Questions for the Policy & Resources Committee on 20 February

The agenda for the  Policy & Resources Committee on 20 February is jam packed with the papers running to over 700 pages. With enough time I suspect I could have identified 50+ questions but with so little time I managed just 21. The agenda has a number of vital reports. Brexit contingency planning could have massive implication for care staff but I don't see evidence of Barnet actively tackling these issues. The budget is also a massive issue with £20 million of cuts as well as a £5.3 million drawdown from reserves next year. Whether the saving will be achievable is another matter and my big concern is that senior managers are signing up to savings that simply aren't deliverable. It looks like there is an £875,000 overspend on streetscene who are responsible for bin collections. We have not been told the true cost of the huge number of additional agency staff and overtime, but this figure seems to suggest the cost is much higher than people were expecting.
Critically, I a still not convinced we are getting accurate cost figures. The report publishes the cost of agency staff and suggests the total cost to date is £12.05 million. However, I monitor the payments to suppliers which shows that the agency staff cost from the main supplier Matrix (and its predecessor Comensura) is £13.39 million and that doesn't include payments from some other agencies who do not operate through the Matrix contract. I have asked them about this on a number of occasions so this time I have spelled it out for them so they can see clearly where the differences exist.
I have set out my questions below - we will have to wait and see if I get any real answers.

1. London’s construction sector has an ageing workforce that is heavily reliant on migrant labour. EU nationals make up 30 per cent of the 300,000-strong workforce, while just half are UK-born. Of the UK-born workers in the capital, 38,500 (12 per cent) are set to retire in the next 5-10 years. Yet it is estimated that 60,000 more construction workers are needed in London and the South East in 2017 to keep up with demand. Given that Barnet have budgeted to received £54 million in New Homes Bonus (NHB) over the next 5 years what steps have been taken to understand whether that bonus can be delivered if there are fewer construction workers, whether the NHB estimates should be revised downwards and what are the budget implications if the number of new houses are not delivered?
2. The risk register identifies the issues related to adult social care staff recruitment and retention. However, it does not address explicitly/quantify the financial impact on Barnet if, for example wages rates for carers are forced to increase significantly to attract and retain staff. What studies have Barnet carried out or commissioned to specifically quantify the financial impact of an increase in carer pay rates?
3. What other measures have Barnet considered to attract and retain care staff?
4. To what extent has the Barnet Observatory* provided economic and socio economic intelligence and foresight to the Brexit planning and risk register? (*Barnet Observatory was a Capita promise in their original bid specifically to address these types of issues)
5. The report notes at 1.5.18 that the Council’s failure to increase council tax in line with inflation means that we will be  collecting on average £150 a year less from each household by 2024. If Barnet had taken a 1.99% increase each year we would now be collecting approximately £20m more next year which closely mirrors the level of cuts to vital services which are budgeted. What consideration has been given to try to make up some of this shortfall by increasing council tax by more than 2.99% next year and what were the outcomes of any  financial modelling over the next 5 years on that basis, even taking into account the cost of a referendum?
6. Even after budget savings of £19.965 million we still need to draw £5.357 million from reserves. What happens if theme committees are unable to deliver the savings as was the case this year and last year and what cumulative impact will that have for future years in the MTFS?
7. The risk register identifies at STR033 the risk of savings not being delivered and suggests Monthly Budget Monitoring as mitigation. However the Financial Performance and Contracts committee only meets quarterly which means that there may be significant deviations from the budget before Councillors are made aware. Given that this is such a critical area for the Council what consideration has been given to scheduling a Monthly Budget Monitoring sub-committee with a very specific focus and brief to ensure that there is a much closer scrutiny by Councillors and the public of budget performance?
8. Risk STR022 discusses the risks and liabilities associated with Barnet House. Back in 2014 Barnet paid £62,500 to secure an option to purchase the freehold of Barnet House. Did the option lapse, should it have been extended, and to what extent will additional office space be required, other than Colindale, if more Capita services are brought back in house?
9. STR032 Identifies the issues around the changes to the waste collection routes. Given that there has been no transparency on the costs of agency staff and overtime and a significant number of new refuse vehicles have been purchased to try and overcome the problems what confidence can we have that a residual risk score of 12 is appropriate?
10. STR025 identifies the risks associated with contractual disputes due to underperforming commissioned services and has a risk score of just 6. However the recent performance data identifies that both user satisfaction and commissioner satisfaction with commissioned service is poor and declining. How was this score developed and did it consider the current poor user/commissioner satisfaction scores as part of that assessment?
11. PI022 identifies the risks associated with the company that that controls the street lighting management system Harvard Technology going into administration. Given the company went into administration on 10 December and Grant Thornton have been appointed as the administrator, what further updates are available to clarify the potential financial or operational impact and will this have any impact on the current proposal to upgrade to LED lights?
12. OP27 identifies the risks associated with the affordability of the Thameslink project and in particular the risk that Government may claw back grants leaving Barnet liable for the abortive costs. What is the scale of the abortive cost liabilities and when will a final decision be made as to whether this project will be aborted.
13. At page 4 in the report is states that there is an adverse movement due to £0.340m increase in gain share contractual payments and other areas of Managed Budgets. Can you clarify how Capita can be entitled to contractual gain share costs linked to the increase in anticipated Housing Benefit Overpayment recoupment given that Capita have responsibility for administering Benefits and how that is reconciled with the statement that no further gainshare payments would be made following the £4 m payment from Capita agreed at the Urgency Committee?
14. The £875,000 of additional overspend on streetscene is attributed to the delay in implementation and the changes to the collection rounds. How can we be confident that this is an accurate figure, why has it been allowed to grow so large and what is the forecast carry over into next year’s budget?
15. The HB Law contract continues to be overspent and has done since the contract started. What are the risks that it will be overspent again next year and what specific measures have been put in place to ensure it is delivered on budget?
16. Yet again Table 8c does not reconcile with the figures published on the suppliers payments. Set out below is a comparison between the table and the data published on the Barnet website. Which figures should I believe and why are there such significant difference?
    
17.  At 1.74 the report notes a dispute with the builder about the final fit-out and costings has the potential to impact on the completion date and office move. Please can you clarify the cost of this delay and what is the revised date to move staff into Colindale?
18. Why are the Appendices exempt when you have already published details of 146 of the properties in delegated reports. What specifically makes the information unsuitable for publication and who determined that it is not in the public interest to provide details of a massive asset transfer from the Council?
19. TBG Opendoor is forecast to lose £4.247 million over the next 5 years and the business is not forecast to break even until 2034/35. What will be the cumulated losses up to 2034/35 and what risks have been identified that might occur over the next 15 years to influence that break even target date?
20. Appendix B contains a five year business plan summary (excluding TBG Open Door) which shows a forecast profit for the 5 years of £680,000. Last year at this committee the forecast for the same period was a profit of £1,342,000. What has caused the profitability to halve in 12 months and are there any other risks such as those identified in the Brexit Impact Log that could turn TBG into a significant loss making business.
21. I am concerned to read at 1.10 that the £319.5m grant would be partly repayable by the Council, recognising that a business rate ringfence is currently in place around the shopping centre but that the ISC were not content with the proposal to extend the ringfence, and therefore asked for further work to agree an appropriate repayment model. What is the extent of the grant repayment for which Barnet may become liable, when will the negotiations on an appropriate repayment model be concluded and has ministerial support now been secured?