Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

into 2026. Unless I see any more hands I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through because that's not clear to all members of the committee even if it's clear to some people and we would like some comments at some point or you think about how how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice chair you're looking puzzled. I mean I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme and my thought is still that it's a very significant is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. Well I think there is some reflect to be fair I think there was some reflection in the report because it does make comments about other boroughs but I'm more than happy that that should be if the committee agrees that should be a consideration. Object to the amount of yes are we happy to put that in? Yes yes okay thank you. So those are three recommendations other than that we know we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made and that concludes that this item thank you. I notice you're here which is lovely would you like to take your report earlier or because it happens to be the bottom of the end of the agenda I'm conscious you may have other duties and family responsibilities would you like to take your report earlier? I'm sure the committee would be delighted to do so. Thank you so we are going to move the agenda and take the item on let me just find it for you it is the task and finish through youth homelessness task it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all since this is the first task of finished group report we've got thank you and your colleagues for delivering it and and simply to note I think there's a typo you appears both the chair and the member committee I didn't think there were two council jennifer grow box so I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report and I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it that and this is the first so we're delighted this is the first which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one and we didn't ask for this but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in in in future reports how many times you met who attended and so on and that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us and the floor is now yours thank you chair if I may I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report identification of people is quite significant and poignant today I've always been identified as chairman I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman I choose to be identified as that I know others prefer to identify as chair however anyone wants to identify I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported I would very much like that noted in this and going forward however anyone decides to designate themselves be it chair chairman or whatever that'd be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative your point is noted thank you you will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change thank the chair when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that of course is to raise that through the full council meeting and through through your group you can't deal with it here the current construction from the constitutional group and from the counselors that we use that term but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedures thank you I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness thank you so the can we nonetheless thank councilor grow cock for her support for personal pronouns thank you it was a very interesting task and finish group the first for youth homelessness and we met back in june 23 and there were four members as you can see and I hope everybody has read digested the report we covered various items we met with some officers those that are involved in the process and the most amazing young people who are going through this process the one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those which might be something that could be done going forward at the time when we met and those the the seven recommendations we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets and today obviously it's your recent press release regarding finances we're even more aware of that potential the items are noted there is only one potential financial impact and that is with regards to the mediator the others the other six do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently I do hope though we do hope that the task and finish groups although their recommendations what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions I think that would help and support those teams those young people who are going through this process and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business anyone has any questions feel free thank you thank you very much indeed just to say in terms of process if we accept this report it will it will go to cabinet who will consider recommendations and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we make how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back in that's a work in progress but on this one if there any questions for council actually council rose thank you I thought the the definition of homelessness you used was really empathetic to you know it's not just like for this you have your recommendations for the young people you've met what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed how do we define some of those impacts I guess um I think actually those young people that we met they're all at different stages some of them were very emotional some of them are very traumatized I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this bring those items in those recommendations implement it so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account who don't know how to use a washing machine who don't know how to get a passport who don't know where to go to so all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see once that and I hope you will agree if those recommendations are referred up in cabinet except seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next crunch of young people who find it's probably just you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others that's a really inspiring thing for them to have done agreed I'm sure we can get that passed on thank you anything else otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and get off to cabinet to be dealt with anything else Councillor Crockett thank you on behalf of the committee and you are the first with first task and finish group and I would at the same time like to thank scarlet who's the staff members coming especially for this item well I was going to ask you whether you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to but thank you for all your support on this item thank you for being I think for the graduate training that changed in the governance team well you're doing a lot of work in government so we're very grateful for that I know that you might have to go too so that's another reason why I want to take this early not here to detain people longer than necessary thank you to both of you and the committee will pass that on chair chair can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved but particularly scarlet ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal so gold stars all around thank you well she'll be trying to see me to produce the first one actually thank you very much indeed all right thank you Councillor Zinkin can I just reiterate your point about the importance of feedback loop because for the people who put this enormous amount of work into here when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations the consideration that reflects that work by the officers and members and therefore if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why but please the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is minuted it's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response particularly actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they can do with them because otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted but I think you and I know that in mind I think Councillor Zinkin you and I an agreement that going forward need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback so members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored and do you want anything yeah I was just going to say through the scrutiny office we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations so when they go to cabinet cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them and if they reject them they need to give reasons that they're rejected and we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group and any recommendations are acceptable into track well kind of system and periodically we'll come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members and something to account process which honestly I don't think this is about okay I take that point with the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight review of the life changes strategy which is pages 21 to 26 Councillor Pauline Coachee Webb the cabinet member for children's services and education I think is here and we have Ben Thomas I see who's the assistant director of education strategy and partnerships Tina not here is that correct and Lee is not here either right so it's you've got Councillor Pauline Coachee Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline we I'm sure all members have read your report I have at least one question and maybe there are others but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to yeah I don't think I need five minutes I mean following the good offstead that we had that's been discussed that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet and when you look through the various things that this report outlines you can see whether it be education whether it be looked after children whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people the my say matters the amount of work that we've done which actually highlights what we do really really well and what Barney is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible the reason we have to do this is this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time and there will be I think there's any illusion that what are the department puts in whether it be under bells for education or whether it be under family services or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week we should be really proud of what everybody does within that department because I just see firsthand that they give their absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do which is how it should be and that's why I hope we continue to do so and I'm sure if you've got any other further detailed questions Ben can ask them or if you've got any to put to me then please ask me but yeah I'm really proud of what they do proud of the department I'm proud of achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough I have one question I might as well begin and then get going and it's on dentistry for young people but you used to be reported to the children education committee at some point maybe I just missed it in this report but that comes in what's the amount of dentistry visit gets reported in what's called the chat I get a report on the chat on a regular basis I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go I know we've boosted the figures recently but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that especially if we've got young people in care that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us it's not something that we're not unaware of and it's something where the figures have gone up again but you will always get among certain especially maybe under adolescence a reluctance to actually do that just just follow up to say that as I'm sure you're aware that any department have very high entry figures of children with teeth problems serious teeth problems I make no comment about Barney of course but I'm pleased to hear your monitoring answers my question thank you we get in the chat we'll relate to children it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population thank you thank you I think this report is very I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago being found to be inadequate and particularly well done to the officers remember that when we brought this up and I said yes last night seems a long time ago honest to which the director's question answer was well that shows they should never have left in the first place but it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers and what we do in retaining them and the fact that both of us enjoy working for us and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us it means that the people that work in within our department do actually appreciate the teamwork and the support and the mentoring that they get and then enjoy working here I agree with that that cares about children and young people rather than one that's content to let them fail in terms of your report I think one of the things that to accept has already been covered and still comments it will relate to child deprivation which is incredibly can be geographically located within the borough there are you know this this borough generally is a relatively high income borough but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty parts of my own being one of them around the north circular parts of your ward as well um obviously Colin Del Berto incredibly high levels of child poverty one of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are with it and often part of the reason why children don't get poorer children don't have access up the hubs in burnt oak you know really ideally well placed I may have given you already an answer to this but what what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing and one of the things that I've certainly evidenced when it comes to holidays is the base the base scheme that we have with all the different activities which is basically for anyone that um appears as to how to cook with it and it's not done in a soldier it's not a way to embarrass them but it's an extra and the young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well so we can't actually sort of do everything but what we actually do um to actually make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents make sure that they know what they're entitled to what the services are what they can obtain and how they can obtain and continue to expand and which is certainly very fruitful and very well done I think that's very reassuring to hear and following up on that I think I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through we know that on it and particularly young people in Barnet are not one homogenous group so how much effort is put into into looking at health as well I mean we've got health and well being bored again tomorrow morning and certainly when there's the the early checks on childhood a new birth that is also then followed through so all along the line whether it be the early health whether it be the hubs whether it was a new birth I think all the professionals involved try to make sure that they feed back any concerns the one thing that you can't deal with is what you don't know about people know that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get the far point is something that you said which is you can't help people you don't know well very often people don't know you don't know don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds I can see I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute but I just finished the plan making which is just to add through the safeguarding partnership got a particular project across the whole partnership really trying to identify children out of sight so those aren't registered with gps those that haven't come to early help so we're doing a lot of work thank you chat um my question actually links into what um council image was saying um but specifically to do with hope what's recourse to what we can offer as the work people's position of yeah I mean they can they can access the base scheme and they can access all of our services and there's been unless I hear any more I have a general thank you for that I have a general question which is um on the the plan outlines and what you want to do with the priorities but um I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it so I'm reading through it like this is all this is all great but I'd like to know more where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities so there's um there's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this so there's a child and family early health strategy there's all the education strategies they're actually in the children and young people's plan with listed it's probably 10 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this and each of those will have an action plan and a set of kpis and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going so um it's not all the detail in this report or in the children young people's plan but they're the detail does sit behind it if I want to specifically look at how one priority is being addressed can I can I Ben will assist you directly thank you all right final point I think from count oh sorry Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambay and unusually barnet is rather low on vaccination levels and as a big borough we must actually of course pull the average down and so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures in flight now those are 2021 figures and earlier in the paper you talk about the um and it said the two questions though and something that is so crucial is one do we actually know why our vaccination rate because at 80 you're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic certainly we're probably best to go in some more of the details that goes to the health and well-being board if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated I still think there probably was and this is probably all over but post and probably during the pandemic there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated and it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated but if then's got any more even then like I can add a bit to that so um I've asked public health that question actually we are in line with London but London generally is much lower than the national average and the reasons for that