Agenda item

To follow

The Committee was presented with a table outlining the Outstanding Requests for Information on the MTFS/ Budget Scrutiny Proposals.

The following was noted in discussion around the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Corporate, CS&E and E&RE):

• In response to a question from the Committee in relation to the budget position regarding Community Safety, Waste & Enforcement, Officers advised that the underspend predominantly related to an underspend in maintenance and there was a small element of the underspend in staffing.
• The Committee sought assurances around possible impact on services by the underspend in CCTV. The Committee was advised that the service was prioritising the use of CCTV in areas that most require it. The suspension in the maintenance programme would have minimal impact as the current coverage in CCTV would be enhanced to cover a wider area.
• In relation to the response provided for the Outturn Position & 2024/25 Budget Position regarding Culture, Strategy & Engagement, The Committee recommended that colleagues in Strategic Procurement, Finance and Digital services should meet with members to provide a more informed briefing as to how contracts were managed across the Council; of which digital services have approximately 300 contracts. This should be discussed during an Overview & Scrutiny meeting.
• In regard to the Management Actions (page 56 of agenda pack) table 7.2c, the Committee noted that under Environment & Resident Experience for 2025/26, there was an overspend of £35k predicted. Officers advised that it was not unusual to see minus figures in tables as sometimes you would see a financial benefit that were greater in year one than in year two and thus would not necessarily constitute as an overspend. However, in relation to the overspend of £35k, this was not substantiated and the Committee recommended that this would need to be clarified when presented to the Cabinet. The Committee also suggested that if this could not be substantiated, this line in the report must be removed from the pack.
• The Committee sought assurances around the events income increases. The Committee had requested further details on how these savings would be achieved and clarification on the reasons for the variation in the savings target in each of the years over the MTFS period, and whether these targets were realistic and achievable. The response on the table stated that the figure of £124k shown in column N does not appear to be correct and the Committee queried why this was continuing on the tracker and the Cabinet papers. Officers advised that they would be reviewing this to confirm if the figure of £124k was correct and if not, then this would need to be removed from the papers.
• The Committee noted that there was a growth of £946k for the delivery of the Leisure Management Service in-house and in response to a follow up question, Officers advised that the decision to insource two and a half leisure centres meant that the Council was able to join up the provision into a wellbeing strategy to improve the health of the residents in Haringey. As a result, there was a reduction in cost in the Adults Social Care Budget. Officers added that the leisure centres themselves should not be seen in isolation and the benefit gained by bringing the leisure services together within a leisure and wellbeing strategy across the borough would outweigh any additional cost. The aim was to look into preventative costs and methods that would reduce costs in the future.
• To follow up, the Committee queried about transparency on how the revenue impacts of decisions were being shown. The Committee was advised that the positive effects on people’s health would be reflected in other areas of the Council and the Committee sought assurances on how the Council was accounting for that. The Committee asked that when budgets were scrutinised, would there be transparency of the revenue impacts of the decisions that were being made as the figures presented on the report suggest that there would be a cost of around £1 million a year. In response to this, Officers advised that the cabinet report at the time reviewed the assessments of the ramifications of the decisions to insource and had also gone through the risks and benefits associated. At the time the decision was made, it was recognised that there would be additional costs that would be incurred and would need to be built into the budget, this was what gave the rise to the £900,000 being discussed. Officers advised the Committee that when constructing a budget, it can be difficult as officers can only include figures that they were confident about and data that can be quantified. In addition, the budget would also need to factor in pressures in growth within services and the authority would need to respond to the demand.
• The Committee noted the response on the table in regard to the enhanced enforcement on environmental crime. In response to a follow up question, the Committee noted that by law, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) did not have an appeal or challenge system. If people felt they were unfairly fined, they could choose not to pay the fine, take the notice to court and then let the judge decide. It was also noted that although the Council being in partnership with a private contractor, all the appeals and challenges would be overseen by the Community Safety and Enforcement team within the Council.
• The Committee noted the response in terms of the self-financing for the New River Sports & Fitness. In response to a question form the Committee, Officers advised that there would be an investment of £533,000 into New River next year as part of the original assessment to take forward for maintaining assets. This would be a part of an overall investment in other assets at New River and not just in terms of achieving the additional revenue income savings and would be self- financing without incurring a cost to the Council.
• The Committee noted the update presented on the report on Tottenham Hale Green Space. The Committee sought assurance on if this scheme would be viable as the table highlighted £3.2 million as an unfunded amount. Officers advised that this would not be a case of assessing viability as when starting the Capital Programme, Officers included predicted totalities for what the scheme would cost and the budget would represent all its phases. It was noted that each phase would only progress once the funding solution was solved and that was when the project would go forward.
• The Committee noted that the term unfunded meant that the funding source was not identified, however, officers had to put totality of everything in the budget as it happens in phases once funding was identified. Most of the time the schemes would be waiting for funding form the GLA as they fund in tranches. The Council would need to bid or apply for the funding to progress with projects.
• The Committee was assured that the Capital Programme was a framework which enabled the delivery of all capital schemes that the Council would be engaging in the next 5 years. Officers explained that as it was a framework, it was difficult to predict exactly how the project would turn out in two or three years’ time. As the phases were based on assumptions, Officers were only able report back to the Committee on how reality would be matching against the framework in real-time.
• The Committee noted the response received in regard to Future High Street Project.

The following was noted in discussion of the Adults & Health Scrutiny Panel:

• In relation to the proposal on funding for Connected Communities and Continuing Healthcare, the Panel noted the response provided and recommended for this to be referred back to the Adults Health Scrutiny Panel to be looked at as part of a wider agenda item.
•  In relation to Strength Based Working MTFS proposal, the Committee had requested details of support groups available in each of the three locality areas in the Borough. It was noted that a piece of work was underway with Haricare and this would be integrated into the locality model. The Committee recommended that this information to be rolled out to all community groups and not just on Haricare site, as this may not be accessed by all residents in the borough.

The following was noted in discussion of the Housing, Planning and Development Scrutiny Panel:

• In response to a question regarding the saving on the tracker being double counted, officers assured the Committee that the MTFS had been adjusted to eliminate the double count. The main report now reflects the overall financial position that was being reported and the final budget had improved in totality.
• The Committee sought for further clarification on this as it was noted that the initial proposed saving was being considered as a written off savings and then the adjusted saving was being considered as a new saving. The Committee questioned this approach as the adjusted figures would not be a new saving and wanted clarity on why this was being presented as a new saving. In response to this, Officers advised that this would be reviewed to assess whether this was the best depiction of how to make the adjustments.
• In response to a follow up question on how this double count occurred, the Committee was advised that there had been discussions with Directors to evaluate how this error occurred. It was noted that a presentational fault could have led to some of the savings being misinterpreted and being double counted. The Committee was assured that there had also been engagement with colleges to review and tighten processes to prevent this from happening in the future.

RESOLVED

That the responses to outstanding queries from 18^th January OSC meeting were noted.