Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

The following Members for transparency declared a potential interest in relation to the Item 6:

1. Councillor Marc Francis due to his wife Councillor Rachel Blake being the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing;
2. Councillor Bex White due to her father being resident in a Care Home within Tower Hamlets

To:

1.    Confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14^th December, 2020 (To be received prior to the meeting); and

2.    Note the Pre-Decision Scrutiny Questions presented to Cabinet on 16^th December, 2020 (Attached).

The Chair Moved and it was: -

RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14^th December 2020 be approved as a correct record of the proceedings and the Chair was authorised to sign them accordingly.

To receive any petitions (to be notified at the meeting).

Nil items

To note the forthcoming Decision Plan.

Noted

No decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet on 16^th December, 2020 in respect of unrestricted reports on the agenda were ‘called in’.

Nil items

To consider the responses received regarding the Council’s 2021-22 Budget Report and Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2021-24

The Committee is asked to note and comment on the Council’s Budget for 2021-22 and MTFS 2021-24

Click here

v  Production of the Council’s budget has been challenging for several reasons mainly COVID-19, austerity, growth, and demand for statutory services particularly adults and children.

v  Impact of COVID-19 has slowed down (timescales) staffing reviews to achieve savings. Additionally, the switch by government from providing grant funding to Councils to a greater reliance on council tax.

v  In this budget, the Council is expected to increase council tax to 5% and if not the assumption by government is that the Council will make savings to cover this rather than it being additional income.

v  56 savings have been identified across most of the council areas and the expectation is that these will reduce the capacity of the Council to deliver on some service areas. 

v  There have been extensive efficiencies produced from back office savings to protect frontline services, however, there needs to be balance, as there are capacity  implications.

v  Council is implementing a dual track strategy which includes providing a wide range of service for people with particular needs including free school meals and continuing the generous council tax reduction However,  there is an increase demand for this budget that includes (i) 100% rebate for people on low incomes, (ii) tackling poverty programme (funded for the next year). In addition, (iii) providing good range comprehensive service including parks;  and (iv) street cleansing.

v  The Council has generous reserves but has had to use some of this in the past year in order to deal with some of the pressures on the budget.

v  The Capital Budget will be going to Cabinet on 27.01.2021 and not included with the budget report.

v  Extra funding from government provided but with different amounts each time and different basis for allocations and has been difficult to plan.

v  The total funding requirement for (2021-22) is £362M including new savings of £6M on top of previously agreed £14M and a small drawdown £1.2M will be required to balance the budget.

v  Next year Health, Adults and Communities set at £110M (1/3 of the total services budget and the largest area of spend, followed by Children and Culture) – These are service areas supported by residents’ feedback from the budget  consultation.

v  The MTFS suggests using £8.3M of reserves in 2022-23 specifically to get passed the pandemic although reserves are finite and cannot be used more than once.

v  The Council still has a £10M funding gap for future years.

v  Particular Issues have been identified with the budget setting process – impact of COVID-19 on collection fund and existing savings programme.

v  On the Local Government Funding Settlement, the Government has agreed to help with collection fund deficits, picking up 75% of irrecoverable losses. However difficult to determine what the final cost will be and implications for the business community.

v  Business rates are significant to the London’s economy and there could be further ramifications for LBTH’s budget further down the line.

v  On existing savings programme, the Council has tried to de-risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

v  Committee asked for clarity around savings 6 and 7 and raised concern about young population being more vulnerable to Covid because of the gaps in their education and situation in the family and if the Council was dampening demand and whether it was setting itself up for a bigger crisis and further spending needed in the future.

v  The Council had outlined that they built capacity within the system including restorative practice model, investment in staffing through Social Work Academy, reducing duplication by restructuring early help services, the other area is external partnership including safeguarding children and working intensively with troubled families programme to deliver results.

v  The Council is looking to use some of the schools funding to part fund some of the capacity for educational psychologists but acknowledged that some of the issue is to make sure that the resources are in the right place.

v  Committee asked if the Council has enough capacity to deal with future demand and how much can be expected from the partners to serve children.

v  The Council outlined that for safeguarding it is the statutory partners such as how the children services is working with health and police. In terms of capacity depends on demand but are confident that they have the resources to support.

v  Council outlined that they are in the process of conducting a review on the proposals to make sure they are delivering against it including increased demand in new assessments and how that measures against the financial assumptions made.