third box down it says Barnet 80.2 London 89.2 England 79.9 age uh 13 of the um family-friendly barn and who said Councillor Moore here he was the captain member for health maybe emphasis but I can add a little I hope this um this figures um in just trying to remember which yeah okay um there has been a huge amount of work on this um the it is true that we are that north central London is below the London average I think you need to look at London makeup because um boroughs do vary significantly in terms of in terms of their vaccination update and it is and it is true that for something for example like measles across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the um the vaccine vaccination rate and that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago um with the skepticism around um measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other and actually one of the things that we've had uh going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable um going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period um but the reality is that north central London has been um lower than its some some of its neighboring um into its neighboring regions um Barnet actually for the most for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners um there are I think three things that impact on it and are being worked on I'll come back to that in a minute um it there's been a particular challenge post-covid because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general engagement around covid and then engagement around covid vaccination and along with that there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination as some of that was around access to gps or lack of access to gps vaccinations and some was actually families being very um hesitant um to to to pick up vaccinations there's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up um there has been generalized work the um vaccination sits with uh with the nhs through the um icb the integrated care board for north central london but actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online we've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during covid with a range of our faith and community groups and that's been a really really important part and you will know I think um council is thinking that there there have been some challenges um within particularly the orthodox jewish community and we've done a huge amount of work through north the the north london uh jewish forum in terms of the london jewish forum but particularly focused on some of the people who've been trying to help and i've made various suggestions about things they might do to get this people would listen to to try and endorse vaccination programs but so i i recognize what you're saying but what i'm anxious about is um where the rates are going back up again don't you we want to know what the current rates are we know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made sorry can i just clarify the figures if you've got the figures thank you the figures that you're looking at are from the children and young people's plan the figures that you're looking at in that paper from the children young people's plan the appendix which were done in uh april 23 and i've got the updated figures from public health and they are so for mmr um london is 81.4 percent and barn is 81.6 percent uh and then at mmr dose two at five years london is 73.1 and 74.1 so we are actually above london special for vaccinations much of london is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the nhs and local public health organizations across london um and ncl is no different from that driving those levels up it is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term um this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination mmr but actually some of the other vaccinations as well because um there is concern that there has been some concern within barnet that our neighboring boroughs particularly to the west had have had a number of measles cases and we have not as yet um and so we're but we're driving to make sure those go but you're absolutely right these figures within the report are several years old um and we it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months all right last point from council ambe i think or maybe one from council my son my question is do we sort of have data for the various top groups within the borough what do i mean by that is it's well documented that the white working class boys and and working class in the care system and so do we have that data and does that situation correlate with the child poverty and what are we doing sort of track those trends and sort of uh see what trap those trends and what are we doing to like with children in care but yeah we do track all of that council if you want to see more details i think ben will meet with you because we can't do all of this in committee but it's a very good point you've made and maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further and i hear the point you're making underneath is that okay for now thank you chair thank you council why is that i want to move on as soon as i can oh it's certainly chair i was just gonna say in response to i think councilor zincin's question about what was the herd immunity quick google search puts the world health organization says it's 95 and the vaccination rate across the world was 81 so that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe but obviously that's the entire population as well not just children so well i i think we know that covid led to some populations being very suspicious and in fact withdrawing their children from put them in vaccination programs so i might just just to finish up if you um council zincin there are regular reports within the health and well-being board about infection rates and a range of other diseases but also vaccination rates and childhood immunizations are a part of the current of health and well-being during health and well-being strategy and will be part of the next and the director of public health will be presenting next month no in november at the adults and health scrutiny committee and will be that will be part of her report there um so you are quite right to be concerned but what what i wouldn't want you to um go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within barnet and across ncl and indeed across london on this thank you i want to move on we can of course refer that bit back to the um particular subcommittee that's dealing with this maybe nobody sits on that committee here today the sub turn that up is it julia monasterian that we're talking about children's vaccination rates aren't we so so we could we could accept this report but ask that the the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that um we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda it might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees that that might be a useful topic to look at in more detail thank you all right listen i'm these are all great things but they're not what we need to do today so we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here and we'll ask julia monasterio who chairs the children's subcommittee to report back to us when when her team of her from director of public health thank you very much indeed we now move to like item nine so i think it's relatively uncontroversial the revised statement of licensing policy we have ella small come small come the head of consumer public protection and ash shard the service manager trading standards and license thing sorry licensing and um you have up to five minutes you wish to present your report bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the license committee you may wish to be right on the table and you may wish to be brief thank you chair yes so this report presents the revised licensing so this is a statutory document we're required to review it once every five years and we are we have we have done so so we've we've reviewed this this has been out to public consultation it's also as well that we work closely with the police it sets out how we will deal with licensing applications also how we will work along the question should you wish to ask them and we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments essentially thank you very much thank you so i'm gonna ask non-licensing committee members first council rose um i thought i'd ask this question my small my small business champion of the boroughs hats and you know the papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one and you know because you'll be aware that the the licensing authority actually has two functions so because the administration just one question having the bit that i was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone and i suppose i've got two questions which is one this goes if this is adopted i don't know who adopts the relative impact zone but if it's adopted how will it be monitored is number one my second question i declare that i'm a west finshley councilor is how do i put this politely most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough except for west finshley where i noticed the ambulance alcohol something or others high and a number of other challenges and also the in fact density population west finshley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough so if this works this cumulative impact zone is there suggestion it might be somewhere out go somewhere else or is it just in that area in that area which is how is this is this success has it been successful is it going to be renewed who makes that i should maybe last a bit yes has it been successful okay so i can answer that chair so during the in the duration was things being renewed who and who decides how it's going to be renewed that will be point being that's a decision for you in another class thank you right all right i'll let we have the last comment i mean i i think this is a really interesting question because i have always struggled with the various aspects in the sense that there is a loss of legend we lost because they were much better at it than we they do no you lost because no we shouldn't be debating this now but you lost because the statue is in favor of gambling except but the answer that that's partly true but only partly true in that i was just going to say we it should be noted and i noticed on behalf of the members of my committee sit on the subcommittee that the legislation is what we work from the legislation is permissive and therefore actually we start from a point of permissive legislation should we want this change that's for a government to do and unfortunately the council's hands are often tied i do however second counselors and kids request that may be training for us as ward representatives to make representatives to not just licensing but also planning because i think most of the training we get as counselors is how to sit on those committees rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table yeah through through the chair sorry okay we'll we'll pick up both our common statement licensing and gambling premises licensing and making representations we'll pick that up with ella and ash and put together some guidance from members around doing that and also on planning side we'll pick up with fabian and his team as a committee i want because you are kind of taking off your counselor on a committee role and being a ward representative role so we'll take that forward into the member development went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there not to make a bet i thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds all right i think we can can we note the report i mean i think it's an uncontroversial report we noted the point about training which we'll take on and thank the team who prepared it thank you very much you don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to this report first quarter budget forecast counselor nakvi again he's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget this is item 10 pages 120 210 so counselors inc is going to move um not to the labor benches because we don't have labor benches here but going to move to the corner because he could hear more easily um what and ask the questions council came would you like to join him or you're going to sit there in splendid isolation okay most grateful chair um the this report was presented to cabinet yesterday and what i'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night um i apologize for the reiteration i'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time counselors inc was actually there he had a front row seat so you will you'll be apprised of most of this i should um i should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at ovarian scrutiny um consecutively i would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year and the view that we now take of the the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project it will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda the labor administration came into 22 2022 wanting to deliver and despite the best efforts of liz trust and her coterie we will achieve a good amount of it so i began yesterday by setting some context and i split the context into two distinct categories national and local so in the national context yes we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services and nationally we've had um a a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite unable to understand the pivotal role the local government plays within the the lives of people up and down the country at at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the the the usage and the the complexity of those needs has steadily increased but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time the local context relates naturally as i mentioned to the previous late conservative administrations that barnet has has had but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has uh played its role within the local government landscape environment uh almost ethos that um has has pervaded barnet ever since we were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power and they have been um accelerated and magnified by the the mismanagement of government of the national budget so that is that broadly speaking the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process i proceeded there thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us and um i didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and i shall not sugarcoat it to committee it is serious what we are what we are faced with potentially and i am uh very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast we haven't reached the end of the year yet this is what we and we think will be the end of year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and what we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level that is serious and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the the responsibility we have to the residents of barnet to rectify what have we done um already and what we plan to do here after is also laid out to a certain degree within the report in the month of august in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us finance colleagues work very diligently with myself relevant cabinet members executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area no service area was left unmonitored unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed why it was essential why it was happening at the level that it was why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in february hereafter we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a on a daily basis by the by the directorates that have the most need for it adults and children's for instance do have an ongoing need for recruitment but it is important that not only do they not wait too long but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises so that that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately and uh and moving forward we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and be published in full detail in november we want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified i shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions of course i've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose thank you i can't see if you're indicating because you're there but i'm sure that you are going to see council mitcher council rose council dave thank you chair um he did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee but after that speech um i hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail which is i fully understand why council and that we said what he said but my only comment which is similar to the comment that i made a cabinet last night is we are now three years we are three years we're in our third year i think members should be indulged the conservatives have never been good with numbers but but but but we're in the order or lesson listen friends friends if we're going to get through this yes in time we're in the third year of the administration and therefore it can't entirely be the fault the national circumstance and some of it must be due to the actions of the organization itself now i don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem my concern is with the scale of the which is something again we discussed last night because the figure of 20 million is after seven million of savings which are additional to that all those seven million of savings are actually delivered and that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified which is about 85 which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years but what that means is that even after all of that and the eight million that put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year and the five million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year that the underlying deficit if you strip out those one-off things out is nearly 50 million pounds a year which in the context of the point that has been well made that we actually have obligations by law to support children to support adults that the five percent that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued 20 million against 400 million is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure and therefore i do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget and i think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that of that challenge and my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued and you know i i asked last night for the detail of the seven million and what the governance was around that because a seven million cut is significant and it hadn't been to cabinet it was just announced as having happened and i thought that was strange um and we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other reductions that have to be made and of course that's just the way the world is but what it does mean is that that this year impact of changes that are announced in november it's almost impossible to save money before april may be able to save it for next year's budget but in terms of the 20 million deficit this year barring something unexpected occurring it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year which means that our reserves at 28 million are going to be almost completely wiped out so all i would say is that i think that it's really that we think about how we the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced and much of that is nothing to do with the labor government nothing to do with the conservative government nothing to do with our administration and nothing to do with this administration but it's all about the demographics of barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in year out um at accelerating rates and unfortunately barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus um enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances and somehow we collectively need to get government to recognize that you know if you have our demographic then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances and it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what barnet is which is the barnet we all love thank you Councillor Zinkin i've forgotten who was after i thought you made just the sympathy you will get there was quite a lot to feed back in but obviously it's your discretion chair if i may um with your indulgence and i would like um dean to contribute to part of this and i at the very start in terms of the scale of the problem i should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report so i don't think in any way we are hiding it from sugarcoating it it is laid out in very fine detail to the to the level of um pressure individual service directorate so i'm not certain i can take the the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale um i will take your points somewhat in in order so that the the first one and the last although you circle back to the 7.3 million i'll deal with that in closing so it is important for us to understand how we got in the context i understand that we've been in administration for two years but we didn't come from a standing start barnet existed before we were at the administration and it is very very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited if only to not return to that state of affairs financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in in that in that level um in terms of your your point about the the five percent of the budget that is represented by overspending it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations this is a point that you made a cabinet yesterday and perhaps i i was a little bit um imprecise in the way that i handled the the challenge uh it is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential i in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of um of the cabinet member responsible for oversight of the of the area that that is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services it is not going to be the case that under our administration they they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered unmonitored unchallenged and that was what the star chambers process was involved in and what cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process now returning to the 7.3 million this is where i will invite dean to to contribute it's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts this is what would be the end of year position where nothing to happen which is why the recovery plan itself when it is presented next year after we very sorry next month in in february in november it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan but they will still be proposals at that stage they are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspent occurs and at that point relevant challenge and assessment of their impact on service quality delivery etc will occur so it is it is it is something i need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the the end of year position were they to transpire would be so serious now in terms of the 7.3 million in particular the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they they're not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by by the terms of reference of of their of their time and dean would like to make some comments on that yes thank you um just to say i think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan one which i think is is happening in due course but just to follow up on that i think the recovery plan one is based on forecasts it is predominantly around um probably less less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies um which directors have put up i think recovery plan two and will be go through the eqia process like any kind of savings as part of the mtfs and that would be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through um i think the second point i was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with london councilors around lobbying government before an october's budget and that will be things around and support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant that would be things around um housing benefits subsidy rates which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels that we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding and settlement for london and also an extension so a three-year funding plan there's some certainty built into forward planning and which at the moment it's only per annum so there are lobbying going on behind the scenes um which should support the position hopefully this year we don't know what to bring and that will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years which was held financial plan councilor mitchell thank you very much chair um i think i'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that councilors in can make if i it made if i may i think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that i think completely belies the last 20 years uh i'm afraid that his party ran the council in the 15 years uh that his party around the country i i was preparing for this meeting i was looking through some of the reports i used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of off of uh of what was going on in the council line it was interesting to see some of previous quarter one uh interim finance reports that talked about 20 particularly 2018 that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year in the medium term financial strategy uh black hole of 64 million pounds uh i i don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then i i i i cannot accept your central premise though that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors one of the largest uh increase in um in our in our cost this year you know relates to temporary accommodation yeah i simply you know part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many many years in this borough um you know and i i really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this part in this bar whether it was interest rate rises trussonomics or the former mp for chipping barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency or maybe it was the former mayor of london boris johnson who used to approve housing schemes across the city in fact with 17 affordable delivery rates you know these things do have an impact do they not they have a cumulative impact particularly now because we're many years down the line but many of these housing schemes have been provided under with with an under provision of affordable housing because of pre because of that previous administration and that has an impact on us now because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need that's driving up our temporary accommodation costs uh i i i i have to i have to take council's inking up on another thing he said he's he's part of just sent around their press release a week late um in response to your publication of the paper which talks about service cuts coming i i don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips our culture programs our libraries our street cleaning services children's services park keepers they even privatize the rat catchers if i remember correctly in fact the reason i decided to stand for this council and i've been here ever since was was the conservative party closed the east vince advice service which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it with like benefits claims so yeah i i in principle i cannot accept what council's inking has said you know the the the the idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of conservative government in particular had on our borough and on our finances i simply do not accept and then there's the other side of it which is you know the last administration you know it was all milk and honey i i i don't think that's true i think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council uh you know which council's inking did allude to has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing and i guess my question to council nakfi would be was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing the capital projects when interest rates were low thus diminishing our cash available was was that wise and prudential i might come back to something but some things if you can capture that response on certain items thank you chair um i apologize i wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan but uh i'm i'm fairly certain i would let me be clear let me be clear finance of course is always a conversation issue the task of the overview and scooting committee which is deliberate as you know chaired by a labor member with a conservative member as vice chair is that having made the statements we need we all feel we need to make to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can which will assist the residents not hers flag waivers for the cabinet neither here to be oppositional trying to be together that was my the import of my opening statement so don't defer from although i have to stand up from time to time people will have points that they need to make wonderful i feel sufficiently liberated um so the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken and i suspect my colleague deputy leader councilor would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation it is a sector-wide issue it's more acute in london because of the cost of temporary housing but the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that councilor mitra referred to so yes there are there are very specific uh barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms and this is also true in adult social care for different reasons but um that's that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment the treasury management point is is also another factor that is very barnet specific it was a a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at um going to external bodies at a time interest rates were extraordinarily low so now when we have capital financing obligations and i i want to stress that they are obligations their commitments that we have we are enjoying to forward and progress by by fact of uh by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money externalize is the turn it is the technical term external as that internally borrowed debt which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing the current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at 4.2 million and um we are we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there it cannot reduce from that threshold i should actually stress that that that is that is an obligation that we we are uh we are needing to meet and the increase of it is what we have any sort of uh ability to to rectify at this stage naturally retrospectively anything can be judged to be a bad decision but i suspect that even even in rosier times where you faced with a an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to to raid your own coffers it tends to be something that you you take um very seriously and you you rectify when things are good when the sun is shining as they say rather than allow uh leave for future administrations to clean up your mess so um the treasury management element is something that we are taking extraordinarily English you want to say something yeah i think it's a very good question a difficult one to answer i think talking to colleagues from other councils and there's some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest breaks below and they can bank that cash and and it's covering their services so there's winners in people that decided to do that and we had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't not necessary so it's it's a difficult one i think there is mention in the report i think it's on the treasury section about ways of managing capital financing and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker so obviously the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid so there are and things that we're looking at to improve that that position overall the rose comes to david i was going to make a political point but i've been advised against it by the chair um a more um there's a point made about the alternative budgets that the conservative administration uh conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded uh unspecified um but the actual point i wanted to make was you know you've outlined in great detail both in in the paper and verbally different spending control measures that you're looking to take and you've said those are starting to be implemented in august i was wondering if you could speak uh so what reassurances we as a committee uh who are scrutinizing you know the cabinet can get that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months so this is actually something i'm going to refer um to dean to to talk to you in detail about basically how the spending control much is going yeah i mean it's quite early days to be perfectly honest i mean the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks so it is quite early days from what's gone now and so it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time i know recruitment that have been in the early part of the year have been beneficial and a lot of the recruitment has been held on on the back of scrutiny at those panels so that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what what the impact of that is at the moment can i start by thanking counselor zinking agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit that is focused it's actually out of our control in the sense that they spent statutory that must be born there's a cost that must be that must be paid and the shortfall of funding that has been received uh short falling grants so again that is outside our control so there's not much anybody can do about that but it's not completely factual that the conservative government did not uh my second question is uh but as an efficiency every every quarter we see the depth the return of debtors rising and uh i recognize that some of them um they are impossible that are from the individual ones but um i did ask this question previously how do we how does our debt compare to other birds because it seems quite losing money by not following this or at least drawing a line to eat earlier knob so if somebody dies and five months we are still accruing debt and it doesn't make us any it doesn't make us very efficient there are efforts to to arrest it on time uh a very relevant point that came up at cabinet yesterday also in section 151 officer the interim officer that we have um agreed with you counselor that it is something that needs um attention um dean did you want to yes i do remember the question from last uh and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs we do have a small set of data around hra dwelling um right sauce which i can forward on but it's there's not many bars that we've got any information from so it's quite difficult however yeah it may be it could be but i think um you know we are seeing an escalation in private client debt in particular around the adult community the vulnerable client cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that so we all see that increasing and there is a big correlation as i mentioned before between recovery and debt in terms of national capital financing position so it is it's more acute probably now than it's ever been um and we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well there's different models in the market now um that's early days in that exploration but it's something that we're looking into yeah um i noticed that on the report actually because i was reading earlier because we've got quite a high bad debt provision for housing and support over payment it's not my area but i'm quite happy to take that that away and review and come back to you on that one because um it's worth both of these services back in house have a cost now we can argue as to whether that cost is ultimately going to be a benefit to the borough or a dis benefit to the borough um but the fact is in the short run there is there is a cost and you know council and actory can accuse us and be precise as to what we mismanaged because actually um in terms of the particular item that was being discussed public works loanboard which is where we borrow doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots unless you have probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done um and maybe it was 30 years so so all i'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues and it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing what internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have which means there is cash floating around and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it but we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed we have borrowed money to buy the houses from redro and we've used money for other major capital projects and so a lot of that cash has been used up which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital program the redro money was not included in the assumptions when we last when we as the administration last put an mtfs together so actually this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than council nagri was um perhaps indicated so all i would say is that that the past we are not going to i think we can all agree to council rich's point is that for whatever reason we now face some quite difficult times and part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residents with you and therefore whatever we do we need to be absolutely clear in our about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is and what we're going to do about it i'm going to interrupt you but if we have to the the purpose of this committee to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do addition to things it's already doing i seem to consider doing that's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on good indications from council mitchell and council weisel in fairness chair the council's inc did actually make a request which was quite a bold one can you please tell us everything we did wrong but and i'm i'm certain to take that away we'll we'll give that some serious thought can well just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation my understanding is is that the clawback mechanisms are very very negative particularly when it comes to the hra you can't claim you can't play most about so what are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the ta overspent thank you very much as it happens my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and i suspect that councilor houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation as well as our housing revenue account could i could i offer him the residual time i have to discuss it i think um thank you very much let's take councilor zinc and obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste then increase last year that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents the answer the answer the answer is that if you make the right decisions we support them do you make the wrong decisions we were councilor zinky councilor towing is my point is actually in relation to what the council said is um one of the uh one of the um recommendations that i would like to put forward is that the when the administration that's consultation on proposals of any changes to services that they listen to the consultation the residents thank you the exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for i missed i which i'm happy to yeah i mean basically the the yeah i'm a bit we've had a historically had a very good track record of predicting temporary accommodation of barnet and this year as as the a the officers that i've been dealing with say i've used words like unprecedented in relation to the the increase in the pressures on that budget and there are a couple of causes first of all the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptick in terms of a cost i mean it's a real and this is a london white issue i so basically we've got a combination of supply going down costs going up not on and you can you can you can work out about how these are two two are related there is one statistic which i quoted last night at cabinet which just i think highlights the the scaleless problem by new housing applications in the five months to the end of august 2024 where 65 percent more than the equivalent period in 2022 so that is that is a major major increase in terms of a demand for temporary accommodation i at the same time the market has has shown a real spiking cost so it's a kind of double whammy of of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the exit the available accommodation going down some of them also to do with with the housing pipeline we we obviously have our own housing pipeline we try and deliver where you've got it we're delivering new council-paid properties part of that's through the planning process where we get section 106 a housing association a accommodation which is available for for for use by a people who are nominated by the council on the from the council's waiting list and that that is hard to predict and we have seen a lot of housing associations development programs slowing up in the last year and that's for a number of reasons one of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike a that the the fiscal event much larger you know talked about this then that that combination of supply you know of basically costs going up a cost of borrowing going up in particular but also cost of supplies and cost of labor so it's been a perfect storm and this council richer alluded to earlier a we have one of the sixth lowest stock of social housing in london we're the second biggest borough i so yes it's a it is perfect it is a perfect storm a temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund i colindale gardens has mitigated that by 800,000 a year so that's an investment that is helping the general fund i i think it's you know building new housing and as a country getting that right is important so you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation that's the that's the kind of a summary of the current position i we are lobbying central government hard so i'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements out of the report that we've had and we will break forward between two and five minutes so if you get back in two minutes is great but we are breaking right can we move can we resume the meeting now moving to item 12 task and finish groups the owner has presented a report to you it's pages two five and onwards to two eight six ask your finish group updates and narrative nothing greatly controversial here report does have one new appendix which might have been of interest to members which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at and obviously you've seen one of them tonight which we've agreed will go to cabinet the youth this report and the others are included there as well including their time scales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review the second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task of finish group and otherwise we're happy to take any questions add one thing on task of interest on appendix a simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks food poverty may be too wide but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the the food hub is no longer being food bank hub is no longer being funded how we can involve other people in that second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year when after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place and i'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management and that will go up the agenda appropriately can those be agreed thank you very much that moves us on now to the next item on our agenda which is the cabinet forward plan it is item 13 is page 255 to 286 this is an opportunity for you for us to just say is there anything we might like to look at and at this point andrew from governance and control with the government and thank you chair um just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan so we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of the idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision you can make the decision better with non-executive input so the forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of march 25 and so if you've got any items that you want to pre-scrutinize the earlier we know the better and we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to capture that into the timeline if possible but a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans only look forward to the next meeting or the one after and so this is really good and it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things thank you chair thank you can i just note that the food waste service is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of december 2024 does the committee wish to pre-scrutinize or post scrutinize or just put it all in the way okay we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee okay okay i'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that and i then is there anything else on item on the cabinet forward plan we've had lots of cabinet members thank you to the leader of the deputy maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here and helped us today thank you the leader is quietly sitting there the deputy lead is also there so anything on a cabinet for a plan great thank you overview of scrutiny committee work program i have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we're kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term that will be a matter for a future agenda unless i have any comments on that which is item 14 page 287 298 it was here if you want to ask anything thank you are there any items that i've decided are urgent there are none and i think that concludes our agenda so once again i i do appreciate these are long meetings and with lots of paperwork i do think we're still doing a good job and i want to thank everybody who participates and also for your patience about the way i do things even if you don't always think they're the right way thank you and i thank our staff we've been here as well [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript

I'll never get used to this. Welcome to this meeting of the Ovian Scrutiny Committee. My name is Daniel Rich. I'm chairing the committee. And I just want to notify you in terms of the agenda. There is a late paper, which is the review of the council tax support scheme. Under Schedule 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, I am of the opinion that the report should be considered as a matter of urgency. For this special circumstance, that if the committee would like to consider the report, and it did request that so, it needs to do it in advance of the actual work being done. That's why it's there. Our meetings, of course, are recorded and broadcast, and anybody participating may be included in the broadcast, either by attending or speaking in person online. Our recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at www.barnet.gov.uk. Let me welcome all of the members of the committee, members of the council staff here to support the report, and members of the cabinet who have joined us. I can't see any members of the public here with us, but they might watch this at any time, so let us be conscious of that. Let us remind ourselves that our task is not to be flag wavers for the cabinet, and nor is it to be, this is not the place where we carry out formal opposition. What we're doing is we're trying to scrutinize matters, either before or after decision, which we think, and make comments which we think might better support all of the residents of the London Borough of Barnum. There are no apologies, so I'm assuming that Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Prager are on their way. We'll do things that are probably uncontroversial before they arrive, namely the minutes of the two previous meetings. These are the meetings of the 10th of July and the 18th of July, and I'm going to sign them as accurate unless anybody finds anything that is not accurate about them. I will take silence as acquiescence, so 10th of July will be signed, and the 18th of July will be signed. Do members have any declaration of interest in relation to the agenda items? The licensing policy, I don't think it's a conflict, but I chair the licensing and general purposes committee. Councillor Ambe is my vice-chair, and I note that the chair of this committee sits on that committee. Obviously, we've had a chance to filter into this previously, and we'll do again to this report. Thank you. So I think that's an appropriate declaration that the vice-chair of the licensing committee and I sit on the licensing committee, which means we will have already seen that documentation when it came to the licensing committee. We will therefore, of course, allow others to lead who may not have seen it in the same way that we saw it on the licensing committee. Are all members happy that that's an appropriate way of doing things? Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No dispensations granted by the monetary officer, no public questions or comments, no members items. I'm going to move on then to review the council tax support scheme on the supplementary agenda, pages 3 to 24. And I'm going to ask Councillor Ammonakvi, committee member financial sustainability and reducing poverty, who has three minutes to introduce the report. We also have in attendance Dean Langston, the assistant director of finance. Maybe he's on that line and. Alan Clark, head of finance, Exchequer, I've certainly seen. Councillor, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating speaking to the item necessarily, but I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. We always applaud brevity when appropriate. So thank you. So, Councillor is presenting the report and let us take some questions. I have two, but maybe I'll restrain myself for the minute. Thank you. In twenty twenty one, our council tax support expenditure rose from about twenty one million, about twenty seven million, which it was assumed at the time of the pandemic effect, but it appears to have stuck due to great application for support individuals dropping out the job market. What drove this and what can we do to support residents on this? The specifics of the reasons why there's been increased demand for assistance, I've appealed to officers to respond to, but I can say is that there's plenty of other stream support that the council are offering in addition to this. So a lot of a lot of the underlying factors that have resulted in increased systems will be captured in other ways. The benefits calculator that we have, for instance, has accrued a huge amount of data to show eligibility. So there is a reason why you will see a precipitous increase in in usage because people have now got access to tools that show them that they're they're more entitled to different forms of benefits. So that will be one relevant factor. This report is a little bit mysterious because it isn't entirely cabinet is particularly going to do anything with. However, what I was wondering in seeing the amount of money which go to this support scheme was where we sat in the range of support schemes across the outer London boroughs. And therefore, whether we were generous or whether we were ungenerous or mean, and therefore whether it was in the context of the difficulties which. Foreshadowed in the finance report later, whether, in fact, this is something that cabinet should be reviewing to make sure that we are not being in the wrong place relative to the other boroughs who also have financial difficulties. And therefore, a suggestion was that we should put to cabinet that given the fact that we seem to give away 27 million pounds in this support scheme, whether it was not something that should be in the panoply of issues, which cabinet is asked to consider in the context of the budget.

May I just make one brief word of introduction prior to the finance team coming in. So we aren't leaving anything unaddressed or unanalyzed in our effort to balance the budget as Councillor Zinkin will know given the discussion that happened at cabinet last night. And no doubt the discussion that will happen later today, tonight in the monitoring report discussion. And I would suggest that descriptions of generosity or lack thereof are not appropriate when it comes to assisting people in financial difficulty. We meet demand and need, and those are our sole priorities, and we shall continue to do so. At this point, do you want to wait for Councillor Weiss's question? Do you want to add anything now, having heard Councillor Zinkin's question in particular, which is about comparisons with other boroughs? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. The comparison with other boroughs, I think one of the things we've got to bear in mind with the different schemes is within Barn, we look at people's earned income or self-employed income only. Whereas some of the other schemes that are out there that are potentially more generous than ours as well, they look more generous at first sight, but they take into account other incomes, so working tax credits. Certain non-disregarded disability benefits, et cetera, so just to sort of point out that although some authorities are simply protecting up to 100%, they're not always on the face yet that much more beneficial than Barnet's, just to make that point, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you, chair, and that actually quite hopefully leads into my question, which was obviously our scheme is based on earnings from self-employment. We can see from the table at 1.21 that a number of London boroughs base it on income, in fact more. The only other borough that has earnings is idlington, and I'm curious as to what is included the difference between earnings and income, sounds like some of that is credit tax, credits and other benefits, but surely income would also include like property portfolios. And is there potentially a situation where someone is living off dividends or a property portfolio that has no earnings, who would therefore qualify for our scheme, and we're therefore subsidising someone who would not be otherwise entitled, and therefore is that scheme more generous? I think it was a point a number of people noticed about the difference between income and earnings can be different. Anybody, I mean, it's a technical detail you might not be able to answer today. Maybe, Alan, you can help us with that. Yeah, yeah, definitely. When we're talking about earnings and income here, if someone isn't working, then they won't be classed within our scheme as having earnings, which you're right, could then entitle them to the maximum 72% we are. So it is a fair point, and I think something that I need to go away and do a bit further looking into to see if we have potentially got anybody that might fall into that category. And clearly, I agree, if we do, we probably are, or potentially are, sorry, over subsidising those that may have those property portfolios, et cetera, that you mentioned. Are there any other questions on this? My question is, what percentage of families because of the lack of rebanding? I share the frustration with the council band, as it exists, as well as the entire arrangement of the council tax system in general, it's an inadequate way of accruing finance. But it is the system that we currently have, given that it's not means tested, I'm not certain that it's possible to determine what the household income would be of top banded properties. The two sets of data I don't think exist in the same universe, you have to cross reference two different databases. So I don't know if officers are able to eliminate any more on this, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to arrive at that sort of detail. We need to be clear, because the council tax system, banding system, the national system, this one to seven that we have, is that also set nationally, in the one to seven in the report, is not the same as the ABCDEFG as income band. And who sets those income bands? I can take that if you want to. Sorry, apologies, I assumed they were talking about council tax band, so apologies, but the bonds within our scheme is set by members at full council, so we put forward potential schemes when this one went live a few years ago. There was a few different bands within that, looking at different income tapers, and the bandings that were agreed were agreed by full council. Council tax banding, and some people have been able to see where they find out that their neighbors had different council tax bands from theirs. And I have been approached to my word by a couple of people who believe the same. Do we have a means of checking and assisting and advising people on this matter? Do you want me to take that, chair, sorry? Yes, thanks. The point on soon is probably not quite accurate, but if the banding is set not by the council, the council tax band is set by the valuation office agency, unfortunately based on property values back in 1991. But that's a whole other conversation, I suppose. So where anybody feels that their banding is incorrect is up to date. We take that up to the valuation office agency rather than their local billing authority. Clearly if the valuation office agency reassessed the property and changed the banding, then any overpaid money we would refund, but there's no interest or anything included in that to get back what they've overpaid. We have seen in places where they have appealed to bandings and the bandings actually went up. So it's not always the case that if your neighbor's got a lower bond, you should jump straight in, I don't think, and put an appeal in. You need to consider whether or not you may end up paying a bit more as well. Thank you, chair. The earnings bandings that are set before council, do we have when those were last adjusted? Because obviously inflation in the last couple of years due to the disastrous policies of the last conservative government means that those will now be potentially significantly below what is living wages or, you know, affecting and therefore do we have a mechanism in which they are uprated annually in line with inflation to ensure that people aren't suffering? And secondly, it's slightly adjacent, but is there any plans for the council to call on the government to look at council tax banding? Alan, maybe you want to make a comment on the seven bands? Yes, I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I would like to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm not going to make a comment on the seven bands, but I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands, and I'm going to make a comment on the seven bands. Just to remind members that as part of our plan for Barnet 2326, we did consult on the council tax support scheme as part of that process and engaged with residents as to what the threshold levels would be for adequate earnings levels. As we revise our plan for Barnet, it's entirely proper that we reassess the landscape that Barnet currently exists in as we find it moving into 2026. Unless I see any more hands, I think we can move to recommendations. One recommendation is we look at earning an income and how that's worked through, because that's not clear to all members of the committee, even if it's clear to some people, and we would like some comments at some point, or you think about how the bands are drawn up together, bands one to seven. Is that a reasonable summary of what we want to do? Vice Chair, you're looking puzzled. I mean, I still believe that the question I asked right back at the beginning, I mean, we're asked in this recommendation to give cabinet our thoughts on this scheme, and my thought is still that it's a very significant expenditure, and therefore, understanding how we is also something which cabinet should reflect upon. I think there is some, to be fair, I think there is some reflection in the report, because it does make comments about other boroughs, but I'm more than happy that that should be, if the committee agrees, that should be a consideration. Yes, are we happy to put that in? Yes? Yes? Okay, thank you. So those are three recommendations. Other than that, we are supposed to note this report. So we've noted it with the three comments that we've made, and that concludes this item. Thank you. So we are going to move the agenda and take the item on, let me just find it for you. It is the Task and Finish Group Youth Homelessness Task, it's pages 211 to 244. And may I first of all, since this is the first Task and Finish Group report we've got, thank you and your colleagues for delivering it. And simply to note, I think there's a typo. You appear as both the Chair and the Member of the Committee. I didn't think there were two, Councilor Jennifer Grocox. So I assume that we should have deleted one of those and we will do in the final report. And I just make an observation and then I'll leave you to introduce it. And this is the first, so we're delighted this is the first, which means that we're going to learn from this one and use this one. And we didn't ask for this, but we might think about asking for a little bit more narrative in future reports. How many times you met, who attended and so on. And that's a lot of criticism because we're thrilled and delighted this report has come to us. And the floor is now yours. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I want to raise a point to start with before I present the report. Identification of people is quite significant and poignant today. I've always been identified as chairman. I've chaired meetings over the years as chairman. I choose to be identified as that. I know I prefer to identify as chair. However anyone wants to identify, I think that should be accepted and acknowledged and supported. I would very much like that noted in this and going forward, however anyone decides to designate themselves to be a chair, chairman or whatever, that be accepted for those reports and not altered to set another's narrative. Your point is noted. You will also know that the constitution committee and the full council agreed to a change when the new administration was elected and the way to deal with that, of course, is to raise that through the full council meeting and through your group. We can't deal with it here. The current construction from the constitutional group and from the council is that we use that term, but that's the term we will use as you persuade the council to change its procedure. I'm reluctant to make this a long discussion because I'm more interested in youth homelessness. Can we nonetheless thank Councillor Growcock for her support for personal pronouns? That's always very welcome. Thank you. It was a very interesting task and finish group first for youth homelessness. We met back in June 23 and there were four members, as you can see, and I hope everybody has read and digested the report. We covered various items. We met with some officers, those that are involved in the process, and the most amazing young people who are going through this process. The one area that we didn't meet and which may have been helpful for this task and finish group were those areas which might be something that could be done going forward. At the time when we met and those seven recommendations, we were very mindful about how it might impact on budgets. Today, obviously, your recent press release regarding finances, we're even more aware of that potential. The items are noted. There is only one potential financial impact, and that is with regards to the mediator. The others, the other six, do not go beyond those roles that they are doing but may need to be tweaked so that people are working smarter and more efficiently. I do hope, though, we do hope that the task and finish groups, although they're recommendations, what I would like to see as chairman of the task and finish group on this item is that you recommend that it be passed to cabinet in the hope that those recommendations are actually accepted but converted to directions. I think that would help and support those teams, those young people who are going through this process, and not just be a tick box paper exercise or business. If anyone has any questions, feel free. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just to say in terms of process, if we accept this report, it will go to cabinet who will consider the recommendations, and the chair and vice chair of this committee and the governance officers are looking at the procedure of feedback and how we get things through and then it comes back again as reported back again. That's a work in progress, but on this one, if there are any questions for Councillor Carroll, I've seen Councillor Rose. Thank you. I thought the definition of homelessness used who are sofa surfing or don't have a sofa I thought was done really nicely. I guess the question I had for you is what success looks like for this. You have your recommendations. For the young people you've met, what in a year's time would you want to be able to turn around and say this has changed or how do we define some of those impacts, I guess? I think actually those young people that we met, they were all at different stages. Some of them were very emotional. Some of them were very traumatized. I think probably if we were going to be reviewing this from those recommendations implemented, so there's a lot of young people who don't know how to get themselves a bank account, who don't know how to use a washing machine, who don't know how to get a passport, who don't know where to go to. So all those things that have been put into this report are what we need to see. Once that, and I hope you will agree, if those recommendations are referred up and cabinet accept, seeing this in action will actually be proof of the pudding and the next tranche of young people who find themselves in this situation. Probably just if you are in touch with any of them to relate that our committee, the thanks from all of us for sharing what must be really difficult and traumatic things over again for the benefit of others. That's a really inspiring thing for them to have done. Agreed. I'm sure we can get that passed on. Thank you. Anything else? Otherwise I'm going to recommend from the chair that we accept this report and send it off to cabinet to be dealt with. Anything else? Councillor, thank you on behalf of the committee. You are the first with the first task and finish group. And I would at the same time like to thank Scarlett who's the staff member who's come in especially for this item. I was going to ask you if you had anything you wanted to add because you've got the opportunity if you wish to. But thank you for all your support on this item. Thank you for being I think for the graduate training in the governance team. You're doing a lot of work in governance. So we're very grateful for that. I know that you might have to go too. So that's another reason why I want to take this early. Not here to detain people longer than necessary. Thank you to both of you. And the committee will pass that on. Chair, can I just quickly say a huge thank you to all the people that were involved, but particularly Scarlett Ryan who as a young person is absolutely phenomenal. So gold stars all around. Thank you. Most of it's right to see you produce the first one. Thank you very much indeed. All right. Thank you. Councillor Zinkin. Can I just reiterate your point about the important year when the report comes to cabinet to give the report and the recommendations. The consideration that reflects that work by both officers and members. And therefore, if they feel they have to reject a recommendation to explain why. But please, the one thing that will cause sort of complete despair in those on the groups is simply noting the report without comment that is limited. It's really important for those who put the effort in that they get feedback through the as to what cabinets and the cabinet member response. Actually, actually thought about the recommendations and believes what they otherwise all this effort is effectively wasted. I think you and I know that in mind, I think you and I in agreement that going forward, we need to try and find a way so that there is this this flow of feedback. So members know what response has been received and how that's been monitored. And do anything. Yeah, I was just going to say through the scrutiny office, we're going to put in a system of tracking recommendations. So when they go to cabinet, cabinet should say whether they accept or reject them. And if they reject them, they need to give reasons that they rejected. And we'll feed that back to the committee and members of the task and finish group. And any recommendations are acceptable into track. Well, kind of system and periodic will come back to whichever whether it's a committee or subcommittee and the task and finish group members into account process, which honestly I don't think this is about. Okay, I take that point in the spirit in which I know it was delivered as we move on to item eight. Review of the life changes strategy, which is pages 21 to 26. Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb, the cabinet member for Children's Services and Education is here. And we have Ben Thomas, I see his assistant director of education, strategy and partnerships. Tina, not here. And Lee is not here. Right. So you've got Councillor Pauline Coachey Webb and you've got Ben Thomas and Pauline, I'm sure all members have read your report. I have at least one question and maybe there are others, but you have up to five minutes to introduce if you wish to. I don't think I need five minutes. I mean, following the good off that that we had that's been discussed, that scrutiny being discussed at cabinet. And when you look through the various things that this report outlines, you can see whether it be education, whether it be looked after children, whether it be what we do in terms of co-production with young people, the same matters. The amount of work that we've done, which actually highlights what we do really, really well and what Barnet is well known for in both looking after caring for our young people and getting the best educational attainment possible. The reason we have to do this is that this has to be reviewed and has to be revised again since it was done last time. And there will be I think there's any illusion that. What are the department puts in, whether it be under both education or whether it be under family services, or whether it be with the mash or whether it be with the whole array of different social workers that take on a period of problems that come across their desk every day of the week. We should be really proud of what everybody does within that department, because I just see firsthand that they give the absolute best and that they put the young people at the core of absolutely everything they do, which is how it should be. And that's why I hope we continue to do so. And I'm sure if you've got any other further detail questions, Ben can ask them, or if you've got any to put to me, then please ask me. But yeah, I'm really proud of what we do, proud of the department, I'm proud of the achievements and what we continue to do for all the young people in our borough. I have one question I might as well begin and then get going. And it's on dentistry for young people, but you used to be reported to the Children's Education Committee at some point. Maybe I just missed it in this report. That comes in what's the amount of dentistry visits gets reported in what's called the chat. I get a report on the chat on a regular basis. I've also asked the members that sit on scrutiny to maybe get a more verbal update, because if people are not used to looking at all these graphs and figures, it can be a bit disconcerting to actually figure out what it all says. I know that when we've certainly looked at dentistry before, a lot of it has been either young people that didn't particularly want to go. I know we've boosted the figures recently, but sometimes it's people that have got a fear of going to the dentist or it's making sure that, especially if we've got young people in care, that the foster carers or their carers actually record when they've been there and they're reported to us. It's not something that we're not unaware of, and it's something where the figures have gone up again. But you will always get among certain, especially maybe under adolescence, a reluctance to actually do that. Just to follow up to say that, as I'm sure you're aware, the A&E department have very high entry figures of children with serious teeth problems. I make no comment about Barney, of course, but I'm pleased to hear you're monitoring it to answer my question. I think the figures we get in the chat will relate to, but after children, it won't necessarily relate to the whole young child population. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you. I think this report is very, I think it's really important that we notice the progress of our own children's department for failing six years ago, being found to be inadequate. To come back to Barney, to which the director's answer was, well, that shows they should never have left in the first place. But it does actually show that what we do in growing our own social workers, and what we do in retaining them, and the fact that both our foster carers and our staff actually enjoy working for us, and some of the ones that are temporary or agency then convert to being full time for us. It means that the people that work within our department. I think it also shows the difference between administration that cares about children and young people, rather than one that's content to let them fail. In terms of your report, I think one of the things that, to an extent has already been covered in your comments, is related to child deprivation, which can be geographically located within the borough. This borough generally is a relatively high income borough, but there are certain parts that have really incredibly high levels of poverty, parts of my own ward being one of them around the North Circular, parts of your ward as well. Obviously, Collindale, Burnetoke, incredibly high levels of child poverty. One of the things that we probably need to look at is ensuring that there are services, and often part of the reason why poorer children don't have access to the hubs in Burnetoke, which are really ideally well placed. I may have given you already an answer to this, but what are the sorts of things that you and the administration are doing? It appears as to how to cope with it, and it's not a way to embarrass them, but it's an extra. The young people that go on that actually also get a decent lunch when they enjoy these activities as well. We can't actually do everything, but what we actually do to make sure that those that we know are in the greatest need get the help we can to actually help struggling parents, make sure that they know what they're entitled to, what the services are, what they can obtain, and how they can obtain support and continue to expand, which is certainly very fruitful and very well done. I think that's very reassuring to hear, and following up on that, I think one of the ways to remain vigilant is to constantly be on top of the data and make sure that you're monitoring the data that you're coming through. We know that Barnet, and particularly young people in Barnet, are not one homogenous group, so how much effort is put into looking at the set of children that we're talking about? How do you look at issues? I think also via health as well, I mean we've got health and we're being bored again tomorrow morning, certainly when there's the early checks on childhood and new birth, that is also then followed through. So all along the line, whether it be the early health, whether it be the hubs, whether it be the visits when regular, you know, things that they're supposed to do, that's the danger where people can fall through the cracks. But hopefully with the processes we have in place, it means that we actually have available now, that any time they feel in difficulty or stress or just need extra help and advice, that we have actually got the facilities there and the people to help them and try and get them. It's something that you've said, which is you can't help people who don't know. Very often, people who don't know, who you don't know, who don't reach out tend to be from far more diverse backgrounds. I can see Ben is desperate to come in there for a minute, but I'll just finish the plan-making, which is... Just to add through the safeguarding partnership, we've got a particular project across the whole partnership, really trying to identify children out of sight, so those that aren't registered with GPs, those that haven't come to... Thank you, Jack. My question actually links into what Councillor Mitchell was saying, but specifically to do with... Unless I hear any more... I have a general... Thank you for that. I have a general question, which is on the plan outlines, what you want to do with the priorities, but I would really like to know for some of them how you're going to do it. I was reading through it, I was like, this is all great, but I'd like to know more. Where can I find more information about how you're going to implement some of these priorities? There's a whole range of strategies and plans that sit behind this. There's a child and family early health strategy, there's all the education strategies. They're actually in the children and young people's plan listed. There's probably 10 or 11 of the key strategies that sit behind all of this. All of these will have an action plan and a set of KPIs, and a lot of them have their own board to check progress and how they're going. So it's not all the detail in this report or in the children and young people's plan, but the detail does sit behind it. If I could look at how one priority is being addressed, can I... I can point you in the right direction. Ben will assist you directly. All right, final point, I think, from Councillor Zinkin and Councillor Ambe. And unusually, Barnet is rather low on vaccination levels. And as a big borough, we must actually, of course, pull the average down. And so other boroughs are even further away from us than those figures imply. Now, those are 2021 figures. And earlier in the paper, you talk about the two questions of, and something that is so crucial, is, one, do we actually know why our vaccination rates are below 2%? You're below the threshold where you can stop an epidemic. Certainly, we're probably best to go in some more of the details that go to the Health and Wellbeing Board, because I know that when there's certainly been recently these various outbreaks of measles and if there was various communities that we thought were not having the uptake, we were having sort of parent champions and people that could work with that community to encourage them to get their children vaccinated. I still think there probably was, and this is probably all over, that post and probably during the pandemic, there was some sections of the community that were reluctant to get vaccinated. And it's overcoming that fear and getting the explanations through to give the benefits rather than people listening to what I think is misinformation about not having both themselves and their children vaccinated. But if Ben's got any more, he can enlighten me. I can add a bit to that. So I've asked a public health question, and actually we are in line with London. London generally is much lower than the national average. And the reason for that. The third box down, it says Barnet 80.2, London 89.2, England 79.9, age 13 of the family-friendly Barnet. I can add a little, I hope, to this. The figures, I'm trying to remember which, yeah, okay. There has been a huge amount of work on this. It is true that North Central London is below the London average. I think you need to look at London make-up because boroughs do vary significantly in terms of their vaccination update. And it is true that for something, for example, like measles, across London there have been real challenges in terms of driving back up the vaccination rate. And that's a combination of the problems that we had 20 years ago with the skepticism around measles vaccination and the tie to autism and to other kids. And actually one of the things that we've had going over the last 18 months is a project for catch-up measles vaccinations for those students going into university because actually they're particularly vulnerable going into university because they were not vaccinated during that period. But the reality is that North Central London has been lower than some of its neighboring regions. Barnet actually for most vaccinations is actually doing better than our four partners. There are, I think, three things that impact on it and are being worked on. I'll come back to that in a minute. There's been a particular challenge post-COVID because there was a huge amount of resistance and skepticism around health engagement in general, engagement around COVID and then engagement around COVID vaccination. And along with that, there was a real dip in terms of childhood vaccination. Some of that was around access to GPs or lack of access to GPs for vaccinations and some was actually families being very hesitant to pick up vaccinations. There's been a huge amount of work over the last 18 months to bring those levels back up. There has been generalized work. The vaccination sits with the NHS through the ICB, the Integrated Care Board for North Central London. But actually we've worked with them through public health to run promotional campaigns both face to face in hard copy flyers and online. We've also done a lot of work building on the relationships we developed during COVID with a range of our faith and community groups. And that's been a really, really important part. And you will know I think, Councillor Zinkin, that there have been some challenges within particularly the Orthodox Jewish community. And we've done a huge amount of work through the North London Jewish Forum in terms of the London Jewish Forum but particularly focused on -- I mean I have engaged with the Orthodox Jewish Forum on this issue and with some of the people who've been trying to help and I've made various suggestions about things they might do to get people to try and endorse vaccination programs. So I recognize what you're saying but what I'm anxious about is where we are -- The rates are going back up again, don't you? We want to know what the current rates are. We want to know whether we have any idea how much progress we've made. Sorry, can I just clarify my figures? If you've got the figures to hand out, you've really helped. Thank you. The figures that you're looking at are from the Children and Young People's Plan. The figures that you're looking at in that paper are from the Children and Young People's Plan, the appendix, which was done in April 23. And I've got the updated figures from public health and they are. So for MMR, London is 81.4% and Barnet is 81.6%. And then at MMR dose two at five years, London is 73.1% and Barnet is 74.1%. So we are actually above London. The threshold for vaccination is below that level and that's why there is such a drive across the NHS and local public health organizations across London. And NCL is no different from that, driving those levels up. It is absolutely getting that message across and there was a significant amount of work went on through the tail of the last term and then running up to the beginning of the school term this month to try to really drive that message for children's vaccination, MMR, but actually some of the other vaccinations as well. Because there has been some concern within Barnet that our neighboring boroughs, particularly to the west, have had a number of measles cases. And we have not as yet. But we're driving to make sure those go up. But you're absolutely right. These figures within the report are several years old. And it's been a major piece of work over the last 18 months. Last point from Councillor Ambe, I think, or maybe one from Councillor Meister. Councillor Ambe. My question is, do we sort of have data for the various groups within the borough? What do I mean by that? It's well documented that white working class boys and working class in the care system. And so do we have that data? And does that situation correlate with the child poverty? And what are we doing to sort of track those trends and sort of see what that track like with children in care? But yeah, we do track all of that. Councillor Ambe, if you want to see more details, I think Ben will meet with you. Because we can't do all of this in committee, but it's a very good point you've made. Maybe you can meet together and see if there's anything you want to raise further. And I hear the point you're making underneath. Is that okay for now? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Weiser, I want to move on as soon as I can. It's certainly, Chair. I was just going to say in response to Councillor Zinkin's question about what was the herd immunity. Quick Google search puts the World Health Organization says it's 95%. And the vaccination rate across the world was 81%. So that might help put the figures into perspective across the globe. But obviously, that's the entire population as well, not just children. Well, I think we know that COVID led to some populations being very suspicious. And in fact, withdrawing their children from vaccination programs. Just to finish up, if you, Councillor Zinkin, there are regular reports within the health and wellbeing board about infection rates and a range of other diseases, but also vaccination rates. Childhood immunizations are a part of the current health and wellbeing strategy and will be part of the next. And the Director of Public Health will be presenting next month, no, in November at the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee and will be part of her report there. So you are quite right to be concerned. But what I wouldn't want you to go away with was the impression that there is not significant work going on within Barnet and across NCL and indeed across London on this. Thank you. I want to move on. We can, of course, refer that bit back to the particular subcommittee that's dealing with this. Maybe nobody sits on that committee here, do they? The subcommittee? I think it's Phil Cohen's subject. Is it Julia Monasterian? We're talking about children's vaccination rates, aren't we? So we could accept this report, but ask that the chair of the subcommittee just make sure that we kept up to date and that's kept on their agenda. The chair might be considered for a task and finish group in coming years of how we can improve vaccination rates because it sounds like it falls across multiple overview and scrutiny committees. That might be a useful topic to look at in more detail. All right. Listen, these are all great things, but they're not what we need to do today. So we're going to note the report and thank the authors of the report and the team that's here. And we'll ask Julia Monasterian, who chairs the children's subcommittee, to report back to us when her team of directors of public health. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to item nine, which I think is relatively uncontroversial. The revised statement of licensing policy. We have Ella Smallcomb, the head of consumer and public protection, and Ash Shah, the service manager, trading standards and licensing. And you have up to five minutes if you wish to present your report. Bear in mind that half the people around this table sit on the licensing committee. You may wish to be brief. Thank you, chair. So this report presents the revised license to document required to review it once every five years. And we are. We have we have done so we've we've reviewed this. This has been out to public consultation. It's all partners as well that we work closely with the police. It sets out how we will deal with licensing applications. Also, how we will work questions should you wish to ask them. And we've brought this report to committee today for review and any comments, essentially. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to ask non-licensing committee members first. Councillor Rose. I thought I'd ask this question to my small business champion of the boroughs. The papers allude to that we want to see a late night economy that's also a safe one. Because you will be aware that the licensing authority actually has two functions. The administration. Just one question. Having the bit that I was less familiar with was the end bit of your report about the cumulative impact zone. And I suppose I've got two questions, which is one. If this is adopted, I don't know who adopts the cumulative impact zone. But if it's adopted, how will it be monitored is number one. My second question, I declare that I'm a West Finchley Councillor is. How do I put this politely? Most of the problematic areas seem to be in the south of the borough, except for West Finchley. Where I noticed the ambulance, alcohol, something or others, high. And a number of other challenges and also in fact density of population in West Finchley is more similar to the south of the borough than to other parts of the borough. So if this works, this cumulative impact zone, is there a suggestion it might be somewhere else, go somewhere else? Or is it just in that area and that area? [inaudible] Which is, has it been successful? Is it going to be renewed? Who makes that decision? [inaudible] That's a decision for you in another capacity. Okay. We have the last comment. I think Councillor Rich asked a really interesting question. Because I have always struggled with the various aspects of license. In the sense that there is a lot of legislation that's difficult in that sense, as burnt out. And also, if you look in clause 118, we did make an objection to a gambling establishment. And we lost because they were much better at it than we do at the last time. No, you lost because, we shouldn't be debating this now, but you lost because the statute is in favour of gambling. [inaudible] I was just going to say, it should be noted, and I note this on behalf of the members of my committee, sit on the subcommittee, that the legislation is what we work from, and the legislation is permissive. And therefore, actually, we start from a point of permissive legislation. Should we want this change, that's for a government to do. And unfortunately, the council's hands are often tied. I do, however, second Councillor's request that maybe training for us as ward representatives, to make representatives to not just licensing, but also planning. Because I think most of the training we get as Councillors is how to sit on those committees, rather than how to represent our residents at those committees on the other side of the table. Yeah, through the chair, sorry. We'll pick up both our common understatement licensing, and gambling premises licensing, and making representations. We'll pick that up with Ella and Ash, and put together some guidance from members around doing that. And also, on the planning side, we'll pick up with Fabian and his team, the committee I want, because you are kind of taking off your Councillor on a committee role, and being a ward representative role. So we'll take that forward into the member development. I went into the gambling establishment to find out what actually happened in there, not to make a bet. I thought he was going to tell us you lost 12 pounds. All right. Can we note the report? I mean, I think it's an uncontroversial report. We noted the point about training, which we'll take on, and thank the team who prepared it. Thank you very much. You don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless you wish to. This report, first quarter, budget forecast, Councillor Knacve again. He's got five minutes to tell us how he's going to crack the budget. Today's expenditure, I should say. This is item 10, pages 120 to 210. So Councillor Zinkin's going to move not to the labour benches, because we don't have labour benches here, but going to move to the corner, because he can hear more easily and ask the questions. Councillor Cane, would you like to join him, or are you going to sit there in splendid isolation? Most grateful, chair. This report