Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Finance will attend the meeting in order to be held to account for matters within the remit of this committee. 

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Jarrett attended the meeting to be held to account for the area of his portfolio that fell within the remit of this committee.  A number of Members asked questions and commented and Councillor Jarrett responded as follows: -

• The all encompassing hotline for reporting all potential fraud building on the existing benefit fraud hotline – It was noted that the introduction of this helpline was a welcome development.

• Localisation of Council Tax Support – This was an issue that affected a large number of people in Medway and imposed on the Council as part of the deficit recovery agenda for the Government. The supposed 10% reduction in funding was actually nearer 19% for the Council. The Government had offered an interim relief scheme that the Council had not been able to take up because it would have left a balance of £1.6 million to find. However, other local authorities that had introduced schemes with lower reduction in benefit, using the non-recurring interim relief would have to return to their taxpayers with revised positions at some point in the future and therefore it was considered that the way in which Medway had set its budget was considered to be more sustainable.

Whilst it was not possible to provide an estimate of the number of persons who may default on their Council Tax bills at this early stage an assurance was given that the Council would do all it could to help those in genuine hardship.

·        Contracts and tendering procedures, in particular the lateness of recent Social Fund and Health Watch contracts and the way in which these contracts had been let – The new Category Management regime was now in place and this would enable the Council to employ relevant experts and specialists to ensure that contracts and the tendering processes were carried out in a timely manner.

·        The possibility of helping traders across Medway through the Business rates in 2014/15 – In response to the debate on Item 5 on the agenda (minute 971 refers), the Portfolio Holder stated that to single out Chatham High Street for possible business rate relief would not be appropriate when the Pentagon Centre had an impact on the level of vacant premises. In addition, a blanket approach of say 10% discount for all traders may not be right for every business as some might need help whilst others may not. Individual businesses could apply for rate relief in their own right and this was the method to be encouraged should any individual trader consider that they were experiencing difficulties. On this basis, had decision 61/2013 been referred back to Cabinet for consideration, it was most likely that Cabinet would have adopted its previous position.

The Portfolio Holder undertook to give further thought to a number of points raised during the debate, namely that the area of Chatham City Centre could benefit from being defined and opportunities taken to energise Chatham High Street. It was recognised that the area of Chatham High Street lacked any form of nightlife and did not have as much going on in its centre as other areas of Medway where there were strong historic traditions.

·        The recent marketing of the Adult Education Centre in Gillingham – The recent outcome of the disposal of the Adult Education Centre was disappointing and had been the subject of discussion with relevant officers within the Property Team and the Monitoring Officer. Future disposals would be handled differently.

·        Following the localisation of Council Tax, the potential level of Council Tax that may not be collected – Over a 5 year period, the Council had collected 98.6% of Council Tax due. It was therefore necessary to take into account that if an individual did not pay their Council Tax in the first year, it may be paid at a later date. As the new benefits regime had only come into effect on 1 April 2013 it was not possible to predict the level of Council Tax that would not be collected but this would be the subject of discussion with the Chief Finance Officer and information would be circulated in a Briefing Note.

·        An update on the briefing note that had been requested on the systems used for card payments and the level of compliance with the RCI DSS standards – This would be circulated.

·        An update on Better for Less and whether it was on schedule -  Better For Less was currently on schedule and would reach a savings target of just under £6 million.

·        Modifications to press releases to remove such terms such as ‘bedroom tax’ – All Council press releases were non political and, as the term ‘bedroom tax’ was a political term, this would not be used in any press releases in the future.

·        The number of people, especially single women, who would be impacted by the recent changes to the Housing Benefits system and how the Council are mitigating against this – The Council would help genuine cases by assessing each case on its merits.

·        Where Better For Less had brought ‘Better’ and the areas protected from savings under ‘Better for Less’ – Recurring savings of £6 million had been achieved to date and service delivery maintained. Areas of success included Customer Contact, Social Workers in Adult Social Care and Category Management.

Better for Less had safeguarded jobs and whilst a severance fund had been set up there had been few redundancies and this had helped with continuity of services.

·        Possible expanded use of motion sensor lighting (currently provided in The Brook Car Park) to other external car parks – Whilst this could be considered for introduction at other external car parks, there were capital costs of installing such equipment to be taken into account.

·        Savings to be achieved under the proposed Facilities Management arrangement with NORSE  - A member presentation was planned for the near future on the NORSE proposal which would cover the issue of liability should the joint venture fail. The background of NORSE was explained along with the potential savings anticipated to be achieved during the early years of the agreement. Whilst NORSE operated across the Country, they did not currently have a foothold in the South East and therefore the future opportunity for trading services was considerable. As a partner in the joint venture, Medway Council would be a financial recipient from the growth of the business.

Staff would transfer over to NORSE as TUPE would apply.

The Cabinet had agreed that the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive a quarterly report on the joint venture with NORSE.

·        The regularity of monitoring reports on the Council Plan – This was currently under discussion and it was likely that in the future there would be an increased level of reporting on Council Plan Monitoring. Such reports reflected that Medway was a dynamic, evolving organisation. It was a matter for this Committee to develop thinking on the role and responsibilities of Overview and Scrutiny Committees in relation to Council Plan Monitoring

·        Whether all Councillors could have sight of papers circulated at Council so the accuracy could be checked with specific reference to the budget paper circulated on 21 February in which there had been an error – It was confirmed that the paper referred to had been checked in advance of being circulated but the error had slipped through the net. Lessons had been learnt for the future.

·        Whether it was acceptable that Parish precepts had risen by 12%, without capping, particularly as many Parish Councillors were not elected but seconded onto Parish Councils – It was stressed that  the make up of individual Parish Councils differed and therefore it was not appropriate to comment upon whether or not the Parish Councillors were elected or not. Councillor Jarrett stated that in his opinion, local authorities should be free to set a rate of tax that they wished to and then be answerable to the electorate.

·        The potential for expanding the joint venture with NORSE to include outsourcing of other Council functions such as care homes recently mentioned at Health and Adult Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee – It was confirmed that the timing of entering into the joint venture with NORSE did not coincide with outsourcing of care homes but once NORSE was set up and established, the Council would investigate adding other services.

·        The liabilities for the Council should NORSE fall into financial difficulties - Legal agreements regarding NORSE were still being finalised but that it would be a Company limited by guarantee. This issue would be covered in the all member briefing.

·        The anticipated end date of works to Medway Crematorium and whether the works have gone to schedule – It was acknowledged that there had been a delay in replacing the cremator at Medway Crematorium due to one of the contractors. However all issues had now been resolved. The Monitoring Officer would be requested to email members a briefing note advising the completion date of the contract and detailing the works undertaken and reasons for the delay. In addition, details would be circulated as to the new cremators compliance regarding mercury abatement.

·        Concerns that the Customer Contact Number had provided unhelpful pre-recorded information regarding Council Tax – It was acknowledged that there had been an unfortunate issue regarding the message service on this line and this matter had already been referred to the Assistant Director – Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance for attention. The Chief Finance Officer was requested to check that this had now been corrected.

Decision:

The Portfolio Holder for Finance was thanked for his attendance and the answers that he provided to the committee.