v  Support for Learning Service (SLS) 46% cut is across whole service not just one area, the Council outlined that the provision can be supported by other services who are more suitably qualified but have just concluded the consultation for SLS and Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) so have not yet reached or finalised conclusion. 

v  The Committee felt that savings was small compared that what is being delivered by SLS and requested to understand the mapping for other services that will be stepping in.

v  The Committee questioned the level of certainty that there will be a provision akin to what was previously provided.

v  From the changes made previously on the Children's centres it has resulted in a in a much wider reach to parents and is an example of where LBTH are using schools funding to part fund increased capacity for educational psychologists. In addition, on the SEND improvement work LBTH are working with health partners to look at faster diagnosis of a special educational need or disability such as dyslexia or Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)that turns into increased capacity.

v  In terms of Children's Social Care capacity LBTH have endeavoured to utilise part of the Government's social care grant of which there's an Adults' and Children's element that that has not yet been allocated to a specific area of spend within Children's Social Care.  This will be maintained as a buffer as it is not possible to accurately predict  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.2

v  HAC is a significant area of Council spend £110M of which £87M is spent on packages for care packages supporting 3500 individuals.

v  The Committee raised concern on the transformation and review of homelessness service and enquired whether some of the Covid grant funding (used for temporary accommodation) could be better utilised to support the homelessness services. It further asked that there should be a focus on substance misuse service reductions given the pressures to make savings the Committee felt that some of the objectives would be missed and to make sure that the households are prevented from becoming homeless.

v  The Council confirmed that for substance misuse reduction, one of the savings is specifically about the rehabilitation services is a manageable reduction in service provision given the current cohort and other options. The Council confirmed that there is a long-term saving about Hostel use and substance misuse scheduled in 2023-24. The reason for that Council should be working in partnership with GLA and other London boroughs in terms of how hostel provision are funded.

v  Savings 15 which are also substance misuse – Healthy One which was previously funded from general fund or core budget. Healthy One is 2 nurses providing clinical support to homeless people with substance misuse and the Council will successfully bid through Public Health England for rough sleeping, drug and alcohol treatment grants that provides support with mainstream pathways.

v  The Council confirmed that in terms of the transformation proposal this will take place in year three of the medium-term financial plan because they wish would have a obtain considered view on their spending for substance misuse and in hostels. It is a significant amount of money and its services users are often people with complex needs.

v  The Committee also felt that services users who have left the services and “cleaned up” should also be considered for support.

v  The Council confirmed that there is a need to review and modernise the Housing Options. The challenge is that its costing the Council more money in rehousing people temporarily against the cost the Council gets back. The saving is over a three-year period and cannot be underwritten by Covid funds.

v  There is a need develop a better understanding the reverberations of the pandemic going forward with reference on the use of the Councils Reserves as the Council needs to maintain the reserves to be flexible enough to support those residents in greatest need e.g. Homelessness is connected to declines in physical and mental health; homeless persons experience high rates of health problems; drug abuse; mental illness and other conditions.

v  Wished to know where the overspend in the Temporary Accommodation Subsidy has come from and some of the specifics there about the assumed level of Housing Benefit Subsidy

v  The Council is developing an infrastructure to ensure that they are ready for the economic shock due to Covid e.g. on the Housing Capital Programme, Homelessness and Housing Options Services.

The Committee is asked to note and comment on this report that details the proposed changes to fees and charges across the Council for the financial year 2021-22.

Click here

v  Part of the budget making process, an annual review of fees and charges reflects on the challenges the Council faces and has potential impact on the budget proposal.

v  Fees and charges would be increased by rate of inflation with rounding, fees and charges come in different categories some are statutory set by government, majority is set locally and described as being discretionary e.g. parking and use of leisure centres and used to help balance the budget pressures faced by the Council.

v  Some fees and charges being more contentious e.g. parking control because of the supplementary charges on diesels vehicles and a proxy for emissions or three car households for additional third car or differential charge rate on engine sizes for a proxy for emissions from vehicles. Some of these are recent policies so may be above rate of inflation.

v  Charges have increased for street trader accounts (market traders) which is ringfenced account to pay for its own costs including cleansing and inspection.

v  Some of the charges will be subject to an equalities impact assessment decision will be delegated assessment in consultation with lead Members and vary these if they are in breach of the equality policies.