was presented to cabinet yesterday, and what I'm going to say is essentially a summary of the remarks given last night. I apologise for the reiteration. I'm sure a lot of you watched it live on camera at the time. Councillor Zinkin was actually there. He had a front row seat, so you will be apprised of most of it. I should begin by saying that it is relevant that we've discussed the first quarter monitoring report at cabinet and now at overview and scrutiny consecutively. I would like that to be an indication of the seriousness with which we are proceeding with budget monitoring this particular year, and the view that we now take of the central pivotal role that financial sustainability takes within the entire administration's project. It will be fundamental in ensuring that we can deliver the full breadth of the imaginative aspirational agenda that the Labour administration came into 2022 wanting to deliver. And despite the best efforts of Liz trust and her coterie, we will achieve a good amount of it. So I began yesterday by setting some context, and I split the context into two distinct categories, national and local. So in the national context, yes, we've had 19 years of local conservative administrations financially mishandling the way in which the local authority runs its services, and nationally we've had a series of conservative governments that seem to have underfunded local government almost out of spite, unable to understand the pivotal role that local government plays within the lives of people up and down the country at a time when the same services that we are legally required to provide as demanded by government have increased the usage and the complexity of those needs has steadily increased, but the spending power of local authorities has dwindled and diminished in the same period of time. The local context relates naturally, as I mentioned, to the previous conservative administrations that Barnet has had, but also the almost lackadaisical nature with which finance has played its role within the local government, landscape, environment, almost ethos that has pervaded Barnet ever since. We were not aware of the scale of some of those deficiencies until we took power, and they have been accelerated and magnified by the mismanagement of government of the national budget. So that is, broadly speaking, the context with which we entered into this particular budget monitoring process. I proceeded thereafter to talk about what the report has to tell us. And I didn't want to sugarcoat it to cabinet and I shall not sugarcoat it to committee. It is serious. What we are faced with potentially, and I am very clear that this is a potential at this point because it is a forecast, we haven't reached the end of the year yet. This is what we think will be the end-of-year position if intervention isn't taken immediately and simply. What we are facing is a 20 million pound overspend at a time when our budget position is already at a suboptimal level. That is serious, and it's something that the administration does not take lightly in terms of the responsibility we have to the residents of Barnet to rectify. What have we done already and what do we plan to do hereafter is also laid out to a certain degree within the report. In the month of August, in the immediate aftermath of the report being issued to us, finance colleagues worked very diligently with myself, relevant cabinet members, executive directors of service areas and the leader to look in very fine detail at expenditure in every single service area. No service area was left unmonitored, unchallenged in terms of why expenditure was needed, why it was essential, why it was happening at the level that it was, why it was happening at a higher level than anticipated when we set the budget in February. Hereafter, we've got spending control panels that are happening four days a week to ensure that any potential future spend is justified on a daily basis by the directorates that have the most need for it. Adults and children, for instance, do have an ongoing need for recruitment, but it is important that not only do they not wait too long, but that that challenge appears as soon as the need arises. So that's a reflection of something that we have put in place immediately. And moving forward, we do have an organization-wide recovery plan that is currently being fully costed and will be published in full detail in November. We want to make sure that we don't issue any figures into the public domain that have not been fully verified. I shall leave my introduction there and invite any questions. Of course, I've got colleagues and officers with me for that purpose. Thank you, Chair. I can't see if you're indicating, but I'm sure that you are when I've seen Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Rose, Councillor David. Thank you, Chair. You did introduce this meeting by suggesting the perspective of the committee. But after that speech, I hope you will indulge me for a minute to be slightly party political before going into the detail, which is I fully understand why Councillor Knack said what he said. But my only comment, which is similar to the comment that I made at Cabinet last night, is we are now three years into participation. We are three years. We're in our third year. I think members should be indulgent. The Conservatives have never been good with numbers. But we're in this. But listen, friends, friends, if we're going to get through this in time. We're in the third year of the administration, and therefore it can't entirely be the fault of the national circumstance. And some of it must be due to the actions of the organisation itself. Now, I don't disagree with any of the things which the administration is doing to try and resolve the problem. My concern is with the scale of the project, which is something, again, we discussed last night. Because the figure of 20 million is after 7 million of savings, which are additional to what was in the budget. All those 7 million of savings are actually delivered. And that the savings that were planned in the budget are delivered at the level which is specified, which is about 85%, which is broadly the same as the rate at which savings have been delivered in previous years. But what that means is that even after all of that, and the 8 million that were put in from the pension scheme to try and help this year, and the 5 million of sill money that we put in to try and help this year, and the 18 million of reserves that we put in to try and help this year, that the underlying deficit, if you strip out those one-off things out, is nearly 50 million pounds a year. Which in the context of the point that has been well made, that we actually have obligations by law to support children and to support adults, that the 5% that was talked about in the press release which the administration issued, 20 million against 400 million, is unfortunately rather bigger than that in the context of the discretionary expenditure. And therefore, I do think that we should all recognize the scale of the challenge which the administration and officers have to try and balance the budget. And I think it's very important that residents understand the scale of that challenge. And my concern is that they're not going to get that from the press release which the administration issued. And, you know, I asked last night for the detail of the 7 million and what the governance was around that, because the 7 million cut is significant and it hadn't been to Cabinet, it was just announced as having happened. And I thought that was strange. And we've asked today that clearly there should be appropriate consultation and equalities impact assessments on any other deductions that have to be made. And of course, that's just the way the world is. But what it does mean is that this year impact of changes that were announced in November, it's almost impossible to save money. Before April, we may be able to save it for next year's budget. But in terms of the 20 million deficit this year, barring something unexpected occurring, it's going to be exceedingly difficult to recapture that even if we get 20 million of savings that we can bank for next year, which means that our reserves, the 28 million, are going to be almost completely wiped out. So all I would say is that I think that it's really important that we think about how the administration is going to explain to residents the scale of the problem which is faced. And much of that is nothing to do with the Labour government, nothing to do with the Conservative government. But it's all about the demographics of Barnet and the fact that our adult expenditure and our children's expenditure has been going up, and temporary accommodation expenditure has been going up year in, year out at accelerating rates. And unfortunately, Barnet's demographic with 80 care homes versus Enfield's demographic with five care homes is extraordinarily difficult in current circumstances. And somehow we collectively need to get government to recognise that, you know, if you have our demographic, then we need to get some degree of compensation for that demographic, otherwise we have an unsustainable circumstances. And it's nothing to do with national policy and it's all to do with what Barnet is, which is the Barnet we all love. There was quite a lot to feed back in, but obviously it's your discretion, Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, and I would like Dean to contribute to part of this. And at the very start, in terms of the scale of the problem, I should pay tribute to finance colleagues for the excoriating detail with which they've laid out the scale of the problem in the report, so I don't think in any way we are hiding it or sugarcoating it. It is laid out in very fine detail to the level of pressure from individual service directorates, so I'm not certain I can take the slight that we are in any way sugarcoating the scale. I will take your points somewhat in order, so the first one and the last, although you circle back to the 7.3 million, I'll deal with that in closing. So it is important for us to understand how we got in the context. I understand that we've been in administration for two years, but we didn't come from a standing start. Barnet existed before we were at the administration, and it is very, very important to understand the mismanagement and the prevailing factors that we inherited, if only to not return to that state of affairs. Financial sustainability and prudent fiscal management requires that you think into the long term and you don't repeat the mistakes of the past, so it is incredibly important that we do understand context in that level. In terms of your point about the 5% of the budget that is represented by overspending, it's somewhat misrepresenting because we've got legal obligations. This is a point that you made at Cabinet yesterday, and perhaps I was a little bit imprecise in the way that I handled the challenge. It is the belief of the administration that just because we have legal obligations that those obligations should be immune from scrutiny to the level of understanding why expenditure is happening as it is and whether or not that is absolutely essential in the professional judgment of the executive directors and indeed of the Cabinet member responsible for oversight of the area. That is the level of scrutiny that we are giving even statutory services. It is not going to be the case that under our administration they have a blank check to spend as much as they want unfettered, unmonitored, unchallenged, and that was what the Star Chambers process was involved in and what Cabinet members are currently still doing as part of our recovery plan process. Now, returning to the $7.3 million, this is where I will invite Dean to contribute. It's very important that people understand that at the moment these are forecasts. This is what would be the end-of-year position where nothing to happen, which is why the recovery plan itself, when it is presented next month in November, it is important that those figures are properly verified so that public and the wider Council are fully aware of precise numbers involved in delivering those particular elements of the recovery plan. But they will still be proposals at that stage. They are still options that we can leverage in the event that overspend occurs. And at that point, relevant challenge and assessment of the impact on service quality, delivery, et cetera, will occur. So it is something I need to reiterate that these are forecasts that we are taking seriously because the end-of-year position were they to transpire would be so serious. Now, in terms of the $7.3 million in particular, the reason why we were comfortable to include them within the Q1 monitoring to offset overspend relates to the fact that they are not particularly controversial management decisions that executive directors were entirely within their rights to make by the terms of reference of their time. And Dean would like to make some comments on that. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I think on last night cabinet there was a request to share a recovery plan 1, which I think is happening in due course. But just to follow up on that, I think the recovery plan 1 is based on forecasts. It is predominantly around probably less front-facing actions as in vacancy management and contract efficiencies, which directors have put up. I think recovery plan 2 will be go through the EQIA process like any kind of savings as part of the MTFS. And that will be shared in due course once numbers are worked up and worked through. I think the second point I was going to make in terms of the lobbying government front is that we are engaging with London councils around lobbying government before October's budget. And that will be things around support for temporary accommodation and extension of the homeless prevention grant. That would be things around housing benefits subsidy rates, which are set at 90 percent of 2011 levels. So we'll be lobbying on that basis and also for a fairer funding settlement for London and also an extension. So a three year funding plan. There's some certainty built into forward planning, which at the moment it's only per annum. So there are lobbying going on behind the scenes which should support the position. Hopefully this year we don't know what it will bring, but it will give us some financial security in terms of knowing our position for the next three years, which was held financial plan. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that Councillor Zinn can make, if I may define that. I think the idea that budgetary pressures are merely just demographics and things like that, I think completely belies the last 20 years. I'm afraid that his party ran the council and his party ran the country. I was preparing for this meeting, I was looking through some of the reports I used to send to my residents to keep them abreast of what was going on in the council. It was interesting to see some of the previous quarter one interim finance reports, particularly 2018, that talked about an expected 20 million pound overspend year and the medium term financial strategy black hole of 64 million pounds. I don't seem to remember the same concerns being expressed back then. I cannot accept your central premise, though, that these financial problems and the challenges that the council face are not driven by massive external factors. One of the largest increase in our costs this year relates to temporary accommodation. Part of our problem with temporary accommodation has been difficulties delivering housing over many, many years in this borough. I really just don't know what was more damaging to our ability to deliver affordable housing in this borough, whether it was interest rate rises, the former MP for Chipping Barnet opposing every proposed development in her constituency. Or maybe it was the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who used to approve housing schemes across the city, in fact, with 17% affordable delivery rates. You know, these things do have an impact, do they not? They have a cumulative impact, particularly now, because we're many years down the line, but many of these housing schemes have been provided with an underprovision of affordable housing because of that previous administration. That has an impact on us now, because we just don't have the affordable homes in particular that people need. That's driving up our temporary accommodation costs. I have to take Councillor Zinkin up on another thing he said. His party have just sent round their press release a week late in response to your publication of the paper, which talks about service cuts coming. I don't know whether it's a form of amnesia on their part, whether they've completely forgotten about the cuts that their administration made to things like the skips, our culture programmes, our libraries, our street cleaning services, children's services, park keepers, they even privatised the ratcatchers, if I remember correctly. In fact, the reason I decided to stand for this council, and I've been here ever since, was the Conservative Party closed the East Vinshire Advice Service, which was the premier service in this borough for giving help to people who desperately needed it. With benefits claims. So, in principle, I cannot accept what Councillor Zinkin has said. The idea that the terrible damage that the last 14 years of Conservative government in particular have had on our borough and on our finances, I simply do not accept. And then there's the other side of things, which is the last administration, it was all milk and honey. I don't think that's true. I think one of the other areas that is problematic for the council, which Councillor Zinkin did allude to, has been the problem that arose from internal borrowing. I guess my question to Councillor Naqvi would be, was it necessarily wise of the previous administration to view so much internal borrowing for capital projects when interest rates were low, thus diminishing our cash available? Was that wise and prudential? I might come back to some things if Councillor Naqvi responds on certain items. Thank you, Chair. I apologize, I wasn't actually at the beginning of the meeting when you wanted it to be bipartisan, but I'm fairly certain I would have... Let me be clear. Finance, of course, is always a controversial issue. The task of the overview of the Scrutin Committee, which is deliberately, as you know, chaired by a Labour member, with a Conservative member as Vice-Chair, is that