administration is borrowing over
£900 million at a cost of around £1 .9 billion and is emptying reserves at a rate that is
definitely over £150 million and could be more like £200 million. I put it again to
the cabinet member. How can she describe that as sound financial management?
Okay, thank you. Well, I do describe as sound financial management, we are using – hang
on a minute. Do you want to hear?
You may disagree with what the cabinet member says, but I would like you to listen respectfully
to her, please. I think the code of conduct between members asks us to do that, and I
I think we have all been listening respectfully to you, so please moderate yourself.
Sorry, Councillor Ireland.
Wonsworth has some of the highest financial reserves in London, and these reserves were built up largely during the pandemic
because saving on reduced activity, mainly in adult social care, now we're experiencing a catch -up in that activity now,
which is what's causing the unprecedented demand for these services.
Now, we think that we need to invest in our adult social services and we need to make
sure that we fulfill our statutory obligations.
Now, people tend to think of Wandsworth as an affluent borough.
I mean, it is fairly affluent, but there are nearly 36 ,000 residents who are experiencing
income deprivation across Wandsworth and I think nearly 23 ,000 households on universal
credit.
And keeping council tax low is the single biggest thing we can do to help most residents.
Now we think this is a proportionate use of reserves.
This money shouldn't just sit there, this money was built up from the people of Wandsworth,
it belongs to the people of Wandsworth and we want to use it to help our vulnerable residents.
Thank you very much, Councillor Ireland.
Councillor Hedges was first.
But there's a factor of accuracy in that answer.
Councillor Hedges was first.
Okay.
I'm sorry, Councillor Graham, but I actually, Councillor Hedges has been waiting politely,
listening politely.
It's her turn to speak.
Thank you, Chair.
I've got a, I've got one comment and one question on page 119, which is, which refers to the
comments of the cabinet member for finance.
So, Councillor Ireland, some points for you.
I'll make the comment first.
On paragraph 40, we've said that, or you've said that we have frozen council tax for three
years.
Now, you also just mentioned that there are 36 ,000 residents with income deficit.
So I think for some of those residents,
they genuinely think that their council tax has been frozen,
when in actual fact, it actually hasn't,
because there will be money coming out
of their direct debit, which is actually
not gonna be the same.
It's not flat, it will go up.
And then they've also got the mayor of London's precept
as well, which has gone up.
So I just find that slightly misleading,
and I actually feel for residents,
and I get what you're saying, you wanna help residents,
but this is misleading because it's not actually freezing the whole of the council tax.
So that's just my comment.
I just wanted to say I'm thinking about that 36 ,000 number that you said about the income deficit when it's not strictly correct.
Then the other point I wanted to raise was your point about high inflation on paragraph 37.
And the question to you is, do you regard the inflation rate of 2 % as high?
Councillor Ayles, are you OK?
Thank you, thank you.
I just want to say that if you read paragraph 40 again, you will see that my recommendation is to freeze the main element of the Council's share of Council tax.
So that's very clear. I'm not talking about freezing any other bit.
It's the main element. So I think people can read that and see if that's clear.
Two percent inflation, I think that's more or less the government target.
I don't consider it high. But what's happened as a result of previous high inflation is
that a lot of our services, including our statutory services, are experiencing higher levels of inflation.
and this is because of actions taken by the previous Conservative government.
Okay.
Sorry, on what the previous Conservative government did.
Okay, firstly, just to say that I appreciate what you're saying on the point that you're not saying that you're freezing the whole amount,
but literature that has gone out or
social media that has gone out has said that you're freezing council tax for the third year on on the trot and that's not strictly
true, so I just wanted to make that clear
and then your point about
this trust by the way, which happened in 2022 and it only went up one point for one month
So I really you know, I think we need to sort of stop going back to that point because it's really you know
it's like becoming quite ancient.
But I'd like to know what you think you would classify
as low inflation, please.
I'd like to say something here.
I'm old enough to remember about 15 % inflation.
And that's quite high, actually.
So I would,
all I would say is most of you,
there are some of us in the room
who are old enough to remember this,
and some of us who aren't.
But that was crucifying, actually, when it was that high.
So I think that 2 % is, it's obviously not ideal, maybe.
