The committee considered a report on proposed changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme. It was noted that a separate public consultation was in progress, and the cabinet will consider the committee's views alongside the public consultation responses in February 2025. The committee recommended that the cabinet consider what other councils in London were doing. The committee also noted the Cabinet Forward Plan and considered a proposal to add the Open Door Homes acquisitions update to the plan for June 2025. There were no objections, so this was agreed. The committee noted the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme and agreed to move their meeting from 5 June to 12 June. They also agreed to consider the budget papers on 30 January to allow members to make comments ahead of the final budget being produced. Finally, the committee considered two reports on the council's budget: the Chief Finance Officer Report – 2024/25 Quarter 2 Financial Forecast and 2024/25 Budget Management and the Business Planning and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-2030. These reports revealed a challenging financial position for the council, with an anticipated overspend of £25 million for 2024/25. The committee recommended that the cabinet consider how the budget consultation might be improved in future years, potentially by adopting a themed approach where each department could be scrutinized separately.

Council Tax Support Scheme

The committee considered a report proposing changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme that will be introduced in April 2025. Councillor Ammar Naqvi, the Cabinet Member for Financial Sustainability and Reducing Poverty, introduced the report, explaining that the scheme aims to support those on low incomes with their council tax while ensuring the scheme's costs are manageable for the council. The current scheme uses seven income bands to determine the percentage of support awarded to working-age applicants. There is no maximum council tax band cap, meaning that awards are calculated on the full liability of the property after any other applicable discounts. The report proposed changing the existing income bands and introducing a maximum council tax band cap to help balance the books.

Councillor Naqvi told the committee that,

When we approached budget setting, it was made very clear to all members of the local authority that no stone would be left unturned in our attempt to arrive at a balanced budget position in February of next year.

He explained that the council had previously considered reforming the scheme but had rejected this due to its impact on residents during a time of cost of living crisis. However, he said, the financial position of the council meant that they could no longer ignore this as a means of generating income.

Councillor Giulia Innocenti expressed concern about the negative impact of the scheme on residents, saying,

For these people, especially those on low income, presumably they won't be able to pay, which means that our debt collection or the amount that's owed to us will increase, which means that the cost to the council of trying to collect this debt will also incrementally increase with that.

She enquired about the cost of debt collection and asked how the savings associated with the scheme had been calculated. Alan Clark, Head of Finance for the Exchequer, explained that the council used a banded scheme that allows for some movement in people's incomes without impacting the council tax payments they make. He said that this was to avoid the situation that occurred when the council moved to Universal Credit, where people were regularly finding that their council tax payments were being reassessed, often weekly, because their income had changed slightly.

Mr Clark explained that,

When we moved to Universal Credit a few years ago, what we were finding under the old default scheme was that people were constantly, sometimes on a weekly basis, finding changes in their assessments, which pushed them further into trouble because they were constantly being rebuilt for council tax.

He said that the council had taken account of collection rates in modelling the impact of the proposed changes. In response to Councillor Innocenti's question about debt collection costs, he said that they expected a reduction in the collection rate of between 8% and 9%, which was included in their calculations.

Councillor Richard Cornelius raised concerns about the risk management processes, saying,

If you were able to say that, then it is very clear that option 4 does not maximise expected collection rates from people, because otherwise you couldn't have said that.

He said that other options would generate a higher level of savings and asked what argument would be made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) if the council had to apply for additional support to balance its budget. Councillor Naqvi said that he would not comment on hypothetical scenarios and that the decision was ultimately one for members to make. He said that,

The mere fact that we are now assessing a reform to the way in which we provide council tax support, I think, articulates the seriousness with which we are facing the financial difficulty we find ourselves in.

He said that they had to consider both the financial position of the council and the impact of any changes on residents, adding,

There are those that are maximally revenue-generating and yet would devastate those people at a time of cost of living crisis and cause extraordinary pain to residents of Barnet who look to the local authority for some amount of assistance to live ordinary and meaningful lives.

He said that the report represented an attempt to balance these competing needs.

Councillor Cornelius suggested that the committee recommend to the cabinet that they look at the council tax support scheme through the lens of the budget deficit and that they consider what other councils had been forced to do. He said that Croydon Council had significantly reduced their support scheme in recent years and asked what analysis had been done to assess what other councils were doing. The committee agreed to recommend that the cabinet consider what other local authorities were doing.