having made the statements we all feel we need to make, to move on and see if we can be as constructive as we can be, which will assist the residents. We're not here as flag wavers for the cabinet, neither are we here to be oppositional, trying to find the best value it can. That was the import of my opening statement. So don't defer from, although I have to stand there from time to time, people will have points that they need to make. Wonderful. I feel sufficiently liberated. So, the temporary accommodation point is both well made and well taken, and I suspect my colleague, Deputy Leader, Councillor Hugh, would very much like me to mention that the specific circumstances of the housing stock in Barnet has put incredible pressure on our duty to provide temporary accommodation. It is a sector-wide issue. It's more acute in London because of the cost of temporary housing. But the very low amount of social housing stock that we have currently, which is obviously a decision of successive previous administrations, has made us more reliant on emergency nightly paid temporary accommodation, the cost of which has skyrocketed because of the economic factors that Councillor Mitchell referred to. So, yes, there are very specific Barnet factors which has made a sector-wide issue more acutely painful for us in financial terms. This is also true in adult social care for different reasons, but that's perhaps not pertinent at the moment. The treasury management point is also another factor that is very Barnet specific. It was a decision of the previous administration to fund capital financing and their growth agenda by internal borrowing rather than at going to external bodies at a time when interest rates were extraordinarily low. So now when we have capital financing obligations, and I want to stress that they are obligations, they're commitments that we are enjoying to forward and progress by dint of the fact that the previous administration entered into them, we now have no choice but to go out and borrow that money. Externalized is the technical term, externalized, that internally borrowed debt, which has put huge pressure on us in terms of debt financing. The current debt financing obligation in our revenue budget stands at $4.2 million, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that that number does not increase from there. It cannot reduce from that threshold. I should actually stress that. That is an obligation that we are needing to meet, and the increase of it is what we have any sort of ability to rectify at this stage. Naturally, retrospectively, anything can be judged to be a bad decision, but I suspect that even in rosier times where you faced with an ambitious growth agenda and you decided to raid your own coffers, it tends to be something that you take very seriously and you rectify when things are good, when the sun is shining, as they say, rather than allow future administrations to clean up your mess. So, the treasury management element is something that we are taking. Yeah, I think it's a very good question, a difficult one to answer. I think talking to colleagues from other councils, and there are some councils that are balancing their books on the mere fact that they did borrow when interest rates were low, and they can bank that cash, and it's covering their services, so there's winners in people who decided to do that. We had big cash reserves at the time and decided that that wasn't necessary. So, it's a difficult one. I think there is mention in the report, I think it's on the treasury section, about ways of managing capital financing, and we are looking at reviewing the capital program and also looking at getting our debts paid quicker. So, obviously, the cash position does really help capital financing because it makes us more liquid. So, there are things that we're looking at to improve that position overall. Rose, Councillor David, Councillor Dinkins. I was going to make a political point, but I've been advised against it by the chair. A more... There's a point you made about the alternative budgets that the Conservative administration, Conservative opposition have put forward for the past two years which were unfunded, unspecified. But the actual point I wanted to make was, you know, you've outlined in great detail, both in the paper and verbally, different spending control measures that you're looking to take, and you've said those are starting to be implemented, and what reassurances we as a committee who are scrutinizing, you know, the cabinet can get, that we're not about to have the same conversation in another three months. So, this is actually something I'm going to refer to Dean to talk to you in detail about. Basically, how the spending control measures going. Yeah, I mean, it's quite early days, to be perfectly honest. I mean, the spending controls in terms of the panel has only been in in the last couple of weeks. So, it is quite early days from what's gone out. So, it's difficult to really say the impact of those at this time. I know recruitment has been in the early part of the year have been beneficial, and a lot of recruitment has been held on the back of scrutiny at those panels. So, that's appeared through the actual spending controls themselves around the panel are quite early days to sort of say what the impact of that is at the moment. Can I start by thanking Councillor Zinkin. I agree with him that actually the situation we find ourselves is actually out of our conceit, that is focused. It's actually out of our control in the sense that the spent statutory that must be – those are costs that must be prepared. And the shortfall of funding that has been received, shortfall in grants. So, again, that is outside our control. So, there's not much anybody can do about that. But it's not completely factual that the Conservative government did not – their action was not part of that, because it is, if you think about the interest rate. My second question is what are the efficiencies? Every quarter we see the debt, the return of debtors rising, and I recognise that some of them, they are impossible. I don't know the individual ones, but I did ask this question previously. How does our debt compare to other burdens, because it seems quite losing money by not following this up, or at least drawing a line to it early enough. So, if somebody dies and five months, we are still accruing debt, and it doesn't make us any – there are efforts to arrest it on time. A very relevant point that came up at Cabinet yesterday, also in Section 151, Office of the Interim Officer that we have, agreed with you, Councillor, that it is something that needs attention. Dean, did you want to – Yes, I do remember the question from last opening, and we do have limited data on how we compare to other boroughs. We do have a small set of data around HRA dwelling, which I can forward on, but there's not many boroughs that we've got any information from, so it's quite difficult. However, it may be, it could be, but I think we are seeing an escalation in private client debt, in particular around the adult community, the vulnerable clients. The cost of living crisis has obviously impacted upon that, so we are seeing that increasing, and there is a big correlation, as I mentioned before, between recovery and debt, in terms of national capital financing positions, so it's more acute probably now than it's ever been. And we are exploring different options for debt recovery as well, there's different models in the market now. That's early days in that exploration, but it's something that we're looking into. Lovely. Yeah, I noticed that in the report, actually, as I was reading earlier, because we've got quite a high debt provision for housing support overpayment. It's not my area, but I'm quite happy to take that away and review and come back to you on that one, because it's worth a bit. And I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point as well, because I think it's a good point, and I think that's a good point, and I think that's a good point. And, you know, Councillor Nackry can accuse us and be precise as to what we've mismanaged, because actually, in terms of the particular item that's being discussed, Public Works loan board, which is where we borrow, doesn't actually allow you to borrow lots, unless you have, which is probably one of the best deals the council will ever have done. And maybe it was 30 years. So, so all I'm saying is that these are actually quite complicated issues. And it's wrong to say that we shouldn't have been using internal borrowing. What internal borrowing means is that we have to put money aside in relation to the existing borrowing we have, which means there is cash floating around, and the most efficient thing to do with that cash is to use it. But we shouldn't forget that in the two and a half years that this administration has existed, we have borrowed money to buy the houses from Redrow, and we've used money for other major capital projects. And so a lot of that cash has been used up, which is why we are now needing to borrow money to pay for the capital programme. The Redrow money was not included in the assumptions when we, as the administration, last put an MTFS together. So actually, this whole issue around borrowing and the implications of decisions that have been taken is a great deal more complicated than Councillor Laffree was perhaps indicating. So all I would say is that the past we are not going to, I think we can all agree to Councillor Ritchie's point, is that for whatever reason, we now face some quite difficult times. And part of what you need to do in difficult times is carry residence with you. And therefore, whatever we do, we need to be absolutely clear in our committee about the scale of the problem that we're facing when we know what it is, and what we're going to do about it. I'm glad to interrupt you. The purpose of this committee is to say are there any things that we would like cabinet to do, things it's already doing, for us to consider doing? That's really what we have our last four minutes to concentrate on. Any indications from Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Weisel? Thank you, chair. Councillor Zinkin did actually make a request, which was quite a bold one. Can you please tell us everything we did wrong? I'm certain to take that away. We'll give that some serious thought. Just going back to the issue of temporary accommodation, my understanding is that the clawback mechanisms are very, very negative, particularly when it comes to the HRA. What are the options that you're looking at that exist dealing with the TA overspend? Thank you very much. As it happens, my cabinet colleagues have been sat here very patiently and I suspect that Councillor Houston is much more across the detail of the temporary accommodation situation, as well as our housing revenue account. Could I offer him the residual time I have to discuss it, I think? Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Zinkin, obviously he said repeatedly that we've got to be honest with residents about the scale. Does that mean that there's a change in the opposition's position that when we have to make difficult decisions like we did with the garden waste increase last year, that we will have the support of the opposition in making those to balance the budget, rather than campaigns being run against the council trying to balance the budget just to stir up trouble with residents? The answer is that if you make the right decisions, we will make the wrong decisions. Councillor Zinkin, Councillor Cowie, please. My point is actually in relation to what Councillor Beale said, is one of the recommendations that I would like to put forward is that when the administration does consultation on proposals of any changes to services, that they listen to the consultation of the residents. Thank you. The exact question was in relation to temporary accommodation and the reason for -- I missed -- I'm happy to, yeah. As the officers that I've been dealing with say, I've used words like unprecedented in relation to the increase in the pressures on that budget. And there are a couple of causes to that. First of all, the market itself in relation to temporary accommodation has seen a very marked uptake in terms of cost. And you can work out how these two are related. There is one statistic which I quoted last night at cabinet, which just I think highlights the scale of this problem. New housing applications in the five months to the end of August 2024 were 65% more than the equivalent period in 2022. So that is a major, major increase in terms of demand for temporary accommodation. At the same time, the market has shown a real spike in cost. So it's a kind of double whammy of the need being going up considerably and the cost of the available accommodation going down. Some of it also to do with the housing pipeline, we obviously have our own housing pipeline. We try and deliver -- we're delivering new council-paid properties. Part of that is through the planning process where we get section 106, a housing association, a accommodation which is available for use by people who are nominated by the council from the council's waiting list. And that is hard to predict. And we have seen a lot of housing associations, development programs slowing up in the last year. And that's for a number of reasons. One of the biggest factors in terms of housing delivery is the interest rate spike. The fiscal event, that combination of basically costs going up, costs of borrowing going up in particular, but also cost of supplies and cost of labor. So it's been a perfect storm. And as Councillor Mitchell alluded to earlier, we have one of the six lowest stock of social housing in London. We're the second biggest borough. So, yes, it's a -- it is a perfect storm. Temporary accommodation comes out of the general fund. Colindale gardens has mitigated that by 100,000 a year, so that's an investment that is helping the general fund. I think it's, you know, building new housing. And as a country, getting that right is important. So you asked me about comments on temporary accommodation. That's the kind of summary of the current position. We are lobbying central government hard. Councillor Houston. I'm assuming now that we have no particular requirements after the report that we've had. And we will break for between two and five minutes. If you get back in two minutes, it's great. We are breaking. Can we resume the meeting now? Moving to item 12, task and finish groups. The owner has presented a report to you. Page pages two, five, and onwards, 286, task and finish group updates and narrative. Nothing greatly controversial here. So the report does have one new appendix, which might be of interest to members, which provides a visual snapshot of where each current task and finish group is at. Obviously, you've seen one of them tonight, which we've agreed will go to cabinet. The report and the others are included there as well, including their timescales of when they're going to particular committees to cabinet and when they're due for review. The second appendix also sets out more of a detailed kind of verbal update on each task and finish group. And otherwise, we're happy to take any questions. I'll add one thing on task and finish groups on appendix A, simply to hope the committee will agree that the chair and vice chair have suggested we review food banks. Food poverty may be too wide, but we look at something about how the council can respond now that the food hub is no longer being -- food bank hub is no longer being funded. How we can involve other people in that. Second thing is that dog fouling will now come later on in the year after the council's new initiative on dog fouling has taken place. And I'm pleased to say that a number of members have asked for a task and finish group on allotment governance and management. And that will go up the agenda appropriately. Can those be agreed? Thank you very much. That moves us on now to the next item on our agenda. Which is the cabinet forward plan. It is item 13, page 255 to 286. This is an opportunity for us to just say, is there anything we might like to look at? And at this point, Andrew from governance. Thank you, chair. Just to highlight that there is some work that's going on corporately looking at developing a much longer cabinet forward plan. So we're looking for the committee to have a lot of items that you might want to undertake pre-decision scrutiny of. The idea being that if you get there before cabinet make the decision, you can make the decision better with non-executive input. The forward plan is looking forward all the way through to kind of March 25. And so if you've got any items that you want to pre scrutinize earlier, we know the better. And we can ask the cabinet member and lead officers to back to that into timeline if possible. But a lot of other authorities cabinet for plans and you look forward to the next meeting or the one after. So this is really good. And it does give you an opportunity to scrutinize things. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just note that the food waste service. Is due to go to cabinet on the 5th of December 2024. That's the committee wish to pre scrutinize or post scrutinize. Or just put it all in the waste bin. Okay, we'll try and fit that into the agenda then if that's agreed by the committee. Okay, I'll leave that to governance to decide how we do that. And I then is there anything else on item on the cabinet for plan. We've had lots of cabinet members. Thank you to the leader of the deputy. Maybe thank all cabinet members who've been here today. Thank you. The leader is quietly sitting there. The deputy is also there. So anything on a cabinet for plan. Great. Thank you. Oh viewer scrutiny committee work program. I have already explained to you that we'll be reviewing how we make sure that we kept up to date with responses and both in the short term and the longer term. That will be a matter for future agenda. Let's have any comments on that, which is item 14 page 287298. Let me see if you want to ask anything. Thank you. Are there any items that I've decided to urgent, there are none. And I think that concludes our agenda. So once again, I do appreciate these are long meetings, and with lots of paperwork. I do think we're still doing a good job and I want to thank everybody who participates and also feel patient about the way I do things, even if you don't always think they're the right way. Thank you. And I thank our staff who've been here as well.

Transcript