I think you're remembering the previous Labour government, Councillor Crenshaw.
No, actually, I think it was under Madame Thatcher, actually.
It was never 15%.
Inflation only reached that level in the 1970s.
I am also...
Yep.
I think this is ancient.
Sorry, are you describing me as?
No.
OK.
The tour work is that.
Right.
The tour is ancient, not you.
Holes and digging.
Right, OK.
Cancer Iron, do you have any comments on that?
No, just to say that the 11 % inflation that we experience
then is in our base.
We are still feeling the effects of it.
And I would say a lot of our residents are still feeling the effects of the cost of living
crisis created by the previous government.
So there are some fortunate people who might not be in that position anymore, but there
are a lot of our residents that are struggling.
So it does affect them, which is why we think it's so important to maintain as low council
tax as we possibly can.
But yes, the 11 % inflation is baked into our base costs.
Right, thank you very much. Actually, I just think I want to take something from Councillor
Lawless, if I may, and then I'll come to you, Councillor Corner. I'd like to sort of share
it out a bit. Thank you. We are freezing council tax this year, and I think it's been suggested
otherwise. Four years ago, after a Finance Committee meeting, Councillor Graham tweeted,
One of council have frozen council tax this year accompanied with a graphic, a
leaflet that you guys produced as well. He's smiling because he remembers it.
That year the social care preset went up by 3 % but all of you guys were saying
that you've frozen council tax. So I think my question would be to
Councilor Graham, sorry Councilor Ireland, Councilor Graham. Does she know what the
the opposite will do will they abstain like they always do on this aspect of
the paper has she heard of their plan for council tax would they freeze it or
would they put up by the maximum amount no I haven't heard what their plans are
it sounds as if they think that we should not be freezing the council tax
hopefully we'll find out shortly but we're going to hear from council corner
next. Councillor Corner has been waiting patiently again. There's a lot of patient waiting going
on there. Yes. There's been some impressive double -speak around the table today but my
question refers to paragraph 51 which refers to the consultation on the premium measures.
Now it says whilst there is no requirement to consult with residents before bringing in these measures,
as a listening council and to inform the policy, residents were nonetheless asked.
And we can see the results in appendix G.
Now if you look at those results, it shows that for the vast majority of proposals, residents agree that the changes should be made.
But then this listening council, as it states in paragraph 51,
proposes to not alter or add to the discretionary powers provided.
So can the cabinet member explain how that is being a listening council
when you go against the results of the consultation that you commissioned?
In order to inform your policy.
Sorry, Councillor Calderon, I think Mrs. Mary was actually keen to be asked about this.
I just want to clarify. There are statutory exceptions. We have consulted on whether they
are appropriate and residents, the only issues that they've raised with us in the main
are already covered by the statutory exceptions, which means we have chosen not to introduce
discretionary exceptions on top of the statutory ones that already exist.
Could you clarify for us the difference between the statutory discussion and the other one?
So for instance, statutory exceptions around probate, properties in probate.
Okay, yeah, yeah.
If the property is empty, there are statutory exceptions around charging a premium for those properties.
So if a, for anybody watching or listening, if a property becomes empty because somebody has died
and the family are waiting for probate,
we don't charge a, we won't charge a second,
a homes premium or an empty homes premium
simply because they're waiting for probate
and that's a statutory exception, is that correct?
Yeah, excellent, okay.
And those are all covered in our paper.
Sorry.
Is that altered your question, Councillor Corner?
Councillor Corner.
Excellent, thank you very much.
I have Councillor Fraser next.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to say thank you for laying out on page 126, 127
the specific general fund reserves as well.
It's really, it's nice to see them laid out
in that way to make it clearer.
My question was on page 126 on the waste reserve.
Is my intent that that's being put in place
for more national measures we expect to come down the line?
That's correct, thank you.
All right, has that been answered?
Yeah, okay.
Councillor Rich Jones, I thought I saw a hand being waved.
Thanks.
Well, there was a planted question from the administration about what our plans might
be about council tax.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily planted.
I mean, come on, you always used to ask us that.
So, let's just say it, you know, what goes around comes around.
Yeah, the absolute dog's breakfast that this paper is, is that there is an 11 million hole
in this year's budget because spending is out of control.
