Introduction by the Chairman

The Chairman introduced the meeting.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature. Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

VOLUNTARY SECTOR GRANTS AND COMMISSIONING - UPDATE

Mr Hatch declared a personal interest by virtue of being a trustee of a voluntary organisation.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Ms McDade gave apologies for her absence.

To consider and approve the minutes of the Finance and Performance Overview and

Scrutiny meeting held on 6 April 2011 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2011 were received and approved subject to the following amendment, and the Chairman was authorised to sign them:

·         To include details of the Co-Opted members’ attendance.

This report proposes that indicative figure to be a zero % increase. The proposals should be read alongside the Medium Term Financial Strategy presented to this Committee in February 2011.

Councillor Samuel and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services were present for this item.  Councillor Samuel introduced it by saying that he was fulfilling the commitment he made to allow early scrutiny of the upcoming year’s budget.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·         Borough residents would be consulted as part of the budget setting process later on; this was an early indication of the Administration’s intentions.

·         Councillor Samuel felt that it was best to consult with residents when there was something meaningful to consult on.

·         If there were cogent reasons to do something differently, the Administration would give it due consideration.

·         There were separate ‘pots’ of money in the budget to pay for some items affected by the rate of inflation.

·         Richmond upon Thames’ exposure to the Southern Cross collapse was limited as it had relatively few placements in their care homes.

·         In a far reaching case such as this it was considered likely that central government, or other organisations, would intervene before it became necessary to activate individual contingency plans.

·         One-off funding provided to keep Council Tax increases to 0% in 2011/12 had been committed to by Government to stay within the funding settlement for four years.

·         The broad efficiency strategy was looking at savings across a number of years.

·         It was expected there would be a new formula of local government funding, starting in 2013.  For the new funding arrangements to become effective by this deadline, there would need to progress by September this year.

·         Councillor Samuel felt that some had assumed Richmond upon Thames would automatically benefit from any change in Government funding. He personally believed this was optimistic as there were a number of examples where Richmond upon Thames had received negative publicity on its position during the latest cuts.

RESOLVED that the committee:

1.      support the broad strategy of holding the council tax increase at 0%;

2.      recommend a thorough consultation process on any significant individual proposals.

[Councillor Montague arrived.]

This report attempts to identify whether there is a set of principles that can be agreed to enable a more rigorous approach to the debate around the basis on which reserves are held. In particular the report seeks to establish whether it is reasonable to set a minimum reserves policy that the Council as a whole can agree upon. It builds on a number of papers that have been presented to Members over the last year which have sought to bring more transparency to the level, use and decision making on reserves.

Councillor Samuel and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services were present for this item.  Councillor Samuel introduced it by saying this was an area of work resulting from criticism about the borough’s levels of reserves.  It was an attempt to establish what residents felt would be an acceptable amount of money to retain in reserve.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·         The council was committed to some 25-30 year private finance initiatives, although a sum of money was being held in reserve to assist with the repayment of these.

·         There were a number of assumptions in setting the overall reserve figure, which could make setting a target figure difficult.

·         The council should only consider setting a reserve figure for what it physically had control over.

·         Councillor Samuel did not believe the categories listed on page 12 of the agenda reports pack were overly prescriptive

·         In response to a question on the S117 reserve the Director confirmed that this was likely to be consolidated into general reserves in 2011/12.

·         Some areas of spending were more volatile and therefore may have a greater need for the council’s reserves.

·         Some members felt that 5-10% of the council’s budget being held in reserve was a reasonably large sum, but the Director confirmed it was in line with the policy the Council had agreed and had been in place for some time.

·         The financial stability of the council over recent years had been underpinned by having strong reserves.

·         The statutory council tax leaflet did contain a small amount of detail about the council’s reserves.

·         Central government should, in Councillor Samuel’s view, only intervene when a council’s reserves reached a dangerously low level.

·         Central government had recently been critical about the overall levels of reserves councils across the country held, although it had never issued any guidance on the matter.

Some members of the committee felt that the table of categories was overly prescriptive and that reserves should be governed by a demonstrable need for them.  It was noted that categories 1 and 6 were broadly similar to one another, while categories 2 – 5 could be looked at as an amalgam of each other.