v  Council also benchmarks the fees and charges against other local authorities and are prepared to make adjustments if there are variation inconsistencies.

v  Committee questioned why fees and charges were showing significant increase above the inflation rate across the Council and further suggested rounding up to the nearest pound (£) or pence in the future.

v  Huge variations within a directorates and services that council offers so comparison for fees and charges is not like for like.   

v  Future interpretations of fees and charges should go back to Scrutiny (informally) to ensure clarity and avoid in accurate answers.  

v  Committee questioned the charges for resident permits parking (in Band ‘A’ being significantly high) and market traders pitch can be reconsidered because of the impact of the pandemic.

v  Committee asked if the situation with the pandemic remained the same or became worse, is there scope to freeze the parking charges and to qualify any projections that savings/ income generated will arise from fees and charges.

v  Committee questioned if the increases to the community hub space charges and rental (income source to the Council) will act as a deterrent to people using the assets including market trader fees.

v  To consider better ways of comparing rises in fees and charges e.g. market pitches and parking charges.

v  The policy on increasing parking charges assists in the reduction of unnecessary car use/ownership and aims to address the levels of congestion in what is one of the most densely populated local authorities in the country.

v  LBTH considers that their charges are comparable with or lower than those of other councils.

v  Increasing in parking charges is consistent with policy position agreed and outside of this increase would-be set-in line with CPI rate of inflation and is also influenced by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.5

The Chair thanked Councillor Blake; Councillor Hassell; Councillor Ronald; Kevin Bartle; Denise Radley; Ann Sutcliffe; James Thomas for attending tonight’s meeting and for the information that they had provided which would help to inform further discussions by the Committee.

Arising from the discussions on the presentations the Committee noted the following key issues that had arisen:

v  The main theme of discussions had been on the reserves policy and the interplay between government grants; the reserve policy and the associated risks.

v  To consider better ways of comparing rises in fees and charges e.g. market pitches, parking, and the community facilities.

v  Is the Council putting in place an infrastructure to ensure that they are ready for the impacts of Covid to address the economic shock e.g. on the Housing Capital Programme, Homelessness and Housing Options Services.

v  Ideally the report should provide the actuals from last year to compare to the budget going forward and that is not in the report and it is considered best practice for scrutiny to consider the actuals as part of any budget scrutiny. Whilst difficult for the current year it should be possible for previous years to do such a comparison. If not at the directorate level, then it should be still possible to do that on a wider level.

v  Scrutiny should have access assumptions that upon which a budget for each department is agreed.  Therefore, going forward, it would be helpful to have a sense of what the capacity is within service areas to understand any risks associated with the savings being put forward.

v  Felt that arguments that have put forward regarding the anticipated income not to be very to be very persuasive regarding especially with reference to (i) New Homes Bonus; (ii) Council Tax Support Grant and (iii) the Social and Care Grant.

v  Budget setting should include context and does not have departmental budgets, elements of the budget are drawn out which are subject to growth/savings and it makes it difficult to piece together.

v  Flagged up from their briefing on Covid-19 funding that would look to cover the costs incurred to the Council and felt that more clarity is required on this.

v  Wished to know where the overspend in the Temporary Accommodation Subsidy has come from and some of the specifics there about the assumed level of Housing Benefit Subsidy

v  On markets the fees and charges 195% increase, charging £1K per year just for a Saturday pitch let alone what they would pay Monday to Friday is completely counterproductive and that this should be reviewed.

v  Need to consider the risks outlined Treasury Management Report that goes before the Audit Committee at that provides an outline of the risk’s element (including the housing revenue account) and will inform the Committee of the timeline that we are working towards.

v  Need a better understanding the reverberations of the pandemic going forward with reference on the use of the Councils Reserves e.g. The Council needs to maintain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.6

To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

Noted that the Borough’s Schools Forum that provides important oversite and will now be open to the public and for observers and will be published on the Councils website.

As the agenda circulated contained no exempt/ confidential reports and

there was therefore no requirement to exclude the press and public to allow

for its consideration.

Nil items

Nil items

No decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet 16^th December, 2020 in respect of exempt/ confidential reports on the agenda were ‘called in’.

Nil items

To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.

(Time allocated 15 minutes).

Nil items

To consider any other exempt/ confidential business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

Nil items