Verbal Update.
Minutes:
The Committee received a short verbal update from the Cabinet Member for Finance, followed by a question and answer session. The following key points arose during the discussion:
a. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that it was early days for the new administration but characterised Haringey as being ‘open for business’. The Committee was advised that there was more work to be done to ensure that the Capital Strategy was delivered so that the Council could invest in its high streets and its open spaces. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there was a balance to be had when setting fees and charges to ensure that it did not deter businesses investing in the borough.
b. In response to a question around the political direction of the new administration, the Cabinet Member advised that they were looking to adopt an invest to save outlook where it was feasible. In doing so, they were hoping to invest in service areas that may have been overlooked in recent years, given the financial challenges faced by local government.
c. In response to a query around the impact of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, officers advised that Council Tax had been frozen for nine years and this obviously had an impact on income levels. Haringey was now roughly in the middle of all London Boroughs for its Council Tax rates. Given a political desire to invest in services, the Cabinet Member suggested that he was not in favour of reducing Council Tax to levels such as those in Wandsworth.
d. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that it was probably not feasible to improve all services across the Council, certainly in the short term. In the longer term, perhaps services could be improved by bringing a number of them back in-house.
e. In respect of demands on services from a growing population, the Cabinet Member stated that there had been a fall in demand for reception school places which suggested that the population had plateaued in the immediate term. In terms of additional demands on services stemming from redevelopment, it was acknowledged that the Council was working to increase school places and GP services in high development areas. The Committee considered that the impact of Brexit was unknown and that this could have a significant impact on the population.
f. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that a significant number of budget cuts in previous years were around Priority 2, particularly as it was the largest budget area. The Cabinet Member suggested that that the cash savings in the upcoming budget may not be as large, but that demand growth in this area had continued and that this would have a significant impact on the deliverability of future savings. Work was ongoing with officers to ensure that a balanced budget was set and implemented.
g. The Committee sought reassurance that the budget setting process was being undertaken in conjunction with CCG colleagues, to ensure that there was a joined up approach to adult social care and in recognition that savings in one budget area could have a significant impact on the other. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the need to identify demand pressures across different budget areas and to ensure that there was a joined-up budget setting process. (Action: Cllr Berryman).
h. In response to a question, the Committee was advised that a full EQIA would be undertaken in relation to each saving put forward as part of the MTFS.
i. In response to a request for clarification, the Committee was advised that the Council Tax devolution pilot involved a percentage of local income that was retained, to provide an incentive for the growth of the local tax base. Officers advised that under the existing pilot, the local section was around 33%. Next year’s percentage was due to be set soon. The local percentage retained was pooled across London to offset the fact that some London Boroughs had significantly higher numbers of business premises.
j. In response to a query around what other options were being pursued beyond budget cuts, the Cabinet Member advised that he was trying to ensure minimal impact on services. The Cabinet Member advised that he was looking at income generation as well as invest to save opportunities to help balance the budget.
The following key points arose during a question and answer session with the Cabinet Member for Insourcing:
a. In reference to the earlier question about Haringey being open for business, the Cabinet Member emphasised the need for businesses to be socially responsible. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council would be working through the supply chain to ensure that the London Living Wage was paid and that all staff had the right of representation by a trade union. The Cabinet Member advised that the administration would be looking to maintain a 100% occupancy rate for its industrial estates and would also be seeking to develop additional ground space at these sites.
b. In response to a question, The Cabinet Member advised that the administration was heading towards a default position of bringing services back in house, where this was practicable. The Cabinet Member cautioned that any decision to do so would have to overcome obstacles around best value. The Committee was advised that the Council was developing a close working relationship with APSE to provide expertise and consultancy work, at a much cheaper rate than an equivalent private sector firm. Officers would be working with APSE to go through the contracts one-by-one, starting with the Amey contract and then the highways contract. Members would have the opportunity to feed into this process directly, through APSE.
c. In relation to a further question around the timescales for the Amey contract, the Committee was advised that a report from APSE was expected in late January and that it could take six months from the date of that decision. The Cabinet Member elucidated that the Contract still had two years left to run but that there was a 6 month notice period within the contract.
d. In reference to the Veolia contract, the Cabinet Member advised that he thought there could be a number of advantages in bringing the Veolia contract back in-house, but cautioned that there would likely be a significant financial penalty to pay as a result. The Cabinet Member outlined that any decision to bring the contract back in-house would require political support from Members. It was suggested that the cost of the financial penalty could well be offset by the profits generated from the contract being outsourced.
e. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member advised that he had discussions with colleagues in other boroughs, including Islington and Enfield about how they had approached direct delivery of services.
f. In reference to a question about savings within Corporate Services, the Cabinet Member advised that the main savings were attached to the ‘Front Office Back Office’ programme. These savings related to changing the way the Council delivered services through technological improvements and efficiencies. It was estimated that these savings would be recognised over a three and a half year period.
g. In reference to a question around engagement with Cabinet colleagues, the Committee noted that Cabinet had set up an insourcing sub-group made up of officers and Cabinet Members which was taking a strategic look at insourcing. The Cabinet Member advised that he had also met with individual Cabinet colleagues separately.
h. The Chair feedback to the Cabinet Member on some of the points raised in relation to his portfolio as part of the Scrutiny Café event. In summary, the points raised were around; the need to retain key workers, the need to offer inner London weighting as an employer and the need to understand the reasons for staff churn. In response the Cabinet Member acknowledged these concerns and suggested that in principle he was in favour of anything that improved the terms and conditions for Council staff. The Director of Transformation and Resources agreed to feedback figures on the staff churn rate to the Committee (Action: Richard Grice).
i. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member advised that his perception of staff wellbeing was one of gradual improvement. It was hoped that this would be improved further as the insourcing programme progressed.
j. In response to concerns about what was being done to reassure EU nationals working in the borough, officers advised that senior staff had been holding a number of drop-in sessions with staff to identify issues and answer questions. One of the issues that came to light was around identifying who was an EU national, as there had been no need to hold this information up until now. The Council was also looking at whether it could support staff in applying for settled immigration status or citizenship. One idea being explored was around offering a travel loan style scheme in order to help with costs of applying for settled status/citizenship.