The Public Accounts Select Committee met to discuss the council's financial performance, income collection strategies, and risk management. Councillors reviewed the period six monthly monitoring report, focusing on areas of overspend and potential risks, and they also discussed strategies for improving income collection and managing corporate resources risks. The committee agreed to note the reports presented, and decided against making a recommendation to Mayor and Cabinet regarding the council tax collection rate target, pending further review.

Period 6 Financial Monitoring

The committee reviewed the Period 6 Monthly Monitoring report, which presented the financial forecasts for 2025/26 as of 30 September 2025.

Key points from the report included:

• A general fund underspend of £3.7 million, which was largely attributed to the early delivery of £6.7 million of 2026/27 savings.
• An overspend of £2.5 million projected for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), specifically within the high needs block¹.
• The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was projected to balance at year-end.
• A council tax collection rate of 91%, below the targeted 96%, and a business rates collection rate of 99%, which was on track with the targeted rate.

Children and Adult Social Care Pressures

The committee discussed the increasing pressures on children's and adult social care. Councillor Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, raised concerns about the rising number of children under Section 17² of the Children Act 1989, and the potential debt related to special educational needs costs under the dedicated schools grant. Councillor Mark Jackson questioned the increase in packages and placements commitment in adult social care, and the drop in clawbacks on direct payments³.

Council Tax Collection Rates

Councillor Hau-Yu Tam, Deputy Leader of the Lewisham Green Group, raised concerns about the council tax collection rate, which was at 91%, lower than in many other London local authorities. There was discussion about reviewing the collection rate target, but it was decided to hold off until the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) report is available.

Income Collection

The committee reviewed a report on income collection, which outlined the council's efforts to improve income collection through the Debt Improvement Programme. The programme brought together leads from various departments, including finance, housing, sundry debt, and revenues and benefits.

Key achievements of the programme included:

• A 35.3% reduction in outstanding sundry debt, from £12.24 million to £7.915 million.
• A 77% reduction in outstanding HRA debt, from £2.05 million to £0.45 million.
• An improvement in the council tax collection rate from 90% to 91%.
• An increase in the level of debt with executors in adult social care, representing a more secure form of debt.

The committee discussed the importance of distinguishing between residents who can't pay and those who won't pay, and the challenges in identifying the difference between these groups.

Corporate Resources Risk Register

The committee reviewed the Corporate Resources Risk Register, which provides an update on risk management across the directorate. The register included nineteen risks, with eleven considered 'high', six 'medium', and two classed as 'low'.

Councillor James Rathbone, Chair, expressed concern about the loss of borrowing corporate buildings, which has been on the register for some time without resolution. He questioned why it was taking so long to arrange for a generator for the main council offices.

Councillor Chris Barnham noted that some of the risks seemed to be issues that had already materialised, and questioned whether the risk management was being managed properly. He also noted that in some cases, the target level of risk was still in the red.

Councillor John Paschoud raised concerns about the IT risks, and questioned at what point these risks would have a knock-on impact on the deliverability of IT change work.

Generator for Corporate Buildings

Catherine Nidd explained that the delay in arranging for a generator was due to the asset review, which was determining which building to put the generator in, and what size of generator was needed. She added that the council has generator arrangements that could be used in an absolute pinch.