Now, you can't separate the budget requirement, which has been driven up by this administration,
with then the revenue -raising options that are available to you to try and keep the depletion
of the reserves under control.
This is a really difficult issue.
Like, of course we like low council tax.
I mean, we made this council famous for low council tax.
It's the reason why we led this authority for 44 years, because we kept the council
tax famously low.
What this administration has done, it's taken the reserves it inherited from us, it is burning
through them to try and create a political headline, because it knows it struggles with
credibility on council tax.
So it is straining every SIDU and it is reaching for no limit of the reserves to try and maintain
that.
On that issue, I think we will be abstaining on this because this is not a budget requirement
that we can possibly work with.
There is time to salvage this.
As you know, Chair, the deadline to set the council tax rate is the 11th of March.
The executive could go away and revise its budgets and get them into order.
And then we could vote for a council tax freeze, a proper freeze, not the freeze and just the
main rate, on the basis of sound finance.
At the moment, that is not possible with this paper.
We'll be abstaining on them.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Worrall, you had to...
yeah kite
and i could i just ask a look on since you recognize that whilst
in my disagree with contents of the paper
to call papers like this the dogs breakfast is that you quite the salt and
to the offices and staff members she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's
he's an experience
so that's it's true to recognize that these papers are not recent
are written by a check out so offices and council members of staff
so while so say you might disagree
with contents of the papers and
we hold
And we all have feelings around that.
To be insulting in that way to actually counsel officers in the way that actually written
such papers, these trust papers, I think is very disrespectful.
Council Richard Jones, do you have any?
Yeah, I'll reply if I may.
I mean, that is a pretty transparent deflection.
It's actually beneath Councilor Moore to say that.
Sorry, excuse me.
No, I actually...
If I may reply, as Miss Mary is probably the counsel officer that I rely on the most and
of possibly the greatest respect for,
although I have respect for a lot of our,
extreme respect for a lot of our council officers.
The criticism of this paper is obviously
the policy choices underlying it,
which poor Mrs. Merry and her officers are constrained by.
As a technical matter,
she has done the best job possible on this,
but she has to work with what she's given,
and what she's been given is absolute dross
by this administration.
She's been put in a terrible, terrible position.
And it wasn't actually etiquette,
it wasn't propriety for Council Wall
to try and shift this onto the office actually. I think that's beneath him and I think he'll
regret that probably tomorrow.
Sorry, right, actually I'd like to say something here. When you said that I was actually quite
disappointed that you used that phrase. There are clearly policy differences in how we do
things, right, and we may not like the paper, you may not like the paper, you obviously
don't like the paper, that is your opinion. But as Councillor Worrall said, and I think
he responded, he crystallized what I was thinking,
it is very difficult, the officers do as,
you know, they are carrying out our job as,
their jobs as we have administration.
And actually, the paper is pretty clear.
You may not like it, you may not think
that is the appropriate use of reserves.
What I would say is sometimes we have discussions in this group that indicate there are clear
differences in policy between us.
And the Cabinet member has articulated that the difference in policy is that we think
the reserves at this stage are best used to help support the initiatives we have and to
help us with difficult issues we have whilst keeping our council tax low.
That's our policy position.
That is a rather different one, obviously to yours, you are entitled to yours, but I
would just say that in the interim of this, I would not describe, I would think we should
try and keep the way we discuss it to what it is on policy and not how the papers have
been presented, please.
Okay.
I'll just respond to that very briefly.
I don't think anyone in good faith was imagining that I was criticising the officers drafting.
My criticism was directed at the policy choices behind this paper and in fact what it is,
it is an abuse of the Council's long -term viability and its ability to deliver resident
services for residents for our most vulnerable residents for short -term political gain and
headline.
That was the object of my criticism as I think colleagues on the opposite side do appreciate.
Right, thank you for saying that.
Councilor Ambach.
I wanted to come back on what Councilor Richard Jones
said we could do in the next few days.
We could revise the budgets
and we could have a real freezing council tax.
So Mrs. Mary told us for six years,
you took the adult care precept from 2016 to 2017
through to the end of your administration.
