Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Dr Moore.

Councillor Cleaver was present as a substitute for Councillor Newcombe.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

No declarations of interest were made.

The Director of Finance submits a report that sets out the Council’s financial performance against its revenue budget in the financial year 2016/17. The Overview Select Committee is recommended to consider the overall position presented within this report and make any observations it sees fit.

The Finance Task Group met 15 June 2017 to consider the reports included in the agenda, and the minutes of that meeting are now available and attached.

The Director of Finance submitted a report which set out the Council’s financial performance against its revenue budget in the financial year 2016/17.

The Chair commented that this report, the Capital Budget Monitoring Report and the Income Collection Report had all been considered by the Finance Task Group and the minutes of the meeting had been previously circulated.

The Director of Finance introduced the report and explained that Local Government, including Leicester City Council was in a difficult financial position because of the significant pressures it faced, particularly in Adult Social Care and Children’s Services. in Leicester, Directors had worked hard to keep spending within budget and in some areas they had managed to keep spending under budget, due to the early delivery of efficiency savings.

Members considered the report and raised comments and queries which included the following:

Delivery, Communications and Political Governance

·         It was noted that as part of the saving of £1.09m achieved by the Delivery, Communications and Political Governance Division, there was a transfer of £107k to the elections reserve. The transfer was due to the implementation and timing of the June General Election.

·         A Member commented that £250k from the Financial Services underspend was being transferred to the channel shift reserve and it was questioned as to how the project was going.  The City Mayor responded that the council were trying to make it easier for members of the public to make contact with them, but investment was needed to implement the programme.

Adult Social Care

·         A Member pointed out that approximately 93% of the Adult Social Care (ASC) budget related to expenditure on independent sector service user care package costs and questioned the predicted forecast for 2017/18 and whether this was likely to increase.  The Director of Finance responded that when setting the budget, officers looked at trends in national figures, while also forecasting around people’s individual circumstances. In Leicester, people younger than the national average, were receiving care packages and people were deteriorating faster than the national average. The budget was a prediction based on the best information to hand, and it was believed to be sufficient.  The City Mayor added that there were pressures on ASC throughout the country, with people living longer and needing more support.  The measures that the Government were taking were insufficient and provided a temporary rather than a long term solution to the funding problems. 

·         In respect of the council’s future funding, the Director of Finance explained that Leicester had signed up for a four year settlement up to 2020, as had many other local authorities. The business rate retention scheme had not been included in the Queen’s Speech and there were uncertainties around the funding mechanism for local authorities.  The City Mayor stated that he would continue to strive for better funding for local authorities and in respect of funding for ASC, Councillors and Local Authorities had made many representations to the Government telling them at the funding provided was unsustainable.

·         A Member queried that money  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Director of Finance submits a report that shows the capital programme at the end of the financial year 2016/17. This is the fourth and final report of the financial year.  The Overview Select Committee is recommended to consider the overall position presented within this report and make any observations it sees fit.

The Director of Finance submitted a report that showed the position of the Capital Programme at the end of 2016/17 financial year.                  

Members considered the report and raised comments and queries, which included the following:

·      Disappointment was expressed that the proposals for the extra care flats had been put on hold because of the announcement in the November 2015 budget about a cap to local housing allowance payments for supported living schemes. It was questioned when this problem might be resolved.  The Director of Finance informed Members that there might be more information on this in the autumn. However, in the meantime the Director was part of a group that assisted the National Audit Office in holding the government to account, and this was one of the issues they would be looking at.

·      The Chair commented that the Council had conducted its capital programme very efficiently and that it had been boosted by the Economic Action Plan.

·      The year-end figures for slippage were noted. The City Mayor stated that there were sometimes projects where considerable amounts of spend were invoiced at the end of the project, and spend was not necessarily an indicator of whether the project was being delivered on time. Consideration was being given to find a better way of judging whether progress was timely.

AGREED:

                   that the overall position presented within the report be noted.   

The Director of Finance submits a report that details progress made in collecting debts raised by the Council during 2016/17, together with debts outstanding and brought forward from the previous year. The report also sets out details of debts written off under delegated authority that it has not been possible to collect after reasonable effort and expense. The Overview Select Committee is recommended to consider the overall position presented within this report and make any observations it sees fit.

The Director of Finance submitted a report that detailed progress made in collecting debts raised by the Council during 2016-17, together with debts outstanding and brought forward from the previous year.

The Chair reported that the Finance Task Group had expressed concerns that the level of outstanding debt for council tax at 31 March 2017 was £13m and questioned whether all possible action was being taken to collect that money. The City Mayor suggested that rather than looking at a figure of what was outstanding on a particular date, a better measure was what was uncollectable and written off. The City Mayor referred to a graph which showed the written off figure and its percentage of the total of outstanding debt and asked that this graph be included in future Income Collection Reports.