2024/25 Budget Management

Councillor Naqvi introduced the Chief Finance Officer Report, telling members that in-year monitoring was a crucial part of the budget process. He said that there was a tendency to forget about in-year budget monitoring once the budget-setting process for the next financial year began, but that the council remained committed to ensuring that expenditure was kept under review. He told members that there had been significant work to reset the budget-monitoring process, which included a more robust approach to forecasting. He said this had resulted in a more accurate picture of the council's revenue requirements, particularly in the high-spending statutory areas of adult social care, children's services, and temporary accommodation.

Councillor Naqvi said,

We've reset and rebuilt the entire process and given the finance function a far more central role in monitoring and realistic forecasting of expenditure moving forward.

He told the committee that this meant that, in reality, the overspend appeared to be higher than it would have been previously. He said that the council was currently forecasting an overspend of £25 million for the financial year, which was £5 million higher than anticipated in the first quarter.

Councillor Innocenti asked about a projected overspend of £41 million detailed in Table 3B of the report, saying,

What I am really struggling to understand is where 41 million pounds is.

Mr Bartle, the Section 151 Officer[^2], explained that this figure represented a drawdown of both revenue and capital reserves and that the table laid out the specific reserves that had been drawn down.

Councillor Cornelius asked Councillor Naqvi about the council's confidence in its budget setting, saying,

If I just make a general point, I mean, we're engaged in looking backwards and looking forwards, and as we look forwards, the question is, do we actually have confidence that a budget can be set that we can stick to?

He told Councillor Naqvi that he had been surprised by a response he had given in a previous meeting about debt owed by the NHS, where Councillor Naqvi had said that he was unsure if the figure of £25 million was correct. He asked if the council now had confidence that the figures in the budget were correct.

Councillor Naqvi told Councillor Cornelius that a new approach to forecasting had been introduced that uses [mosaic data](https://www.experian.co.uk/business/marketing-services/products/mosaic.html) on a rolling basis to predict the demographic pressures that the council faces.

Councillor Cornelius interjected, asking Councillor Naqvi to,

speak in simpler terms

The chair intervened, explaining that Councillor Naqvi was saying that he had introduced a new system that he was more confident in. Councillor Cornelius pressed Councillor Naqvi about the NHS debt, asking for confirmation that the money was owed and would be paid to the council. Councillor Naqvi said that he was confident that the NHS would repay the debt. Dean Langsdon, the Assistant Director of Finance, intervened, telling the committee that the NHS had, in fact, made a payment of £11.2 million that day. He told members that the total debt currently stood at £36 million and that £26 million of this had been raised recently. He said that the council was confident that the adult social care debt would be repaid, but that there were challenges associated with collecting money owed for children's services.

Adult Social Care

Councillor Paul Edwards, the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, introduced the report on adult social care. He highlighted the demographic pressures on the adult social care budget, telling the committee that people are living longer, that the last 20 years of a person's life are the most expensive, and that this is creating a significant challenge for the council. He explained that the Care Act 2014 introduced a new approach to social care, which meant that support needed to be tailored to the specific needs of individuals rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach.

Councillor Edwards said,

Those of us who are as old as me will remember when people reached the age of 100, they'd get a card from the Queen and it would be on the news. These days, so many people are reaching the age of 100, that doesn't happen anymore.

He told members that the council was obliged to deliver these services but that they were expensive to provide. The committee considered a proposal to save £1.85 million from the Household Support Fund grant. Councillor Zinkin said that he could not understand how the council could find an additional £1.85 million from the grant that did not exist the previous year and asked officers to explain what this saving meant in practice.

Ms Jessica Bains-Holmes, the council's lead on the Household Support Fund, explained that the council was making the assumption that the fund would be extended and that it would receive a similar allocation to the current year. She said that they intended to change the way the grant is used, saying,

What we're looking at here is something that is a much more nuanced approach where we can invest some of that funding into our frontline services so that those people can be supported out of food insecurity, out of poverty.

She explained that this represented a change in approach, which would allow the council to take a more strength-based approach and better target the money.

Councillor Zinkin said that he was concerned about the impact of the change on the voluntary and community sector, asking if the saving meant that they would be receiving £2 million less for providing services to vulnerable adults. Dawn Wakeling, the Executive Director of Adults and Health, responded that the voluntary sector currently uses the Household Support Fund to provide vouchers to residents and that this money was not used to fund core contract services provided by organisations like Age UK Barnet.