So I really wanted to ask Councilor Richards -Jones,
did he mean by a real freeze
that he would not take the social care pre -sect
and you've changed your view about that,
considering your administration took that
because of all the pressures on adult care
and we have them continuing.
We think it very sensible to take the adult care pre -sects.
It sounded rather trite when you said you will have a real freeze of council tax.
What did you mean?
We meant a funded freeze in council tax.
We would take the adult social care precept.
As you say, it's our longstanding policy.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Oh, sorry.
Someone's.
That's okay.
Right.
Cats Graham.
And hopefully then after that we can pull this to a close.
Thank you.
So, well, since I was, I wasn't asked, but I was mentioned directly, I don't think it
is unreasonable, certainly outside the relevant codes on publicity, to describe a freeze in
the main rate as a freeze.
We did so.
I have not criticized the Council for describing it in that way.
what I think is wrong is present council tax as a whole as frozen when, leaving aside the enormous increases from the Labour Mayor,
council tax under this administration will now have gone up over 6%.
That is not frozen. Now, regardless of the fact that the main rate may be frozen,
the amount of council tax being charged by the Labour administration will have gone up after this budget goes through,
if this rate goes through by over 6%.
That is not a freeze over three years.
That is a 6 % increase, regardless
of what your talk on the main rate may be or may not.
Now, I want to turn back to something
that Councillor Ireland said.
Because I sat on this council and have voted for freezes.
I voted for overall freezes.
I have voted for cuts, both here and on three other occasions
in Hammersmith and Fulham. In fact, in Hammersmith and Fulham, council tax was genuinely cut by 20%, which is a real terms
cut of over 38 %
during the period that I was there. But I've also, as I said, voted to increase council tax
because fiscal conservatism is not about
cutting tax or freezing tax for the sake of it. It is about doing the responsible thing in terms of balancing
The reason we have reserves here
is not what Councillor Ireland said,
which is because of money
piled up in COVID.
It is because for decades
this Council,
despite the fact
under the Conservative Party
it kept the lowest
or lowest average bill
in the country,
voted to increase
Council tax
when it was necessary
to protect the reserves.
That is why we have reserves
because when we couldn't
find the means
to do that,
to freeze all cards without using reserves.
We did not use those reserves. We felt that was improper.
That is how reserves
and financial management is actually conducted responsibly.
This is irresponsible. You have decided you're going to freeze
the main rate before you've even looked at whether it can be paid for.
And when you found that it cannot be paid for,
instead of trying to do that, you've just smashed open the piggy bank.
so that that money goes.
That cannot be regarded as responsible.
It's even more irresponsible when your own government is talking,
quite contrary to you, about punishing councils
that set low council tax rates, punishing them to the extent
that one reading of the consultation document, which was put
out over Christmas, is that actually
that if you don't set the average rate nationally,
basically your funding will be deducted to that level.
I doubt that will happen in practice, but were it to happen,
it would see council tax here more than double.
Right, well thank you.
So we simply do not accept these characterizations.
Okay, thank you very much, Councillor Graham.
That's been quite a long spiel.
I think I'm now going to ask, huh?
So dog's breakfast is unacceptable language,
but spiel is fine.
I mean you're very sensitive on the one hand and then quite happy to dish it out on the other.
Sorry, excuse me.
Let us, I will make a comment, Councillor Graham, is we were talking about dogs breaking, we discussed it,
I'll be very clear about this in terms of the officers who do not have a right of reply.
You can obviously say to me, as you have just done, if you don't like what I've said.
That's slightly different.
I'm protecting the officers.
Thank you very much for your comments.
I wanted to ask a question at the end of it, but I'll let Councillor Holland go first.
No, what I'm going to do now is I'm actually going to ask
Councillor Ireland to sum up. We've actually had quite a long discussion on this one,
probably nearly three, we've had quite a long discussion. I know it's very important,
but I'd like Councillor Ireland to sum up and then we can move to a vote. Thank you very much.
Councillor Ireland. Thank you. Yes, just to say thank you very much to the officers for all their
I know how difficult this was.
We are freezing the main element of the council tax for the third year in a row and that means
our residents will continue to have the lowest council tax in the country and the average
band D will be under a thousand pounds I think will be the only council that will be doing
that.