The Director of Finance stated that the Council would continue to pursue the debt that was carried forward at the end of the financial year. In some cases, there were outstanding debts carried forward from previous years as payment arrangements were calculated on what would be affordable and could be spread over several years.

The Chair expressed strong concern that between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, £7.1m of new overpayments of housing benefit had been identified.  The City Mayor explained that the obligation was on the claimant to inform the authority of any changes in their circumstances, but this did not always happen. In some cases, people chose not to inform the authority of a change of circumstances but often people did not realise that a change might affect their housing benefit, and the matter only came to light when a new claim was submitted. This was a failure of the system. The City Mayor offered to provide Members with comparisons between Leicester and other Local Authorities.

Councillor Khote expressed concern that some of her constituents had complained that they had notified the Council of a change of circumstances but officers at the Council had taken a year or more, to action the change. The Director of Finance responded that there was a target to process a change of circumstance within 13 days. She was not aware of any such issue as reported by Councillor Khote, but asked for the details of those cases to be forwarded onto her and she would investigate each case.

Councillor Khote further reported that her constituents had complained that they had been into Customer Services but there were no staff there who spoke the same language. The Director responded that this should not have been a problem as the customer service hubs had translation lines. The City Mayor asked for the names and details of the constituents who had reported these problems; he would treat the issues with sensitivity and look into their concerns. A suggestion was made that prompts and reminders be given to recipients of housing benefit, reminding them of their responsibility to contact the Council when there was a change of circumstances.  Members heard that in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Director of Finance submits a report that reviews how the Council conducted its borrowing and investments during 2016 / 17. Members of the Overview Select Committee are recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director of Finance and the Executive as they wish.

The Director of Finance submitted a report that reviewed how the Council conducted its borrowing and investments during 2016 /17.

The Chair referred to measures being taken by the largest world economies, including the UK, to make banks less likely to fail and thereby reduce the impact on the financial system and tax payers The Council’s assessment of risk was based both on the risk that banks might fail and also on the level of losses the Council might face should the bank fail. The Chair questioned whether there were ramifications for the Council and the Director confirmed that there were implications, which was why there were very robust procedures when considering who to invest with. Members heard that the Council’s priority was about ensuring money was safe, as opposed to earning a higher rate of interest in a risky investment.

AGREED:

                   that the report be noted.

Under Scrutiny Rule 4E (Rule14) The Chair agreed that Members could raise questions for the City Mayor as an item of urgent business, as this item would usually be on the agenda and he believed that it was in the general interest to ask the questions at this meeting, rather than wait for the next schedule meeting.

The Fire at Grenfell Tower

A number of questions were raised relating to the recent fire at the Grenfell Tower Block, in West London which led to a tragic loss of life.  Members expressed concerns about the safety of residents and asked about external cladding on council properties, on student accommodation and some houses in Rushey Mead.  A Member also commented that there were reports that the insulation at Grenfell Tower had given off cynanide gas.

The City Mayor thanked Members for the questions in the light of the terrible tragedy at the Grenfell Tower Block. He reported that Leicester City Council had six high rise flats, one of which had 22 floors and five were 17 storeys high. There was also a further building with 11 storeys. None of those had external wall insulation but neither did they have sprinkler systems.  It had been agreed to install sprinklers but work was needed on their specification  to ensure they were appropriate. All of the blocks had a current fire risk assessment and weekly fire safety inspections, and none of the blocks had gas in them. The City Mayor acknowledged that this did not answer all questions that had been raised by Members, particularly with regard to those properties that were not in the ownership of the Council. 

The City Mayor stated that he had spoken to the Chief Fire Officer who had said that he would prioritise initially all tower blocks that were over 8 storeys high as well as those with cladding.  He was not aware that cynanide gas was being attributed as being part of the issue, but more information about the fire was gradually emerging.

In relation to the conventional advice to stay put in a fire, there was a question that was emerging as to whether this was still the right advice. The City Mayor commented that he believed that the Chief Fire Officer considered this still to be the correct advice as it had been in the past. It was advice though that was dependent on the integrity and compartmentalisation of the building not being compromised. This advice would need to checked, but there was no reason to believe that for the time being, this advice should be changed.  

With regard to the concerns relating to individual houses with external cladding, the City Mayor commented that he had no reasons to believe that what happened at Grenfell Tower related to those properties, but they would be checked. This however would be after those issues that had already been identified as a main priority.

A Member suggested that there should be lights at a low level on stairways to help people exit in the event of a fire and subsequent smoke.  The City Mayor responded that he would talk to the Chief Fire Officer again and raise this suggestion.

A Member asked about residents with impaired mobility that lived in council owned properties. He questioned whether those residents had been identified, and if there were a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The meeting closed at 8.11 pm