Councillor Zinkin pressed Ms Bains-Holmes on the matter, saying,

I'm sorry, I'm still very confused. Because if the council is keeping this money to redirect it, and therefore if it's a saving, it must be substituting for other money, even say better use of it must mean that the voluntary and community sector who previously had this money is a million pounds less.

He asked what impact this would have on those affected and if it was clear in the consultation document what this saving actually meant in practice. Ms Bains-Holmes responded, saying,

One of the things that we recognise has been challenging for some of our voluntary community sector providers is they don't means test people.

She said that this meant the money was not always going to those in greatest need and that the council intended to bring the money back in-house to allow for better targeting of it. Councillor Naqvi added,

This was money that previously went out into the voluntary community sector and went straight through to individuals and doesn't represent any impact on the services those providers can still deliver.

Councillor Zinkin said that he was still confused and asked for a note to be written explaining how the saving would be achieved. Councillor Phil Cohen asked about the increasing pressures on the Adult Social Care budget, in particular those pressures detailed in the pressures and growth table for 2025/26. He said that he appreciated that much of the adult social care work was statutory and that savings were difficult to find, but asked if there was scope to reduce these pressures, particularly in light of the council's financial position.

Councillor Naqvi responded, saying that the council now had a much more sophisticated approach to forecasting, which included taking into account both demographic growth and the increasing complexity of care cases. He said,

We now use what's called an autoregressive modelling system that uses mosaic data on a rolling basis to make our forecasting data, which has now been factored in, not just to in-year, but we're looking…

He told the committee that they had been provided with a detailed presentation about the new forecasting model and that they were confident in its accuracy. Ms Wakeling added that the council did not want to underestimate pressures.

Councillor Cohen asked how the council would deal with these pressures in budget discussions with central government, asking,

When we go to, when we look at the budget and if and when we have to ask for extra funds from the government, will we be stressing the particular pressures that Barnet faces in terms of the, you know, the number of older people in the country, the number of informal carers, the number of people discharged, will that be part of the case that we can make for being supported?

Councillor Naqvi said that he would not be drawn on hypothetical situations, but that there were Barnet-specific factors that made pressures more acute in the borough. He told the committee that they should bear this in mind when the budget was set.

Councillor Alex Prager asked about the savings that have been identified in the Medium Term Financial Strategy for the Adult Social Care department. He said that over £16 million of savings had been identified in the department, which accounted for 63% of the council's total savings, and asked how confident officers were that these savings were achievable given the pressures on the department. Councillor Naqvi said that,

By its nature, savings proposals are an iterative process.

He told Councillor Prager that they had gone through a detailed process of identifying savings, including an in-depth review of expenditure in each department. He said that this had resulted in a first set of proposals, and that,

about 85% of proposed efficiencies are achieved in any robust budget setting exercise.

Councillor Prager asked if he could clarify if Councillor Naqvi was saying that he was confident that at least 85% of the savings were achievable. Councillor Naqvi responded that he believed that the changes to the budget process meant that they could be more confident that the savings would be realised.

Ms Wakeling added that,

In terms of the savings plans that we have put forward, they all have plans, they've all been modelled, and we have a pretty strong track record delivering our savings.

She told the committee that they had not put forward savings proposals that matched the pressures on the department, saying that this was because she could not deliver those savings, as that would mean making arbitrary cuts to the service. She said that they had only proposed savings that they were confident they could deliver.

Children's Services

Councillor Pauline Coakley Webb, the Cabinet Member for Family Friendly Barnet, introduced the report on the Children's Services budget. She told the committee that a large part of the department's work was statutory and that it was therefore difficult to predict each year what demands the service would face. She explained that the cost of placements, particularly those for vulnerable children, had increased significantly. She told members that the council had recently invested in a new children's home in Whetstone, which was due to open shortly.

Councillor Ella Rose asked Councillor Coakley Webb about the impact of recently announced government funding pots, particularly those intended to support early years provision and children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Chris Munday, the Director of Children's Services, responded, saying,

The SCN1 won't because it's predominantly going to go through the high needs block, which particularly helps the council with its costs for special educational needs around the development of education, health and care plans, or transport, which are the key costs that the council picks up.