Now I said before Wandsworth has the highest, among the highest financial reserves in London
and I've got some figures in front of me that prove the point I made earlier actually.
But I would like to say something.
I've lived in Wandsworth my whole life,
and I've been alive a long time.
I was born in Ballum.
I grew up in Tooting.
And the idea that I would push a budget that I didn't think
was sustainable, we know it's going to be challenging,
is totally insulting.
I'm not a here today, gone tomorrow politician
that flees from Hammersmith and Fullan to Wandsworth,
for instance, just because I lose.
Well, that's a fact, too.
So thank you very much.
I'm going to have to come back on that, Councillor Crici.
No, actually, Councillor Graham, we've had a lot of coming back from you. Thank you.
We've got over a quarter of an hour left to run.
And?
I'm sorry, but you said we had a right of reply. You're now denying me mine. You said,
unlike officers, if you're insulted, you have a right of reply. Well, where's mine?
Somebody else's reply, apart from you.
Where's mine?
Councillor Graham, I have actually think there's been a fair bit of insulting traded both ways.
Enough is enough at this point. I now wish to move to a vote on the council.
I don't wish to install, but I do wish to respond.
Well, fine. That's your wish. I'm not allowing it.
Okay, next.
We also have more questions. We have questions about what's going to happen on these reserves, given that the
Administration's of Polishing Decision Majors is below a million pounds.
Sorry, I have decided that is enough. You, excuse me.
There is a moment where, this point about using your questions wisely and what you say.
I've had, we've had a long discussion over this.
There are multiple important points in here that we wish to raise.
There is time.
Why are you trying to curtail debate?
Because we've talked about it for quite a long time.
No.
I've just had enough.
Chair, this is the most important paper we discuss with Finance every year.
We do have 15 minutes left.
It does seem unjustified to bring this to an end.
I think I said, what I said earlier on was I said I'd hear from Councillor Graham then
Councillor Ireland was going to sum up and then we would move to the vote.
So I'm now moving to the vote of this.
Councillor Critchup, why are you running scared of questions on the budget?
As Councillor Richardson's Genesis said, it's the single most important thing we
can do.
Right.
We are seeing a situation in which your administration is going to bypass constitutional principles
to take decisions under a million pounds out of visibility.
We are wont to ask what's going to happen on this.
This is not that paper.
No, you are going to spend 7 .7 million out of the Cost of Living Reserve next year.
Not a single decision that was made within that would now have a decision notice.
No record, no publicity, no forward plan.
You are talking about something that is not in front of this committee, okay?
It has not been in front of any committee of this council against the insurance if we
had a general purpose.
Excuse me, if you continue to argue, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
I would prefer not to have to do this.
Now I'm bringing the discussion on this to a close and we are now moving for a vote.
Councillor Cripshire, why, when we have time left, are you shutting down debate?
Because...
Sorry, because I think we've talked about it a long enough...
You just asked for my reason.
It's because this is the most important matter before this committee every year.
Our residents do pay us to come here and ask questions.
I don't understand why we haven't even hit the guillotine.
We haven't been sitting for three hours yet.
In all this arguing, we could have actually...
We've had an extended period of you trying to shut the debate down.
In that time, we could have actually put our questions.
Fine, but you should have been quicker before.
I'm now moving to a first.
I mean we should have been quicker.
You said we couldn't ask them regardless, Councillor Critchard.
This is fundamentally anti -democratic.
I don't know why the cabinet member is laughing.
We just want to ask questions.
We have questions that remain.
I really don't understand why the meeting is being conducted this way.
We have come here, we have questions to ask, the officer is ready, the cabinet members
are ready, you are curtailing the debate.
I don't understand why.
Councillor Fraser I think has something to raise.
Chair I ask that the question be put.
Okay thank you very much.
I have a seconder for that.
Councillor Ambasch.
Councillor Crikshan, when this administration was conservative not only did it balance the
budget but it never once shut down Labour opposition councillors in this way.
Not once.
This is outrageous behaviour on important financial matters and you are refusing to allow questions to be put in a way that was never, you were never treated in this way by us.
It's a disgrace. And then when you're bending the constitution, taking stuff to the executive, there will be no oversight of these decisions by anybody on this side or your side again if the executive votes the way that it's supposed to do on Monday.
