Agenda item

The Committee will receive the report of the Finance Task Group which will consider the following Finance Reports:

a)    Revenue Monitoring Report Period 6, 2016-2017 (Appendix C1)

b)    Capital Monitoring Report Period 6, 2016-2017 (Appendix C2)

c)    Review of Treasury Management Activities 2016/17  (Appendix C3)

d)    Income Collection April 2016 – September 2016 (Appendix C4)

The meeting of the Finance Task Group will take place after the agenda has been published. Minutes of that meeting will be circulated as soon as they are available.

N.B. These minutes are now attached (12 December 2016)

The Chair introduced the report of the Finance Task Group, the minutes of which had been circulated prior to the meeting of the Committee. Councillor Cleaver asked it to be noted that she had submitted her apologies for the Task Group meeting, but her apologies had been omitted.

Revenue Budget Monitoring  - Period 6, 2016-17

The Chair commended the Corporate Resources Department’s achievement of savings, but he expressed concerns that as part of those savings, it appeared that the Link publication would no longer be produced.  He believed that the Link was valued by those people who were unable to access the internet.

The Deputy Mayor responded that there were other models, in line with the council’s Channel Shift policy, which could better provide residents with up to date information and relevant information. Link, having been published three times per year, sometimes resulted in residents receiving out of date information; the magazine had also generally moved away from its focus on the neighbourhoods and local areas. New models were being considered and a grant programme had been set up specifically to support community publications. The Council were also looking at how information was being made available through community centres and libraries. The use of technology was crucial and ‘Your Leicester’, an electronic publication had recently been introduced.  The Deputy Mayor added that digital exclusion was now a very different issue compared to a few years ago, with the fastest growth in the use of smart phones and tablets being with people in their 60s and 70s.

The Chair referred to Adult Social Care, para 12.2, expressing concerns that approximately 93% of the budget was spent on care package costs. The Deputy Mayor commented that adult social care remained a big challenge; costs were going up and there was an increase in people living with dementia. He said that there was a crisis in adult social care funding and the National Health Service was also facing a huge financial challenge. Their dependence on each other was recognised.  The Deputy Mayor added that the crisis in adult social care had not been acknowledged in the Government’s Autumn Statement but more would be known on 15 December when the Government released its financial settlement.  The Deputy Mayor expressed concerns that if the Government’s response was to further increase the council tax precept from 2% to meet the rising costs of adult social care, it would not be a long term sustainable solution and would not meet the financial gap. 

Councillor Cleaver, Chair of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission expressed strong concerns about the stress that Government policy was having on vulnerable people who needed accommodation such as Extra Care Housing. Two new schemes to provide 157 such flats had been put on hold and she asked that the Council’s message to those people was as compassionate and thoughtful as possible.

Councillor Cutkelvin referred to the Housing Revenue Account, para 11.3 which stated that right to buy sales were forecast to be twice those assumed originally in the budget. The Director of Finance reported that when the rules were relaxed about the right to buy, the increase in sales had been expected. However, income from the sale of council houses under the right to buy scheme did not meet the cost of replacement.   There was also a problem in that social landlords were not building at the moment because of the uncertainty about the right to buy and the rent cap.

Councillor Porter asked whether the cost for the Council to build a replacement home at £110K included the cost of the land. He expressed a view that the Council owned land that could be utilised for housing stock.  The Director of Finance confirmed that the building cost was around £110K, but she would need to check on the value of land.  The council owned plots of land but these could incur significant infrastructure costs if that land was built upon.  Local authorities were asking the Government to be more flexible in relation to right to buy receipts.

Councillor Dr Moore raised a number of questions relating to Education and Children’s Services. Para 14.8 referred to there being issues relating to the number of internal foster carers. The Director of Finance explained that external foster agencies advertised that their rates for foster carers were more generous, but they did not always provide the support that the Council provided. It should also be recognised that people could not always afford to stay at home to foster children.

Councillor Dr Moore asked whether the Council had been approached to take any of the 3000 unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeker children who were being allowed to enter the UK. The Deputy Mayor responded that this was a voluntary scheme, but local authorities were expected to take part and had been actively encouraged to do so by the Home Office. The Council wanted to help those children but were also mindful of the resource pressures on Children and Young People services. There was a regional model to decide how an appropriate placement may be found for a child coming into the country, and local authorities may be informed that there was a child coming into their area a few days before, who needed a placement.

Councillor Dr Moore commented that she believed that the reliance on agency social workers in the Children in Need Service as detailed in para 14.11 was improving. The Director of Finance concurred that the situation in Leicester was improving however nationally more social workers were choosing to work with agencies. Councillor Dempster queried the detail in the report asked that the Children, Young People and School’s (CYPS) Scrutiny Commission looked at this issue in greater depth. Councillor Dr Moore, Chair of the Commission gave her assurance that full details of this issue were brought regularly to the Commission and were being scrutinised.

Councillor Dempster, Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission, commended the setting aside of £50k in the budget to fund efforts to retain the children’s cardiac services in the Glenfield Hospital.

Councillor Porter commented that several months ago, there had been some serious issues in Children’s Services and he queried whether the same mistakes were being made again. The Chair of CYPS responded that the Commission thoroughly scrutinised the progress that was made and there were signs of that improvement in the qualitative data that was brought to the Commission.

AGREED:

that the Revenue Budget Monitoring Report – Period 6, 2016/17 be noted.

Capital Budget Monitoring  - Period 6, 2016/17

Members considered the Capital Budget Monitoring Report for Period 6.

In response to a query relating to the percentage spend in the Capital Programme, the City Mayor stated that there were always times when local authorities could not deliver as many of the projects as hoped; but the Director of Finance shared his view that there was a need to be completely realistic as to what to include in the capital programme.

In response to a query relating to funding set aside for refurbishment children’s homes and contact centres, the City Mayor stated that any unspent monies would go back into that budget. The Director of Finance added that there were complexities around delivering planned work, I particular relating to schools, because of the number of buildings involved, the limited number of contractors and also because it was preferable to have the work carried out in the school holidays. The new Director of Estates and Building Services was taking a robust approach to future planning of capital works, so where money was set aside, there would be a more accurate timeline of when the project would be delivered.

AGREED:

                   that the Capital Budget Monitoring Report – Period 6, 2016/17 be noted.

Review of Treasury Management Activities 2016/17

The Chair advised that the Finance Task Group had not raised any concerns on the issues contained within the report.

AGREED:

that the Report on the Review of Treasure Management Activities 2016/17 be noted.

Income Collection April 2016 – September 2016

The Chair stated that he had a concern relating to the overpayment of housing benefit.  It had been argued that it was the responsibility of the recipient to inform the council of any changes in their circumstances, but there was a substantial amount of debt and he felt that it should be assumed that the Council would need to write this off.   The Director of Finance confirmed that the vast majority of debt arose because the household or individual failed to inform the council of their change in circumstances. It was their responsibility to do so.  Re-payment of debt might be made as an attachment to benefit, and this could take a long time to repay. The Committee heard that the benefit office had a target to action a change of circumstances within 15 days and performance was currently at 15.2 days. The Director of Finance asked that if any Members had evidence that changes of circumstances were not being actioned within this timescale, they should let her know. 

Councillor Dempster suggested that information should be included with every council tax mailing to remind people that if they received benefits and their circumstances changed; they needed to inform the council, because any overpayment would be recovered. 

AGREED:

that the Income Collection Report April 2016 – September 2016 be noted.