He explained that there was a new grant for family and early help services but that they would not know how much they would be allocated until the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was published on 19 December. Councillor Julia Monasterio joined the meeting online. She asked about the council's strength-based approach to social care, asking how this could be used to achieve savings and how they could ensure that it was not being used to mask cuts. Mr Munday responded, explaining that the council takes a resilience-based approach to working with children, saying,

And the key aim for that piece of work is to ensure that children remain with their families, whether that's their birth parents or with extended family, which is in line with the government's aspirations.

He told Councillor Monasterio that this had helped reduce the number of children coming into care, explaining that it was care costs that put the greatest strain on the budget.

Councillor Emma Whysall asked about transport costs for SEND children, suggesting that savings might be achieved by coordinating transport for different children. She said,

Obviously, one of the big pressures we have is transport, and obviously, we tend to look at each individual child, as we should, as each individual child. But what do we do to look at how we can dovetail, say, child A who has to be dropped off here at 9 o'clock and child B who's picked up five minutes around the corner at 9:30 to try and reduce those costs where we can by cross-referencing children and working to reduce our costs in that way?

Councillor Coakley Webb replied, saying that the council already undertakes detailed route planning to coordinate transport, adding,

Our major approach in terms of savings in this area though is to try and encourage more people to use personal travel budgets and get themselves to school.

She told Councillor Whysall that the council had seen a large increase in the number of children requiring transport post Covid-19, when parents were reluctant to allow their children to travel on public transport. She said that the council was trying to encourage families to use personal budgets to get their children to school, saying that this would increase their independence.

Councillor David Longstaff paid tribute to Mr Munday's work in Children's Services, telling the committee that he had done a brilliant job in a difficult role. He said that Mr Munday was leaving his post having successfully rebuilt the department from a challenging starting point.

Councillor Longstaff asked about a proposed 50% reduction in the management team, saying,

And as far as I can tell there's a 50% in the restructure of the management team. It may be 50%, it may be a bit less, bit more. And I was just wondering if you could a. explain the new management layout and b. what impact would you expect to see from that change, that depletion in the management, assuming that I've got that right.

The chair intervened, saying that a discussion about the new senior management structure was not appropriate for the meeting, as the matter was currently being considered by the employment sub-committee.

Councillor Naqvi told Councillor Longstaff that all areas of expenditure were being considered as part of the budget process, saying,

Naturally every single avenue of expenditure is being considered, including that relating to how the organisation functions.

He explained that the acting chief executive was developing a new senior management structure and that it was intended that there would be no impact on the quality of service as a result of the restructure.

Councillor Longstaff pressed Councillor Naqvi about the potential impact of the changes, saying,

So you're saying now to me now what I'm hearing because the children are the most important thing in this discussion. We've had we've had the resignation of a chief executive. We've got an acting chief executive, interim chief executive, the director of children's services and the cabinet is looking at the senior management structure.

He suggested that this was an unsatisfactory situation. Councillor Naqvi responded that no decisions had been taken about the senior management structure and that the proposals were currently out for consultation. Councillor Zinkin added,

I would simply say that there seems to be an assumption that these decisions have already been made. They haven't.

He told Councillor Longstaff that the proposals were out for consultation for 45 days and that a report would be brought back to the employment sub-committee in the new year.

Councillor Zinkin went on to ask Mr Munday about the impact of VAT on independent schools. He said that the committee had done some work reviewing the impact of VAT on independent schools and had met with the Department for Education.

Mr Munday told the committee,

We have had some applications from schools to become maintained schools, which we are exploring at the moment, which will have a budgetary impact on the council but will also bring additional income into the school's budget because each child contributes to the budget.

He said that the council was concerned about the impact on strictly orthodox Jewish schools, which he believed were unlikely to transfer into the state sector. He said that he was concerned that this could lead to an increase in the number of children being home educated, especially if the Children and Families Bill is enacted.

Councillor Zinkin asked Mr Munday to explain how savings of over £2 million would be achieved from restructuring the commissioning, help and protection, and corporate parenting services in the Children's Services department and how this could be achieved without any impact on customer satisfaction.

Mr Munday responded, saying that,

The savings that we're intending to take in terms of staffing are those that don't have frontline responsibilities.

He told the committee that this meant that the savings would not impact directly on children and families. He said that the corporate parenting savings would be achieved by charging the Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children Grant to the correct budget heading.

Councillor Zinkin asked about a proposed saving of £1 million relating to corporate parenting and health income. Mr Munday replied that this saving was a net zero figure, saying that he had included a £1 million pressure in the pressures table relating to health contributions to placements.