Resolved that the committee note the report.

This report provides an update in relation to the shared legal service with the London Borough of Merton. The updated information will be provided by way of a verbal report and tabled information

The Head of Legal and Electoral Services presented a briefing for this item and answered questions from the committee:

·         Both Richmond and Merton were keen to avoid this being perceived as a Merton ‘takeover’, which was demonstrated by the resultant service being located on a new site.

·         There were enough posts for existing staff in the new structure although it had fewer managerial posts, which would impact those currently in such positions.

·         There was the potential for a small number of redundancies but Richmond upon Thames and Merton would seek to avoid this.

·         External legal advice would be purchased when additional capacity was required on a short-term basis, during the transition.

·         There were currently 60 posts in both services, 19 of which were managers.

·         The ratio for direct reports would be more appropriate in the new structure.

·         Outsourcing services was still an option, although the initial priority was to provide an efficient in-house service.

·         A direct charging system was being looked at, meaning departments would pay for each service they received from the new joint team.

·         The progress of the project was within the original timescales set out by both councils.

·         There would be some financial assistance for low paid Richmond staff who now needed to pay an additional cost for travelling to Morden.

·         The formal consultation would take place in the near future.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The committee thanked Helen White for her work and wished her well for the future, as she was to be leaving after this work was complete.

This report provides an update on the Council’s performance in relation to key performance indicators and programme/projects.  It focuses specifically on areas that have been consistently underperforming.  It also addresses an outstanding query from 9^th February 2011 Committee Meeting in relation to affordable housing planning appeal decisions.

The Assistant Director Commissioning Corporate Policy and Strategy said that the indicator relating to the learning disabilities change programme and reablement had been looked at by the Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  The Director of Finance and Corporate Services added that the target level of savings was not being achieved because too few people were currently going through the reablement process.

The committee noted that the national indicators were likely to change.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This is a progress report on the Voluntary Sector Commissioning programme and the Council’s approach to managing the local impact of the proposed changes to London Councils borough grants scheme.

The Assistant Director Commissioning Corporate Policy and Strategy said that many councils were looking at a change from grant giving to commissioning services from the voluntary sector.

The Committee requested a breakdown of the £564,452 awarded to voluntary organisations through the education and children’s services commissioning process.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

[Councillor Montague left the meeting.]

This report gives an update on the work of the Income Generation Task Group and provides an opportunity to discuss the income generation business cases agreed by Cabinet on 10 May 2011.

[Councillor Porter arrived.]

Councillor Arbour, the Assistant Director (Development and Streetscene) and the Senior Scrutiny Officer were present for this item.  Councillor Arbour introduced it by saying that it was important that the council achieved as much income as possible, in order to minimise the general burden on the local tax payer.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·         It was the intention to demonstrate that the council was not subsidising the private sector.

·         Councillor Arbour felt the main aim should be about maintaining value for money and not generically pricing itself around the median average charged by other similar authorities.

·         Because of the nature of the borough, some services would be priced in the upper quartile of what other comparable authorities were charging.

·         This area of work would be looking to maintain access to services by not pricing itself out of the market.

·         The proposed changes to enforcement of moving traffic was a direct response to issues raised in the All-in-One survey, which had established that residents were concerned about matters such as disrupted traffic flow because of blocked junctions.

·         Charges for evening parking were in response to neighbouring boroughs having similar tariffs, meaning visitors were often parking on the borough boundary and walking to their destination.

·         Moving traffic offences were currently a policing matter.  The local authority would need to apply to become one that could impose penalties for moving traffic violations observed with its cameras.

·         The local police were not treating moving traffic offences as a priority, so they would not be losing any income.

There was concern from some members about certain proposals, such as allowing advertising on lampposts which it was felt could be damaging to conservation areas.  It was felt by the same members that an aggressive stance was being taken against motorists without consideration being given to whether measures would address the issues raised in the All-in-One survey.  Concerns were also raised about changes with social services, particularly under an “income generation” heading.

RESOLVED that the report be noted with the concerns above communicated to the relevant Cabinet Members.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services detailing the proposed work programme until 9 February 2012.

There were no changes to the work programme.