We are not allowed to ask what the alternative arrangements are.
We weren't even allowed to ask a GP what those arrangements were.
This is an affront.
Thank you.
I hear it.
I've got a point of order.
However, I have had an ocean.
No, there is already.
No, you're always allowed a point of order.
I've got a point of order.
No, I'm sorry.
No, you can't.
You actually have a point of order.
Councillor Richard Jones, before your point of order, I have had the question now be put,
be moved and seconded.
My point of order is related to the motion. You have to take it first.
It's related to the motion. In that case you have to take advice of the
Clerk. Chair, you have to take the advice of the
Chair. I will discuss this with my committee Clerk
who is able to advise on this.
And I would appreciate your side letting me take that advice.
However...
You need to ask what we need to reach...
Right, first...
Right. My committee clerk advises me that you need to tell me what the point of order,
which standing order, your point of order is under, sorry, which, what the breach of
the standing order is. The number, please.
Yeah, it's the same number that Councillor Fraser quoted. If Councillor Fraser could
remind me what that number was? I didn't quote a standing order, I asked that the question
be put. Then she has to move it under the standing order. Right, it is under 23. So
what are you suggesting under 23? So understanding order 23, as you know, the chair in their
discretion can refuse not to put that motion. We have now got ten minutes left of the committee.
We have genuine legitimate questions we want to put.
You as the chair can refuse this motion, the purpose of which is just to curtail the debate.
You can do that. You can let the opposition do its job.
You can let the administration answer questions and then we will be out of here by half past.
Right, thank you for that.
However, what I would comment is this is I had actually previously announced my
intention to hear from Councillor Graham then hear from Councillor Ireland and
then move to a vote. What has happened is that colleagues have said have actually
agreed that this is how we would do it. It's what I said initially what's
with a 20 excuse me but we didn't agree that way I am prepared to accept that
motion under standing order 23 I'm sorry chair we never agreed this arbitrary
council grain would speak the cabinet would sum up yeah we've never agreed
that you didn't have to agree it I chair the meeting and I was clear that was
what I was going to do if you thank you but the start of the meeting you just
declared you were going to move to a vote after 15 minutes we wouldn't agree
to that. What has happened is I'm allowing the motion
understanding order 23 to stand. Chair, do you think this is in accordance with
the Nolan principles? Do you think this is a transparent way to
discharge a rule as chair? Okay. The ruling of the chair on a point of
order is final and shall not be open to discussion.
I'm now moving 23.
I'm just standing on 23, a point of order.
No.
Yes, I'm entitled to make it.
Are you saying, and is the Administration Council saying, is Councillor Fraser saying,
that you have so much confidence in your budget that you're going to vote to remove our ability to ask questions about it?
Is that really the confidence you have in your figures, that you're formally voting to shut down any scrutiny?
You've been rude, you've been misogynistic to the chair, so I voted to stop you doing that and say that we...
I absolutely reject that. That is an outrageous thing to say. I totally reject that suggestion.
You've been rude to the chair all evening. You've been rude and disrespectful. I'm not going to respond, I apologise. You've been rude.
I take the motion that she's decided to take. Please.
There's no breach.
Yeah, there's no breach.
Right.
I'm going to take the motion.
Are those in favour of moving to the vote under 23, please raise their hands.
Thank you.
That's five, is it?
And those who are against that, please raise their hands.
Thank you.
Right.
We will now move to the vote.
Okay.
We have to take several things.
We have to...
Come on!
Come on!
We wanted to debate.
Same reason.
That's why it's so right.
Okay, I'm sorry that you've decided to leave.
Right, in that case we probably have a more straightforward...
We voted to stay here as you were waiting to get to the park.
Anyway, it's probably worth saying thank you very much Mr Riley for your support.
I've been involved in two walkouts somehow or another.
For those of us who are left in the committee, we now have to vote on recommendations A through
F on the council tax those who are in favour of this please raise their hands
right I think that's unanimous okay thank you right thank you very much
Yes, I think I probably know. Thank you very much. I did actually, I did say thank you.
Mr Riley then said, since he's been Chief Executive, we've had two walkouts, so maybe.
All right, okay, thank you very much and I'll end the meeting now.