Councillor Zinkin said that,

I mean, in respect of, I mean we actually had a bells board[^3] meeting today, and it's just really apparent, especially how the parent carers and how young people really appreciate the way they've been brought on board and listened to in terms of asking them and consulting with them on anything that affects them.

He said that this was a culture he hoped would continue.

Temporary Accommodation

Councillor Ross Houston, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration, introduced the report on the Temporary Accommodation budget. He told the committee that temporary accommodation was a London-wide problem and that most London boroughs were struggling with rising costs and increasing demand.

Councillor Houston said,

There are almost 90,000 children living in temporary accommodation in London. That's one homeless child in every London classroom at least.

He said that the council had seen a huge increase in the number of homelessness applications, telling members that in the first quarter of this year, the council received 950 new applications.

Councillor Houston said that,

In quarter two, we had 1,015 new housing applications.

He explained that this was more than double the number they had received two years previously. He told the committee that they had seen a sharp increase in the cost of emergency nightly paid accommodation, which he said was now over £8,000 per unit per year.

Councillor Houston said that,

The combination of supply pressures, the cost of the accommodation that is available and the demand which has gone up… I have to say Barnet Group have put in a lot of work in terms of prevention because one of the best things you can do is to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place.

He told members that the council's housing company, The Barnet Group, had done a lot of work to prevent homelessness, but that despite this, the council was facing significant pressures on the budget.

Councillor Kath McGuirk asked Councillor Naqvi how the council intended to reduce the cost of temporary accommodation in the context of rising interest rates, which she said had impacted the supply of new housing. Councillor Naqvi responded, saying,

One of the things that I wanted to add as part of the scene-setting exercise for this particular part of the budget is the long-term consequences of the interest rate spike affected by the Liz Truss fiscal event.

He explained that increased mortgage rates had resulted in many private landlords withdrawing their properties from the market, which had reduced the supply of available homes and forced the council to use more expensive emergency accommodation to meet its statutory duty to house homeless people.

Councillor Naqvi told the committee that,

That, coupled with the fact that we have the sixth lowest stock of social homes in London, has meant that we are overly reliant in Barnet on temporary, emergency, nightly paid accommodation, bed and breakfast, hotel rooms, etc.

Councillor McGuirk suggested that there should be a separate meeting to consider potential solutions to the issue, saying that recent planning reforms could provide a way of addressing the shortage of social housing.

Councillor Houston said,

I mean, I know this is close to your heart, Councillor McGuirk, and as it is something called, you know, people around the table, this is something that we all are concerned about.

He told members that dealing with the supply of new housing was a key priority for the council, saying that,

I would argue actually that having the sixth lowest housing stock means that Barnet has traditionally not been doing its fair share of lifting in relation to affordability in housing in London.

He said that the council would be lobbying central government to try and ensure that as much of the new housing in the borough is affordable, saying,

And believe you me, we will make the ask.

Councillor Cornelius asked if there were plans to control demand as well as increasing supply. He said,

I get the idea that you have to increase the supply, but I just wonder whether we are trying to solve London's housing problem rather than Barnet's problem.

Councillor Houston said that the Barnet Group had been doing a lot of work around homelessness prevention, saying that keeping people in their homes was key to reducing demand.

Councillor Whysall asked if the council was being used as a soft touch by central government and other boroughs, saying that it seemed that people were being placed in temporary accommodation in Barnet rather than other areas. Kate Laffan, the Group Director of Resident Services at the Barnet Group, responded that Barnet had always been a destination borough for people from other areas, adding,

I think 100 years ago it was the case. 150 years ago, people come to London, because London is the capital, and it's where the jobs and opportunities are. You can go back to the Huguenots and beyond, and that's part of the nature of London as a global city.

She told the committee that they had done a lot of work to remodel their approach to homelessness, including increasing their focus on prevention. She said that this was paying off, saying that,

We do around 400 this year in terms of PRS[^4] lettings.

Councillor Cornelius asked if the general fund proposals were being used to generate income for the council or to build social housing. Councillor Houston responded that they were intended to both generate income and increase the supply of affordable housing. He said that,

The general fund proposals are the other income-generating, and actually, there are some sites that have already come forward in relation to the general income, and that's good for the borough's bottom line in relation to the general fund in the future.

Councillor Cornelius asked Councillor Houston about the quality of some of the new housing developments, suggesting that,

some of the properties that are getting planning consent now are not actually an improvement in standard.

Councillor Houston told the committee that they have a good planning department and that national legislation also applies to the quality of housing.

Councillor Innocenti asked about the impact of the housing crisis on rent levels, asking if there was anything the council could do to cap rent rises. Councillor Houston said,

Yeah, supply does affect rent levels, undoubtedly.

He said that controlling rents was a decision for central government, and that the mayor of London was in favour of introducing rent control measures. He said,

Obviously, there has to be a return on…

He said that rent controls need to be introduced sensibly so that they did not worsen the supply problem.

The Environment

Councillor Alan Schneiderman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change, introduced the report on the Environment department budget. Councillor Zinkin asked Councillor Schneiderman to explain a projected increase in expenditure of £75,000 on garden waste collection, which he said appeared to be driven by the increasing price of green waste. He asked if Councillor Schneiderman could explain how this related to an anticipated increase in income of £98,000 from reviewing the price of green waste. Craig Miller, the Executive Director of Environment, responded, saying that the cost pressure related to a small reduction in the number of people subscribing to the service following the price increase. He said that,

There were a vast majority of customers continuing to subscribe to the service, slightly less than we had forecast, which is why that small pressure is in there.

Councillor Zinkin asked about the income projections, asking what they were based on. Mr Miller replied that the figures were taken from the current fees and charges consultation document for the new financial year.

Councillor Zinkin then asked about the impact of parking charges on the budget, saying,

Parking charges. So you've got a consultation which ends on the 17th of December in regards to parking charges being a minimum of £3.50. What impact will that have on the budget?

Councillor Schneiderman responded that the focus of the consultation was on promoting active travel and that it was not intended as a revenue-raising measure.

Councillor Zinkin said,

That's exactly my question. So if it is to deter people from using their car, which is what it is, to move people onto buses etc. What impact will that have on the budget?

Mr Miller said that the council had factored in a potential reduction in the number of people using their cars into their modelling and that,

we would expect more income to come into the council.

Councillor Zinkin asked about a service pressure of £1.5 million relating to controlled parking zones (CPZs). He noted that the same figure had been in the budget the previous year and asked why it was not going down. Councillor Schneiderman replied,

As you know, we're reviewing the CPZ proposals that your administration introduced to try and see if we can make them more in tune with the needs and desires of residents.

He said that the council was currently reviewing the CPZ policy.

Councillor Zinkin said that he was confused by the explanation, asking when the £1.5 million pressure was likely to materialise. Councillor Schneiderman said that the council was currently reviewing the CPZ policy and that they would be able to model the income generated once a new policy was in place.

Councillor Zinkin then asked about a proposal to reduce the frequency of street cleansing, asking what it meant in practice. Mr Miller responded, saying that the council was reviewing the current street cleansing model, which he said involved cleansing residential roads four times a year. He said,

The impact of that has been such that we can now review that and amend and move to a different cleanse roads twice but support that with reactive services around spills, beef clearance, graffiti, and those kinds of things which provide an operational efficiency for us.

Councillor Schneiderman added,

It's important to say on that that we will not be going back to the purely reactive service that you introduced that had really serious effects on cleanliness across the borough.

He told Councillor Zinkin that they would be maintaining the current standards.

Councillor Zinkin asked about a proposal to change the skip collection service, noting that the report said the council was considering moving to a weekend operation and that this was anticipated to save £375,000. He asked what the original budget was for the neighborhood skip service and what reduction was being reviewed.

Mr Miller replied, saying that the saving was achievable because the weekend service would operate using an overtime model rather than using dedicated staff. Councillor Naqvi added that the change would improve service delivery, saying that,

Moving to a weekend model, which would make it more accessible to a greater number of residents, is exactly what residents require, and it just so happens to save us some money as well.

Councillor Zinkin said that he did not understand the saving, as weekend operations were typically more expensive.

Councillor Cornelius said that he was concerned that many of the budget lines were unclear, saying,

I think the thing that we've found most perplexing this evening is trying to actually understand what the individual line items actually mean in terms of how the savings are going to be achieved.

He said that he was concerned about the impact of this on the public consultation, as he said it was difficult to understand how residents could comment if they did not understand what the cost savings actually were.

Councillor Cornelius suggested that,

Maybe that would help some members of the committee.

Councillor Longstaff suggested that the committee could recommend that the cabinet consider how the consultation on the budget could be improved. Councillor Cornelius added that this could be achieved by having departmental budget meetings. The chair suggested