Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1       There were no changes to the membership.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

2.1       There were no declarations made.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 May 2017.

3.1       RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting on 9 May be signed by the             Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

Report of the City Treasurer

4.1       The Committee had before it an updated report on the 2016-17 Statement of Accounts and outturn.  The committee had considered the draft Statement of Accounts and outturn at its last meeting on the 9 May.

4.2       The report included an overview of the principal reasons behind the variances for each Cabinet portfolio.  As previously, the committee welcomed the explanations which it considered should be included in future quarterly finance monitoring reports.

4.3       The Committee was informed that during the statutory public inspection period the Council had received two objections to the accounts.  Both related to LOBO loans totalling £70 million that were taken out between 1984 and 2005.  David Hodgkinson, Assistant City Treasurer, explained that until these were considered by the Council’s external auditors the accounts could not be completely finalised.

4.4       RESOLVED:

1.    The committee approved the 2016/17 Annual Accounts following the end of the year statutory public inspection period.

2.    The committee noted the proposed £10 million contribution towards the pension fund deficit recovery.

5.1       The Committee considered the final reports from the Council’s external Auditors, Grant Thornton, on the key findings arising from their audit of the Council’s 2016-2017 financial statements and those of the Local Government Pension Scheme it administers. 

5.2       The committee had considered draft versions of the audit finding reports at its last meeting on 9 May.  The final reports included minor amendments which were highlighted in italics.

5.3       Paul Dossett, Engagement Lead, Grant Thornton, explained that the objections to the Council’s accounts did not have any impact on Grant Thornton’s opinion of the Council’s accounts. Members noted that until the objections to the accounts had been addressed the audit certification could not be finalised. 

5.4       Members asked for further details about the significant risks relating to the Managed Services Partnership (MSP) identified in the audit findings for the pension fund.  Elizabeth Olive, Engagement Manager, Grant Thornton, explained that while this was identified as a significant risk in last year’s audit findings report the issues this year were somewhat different.  Grant Thornton did not experience any information delays on pensions last year whilst the backlog in updating the member data during 2015-16 was not of such concern for the audit.  That audit had identified an on-going concern for officers that there was a delay in information from BT to Surrey.  This year a number of errors were identified during sample testing which required additional information to provide assurance.

5.5       RESOLVED: That the audit finding reports for Westminster City Council and The City of Westminster Pension Fund be noted.

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance & Communications

6.1       The committee received a year-end report that presented detailed performance results for the year April 2016 to March 2017 against the 2016/17 business plans.  The report provided explanations and commentary in respect of outstanding, good and poor performance, including achievement of targets and details of remedial actions being taken.

6.2       With reference to the overall performance of the City Council, the committee questioned whether the results of the City Survey 2016 could be relied upon given the limited size of the sample base.  Graeme Gordon, Programme Director, Evaluation and Performance Team, advised that a sample base of 1000 people was the industry standard for surveys and polls. If appropriately weighted the sample base should produce fairly accurate results.  He advised that the survey could be augmented by gathering community insight through other forms such as qualitative interviews, customer feedback and using complaints data to provide a more representative picture of residents’ perception of Council services.

6.3       The committee then considered performance results at year end by service directorate.  The committee submitted questions to individual members of the Executive Management Team on performance within their directorates.  This included queries about key performance indicators that had regularly been “off track” over the last 2-3 years.

6.4       In exploring why certain targets were missed the Committee questioned how targets are set and whether there is a problem of setting sensible, robust targets and setting ranges around these targets that are plausible.  The committee also expressed concern at the Council’s ability to measure properly performance of some key policies. The absence of data on the number of people helped into work by the Westminster Employment Service beyond six months was cited as an example. 

6.5       The Committee suggested that complaints information should be integrated as part of the performance reporting and aligned to the City Survey results where possible and that the underlying reasons for why these complaints have been made should be assessed.  Siobhan Coldwell, Chief of Staff, informed members that the Council was implementing a new, more comprehensive complaints monitoring system which would include details of the reasons for complaints.  This would be incorporated in the Annual Corporate Complaints report which was due to be submitted to the committee in November.

            Adult Services and Public Health

6.6       The Committee asked how the move from a Tri-Borough to Bi-borough arrangement could impact on service delivery.  Members also asked why the key performance indicator - percentage of known carers who have received an assessment or review - had fallen short of its target for the last 3 years.  Officers were also asked for more information around the performance of the Community Independence Service and outcomes achieved for those using it.

6.7       Stella Baillie, Tri-Borough Director for Integrated Care, stated that the move from a Tri-Borough to Bi-borough partnership arrangement should not have a particular impact on service performance.  She explained that the teams delivering services are sovereign to each authority and will continue to be so.  With regards to the KPI of providing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of the Chief Procurement Officer

7.1       The Committee considered an Annual Contracts Review report in accordance with its Terms of Reference.

7.2       The committee noted that a review of the Procurement Code and procurement assurance process was conducted during quarter 3 of 2016/17 and the updated code was published in January 2017.

7.3       With regards to the review of contracts let by the Council for value for money and adherence to the procurement code, the committee noted that 73 contracts commenced during the 2016/17 period.  39 contracts were below the value of £100,000 threshold and 34 over the value of £100,000. There were 12 extensions of existing contracts.  This represented a reduction compared to the previous year. In exceptional circumstances a waiver to the requirements of the Procurement Code may be obtained from the Chief Procurement Officer.  59 waivers were approved during the course of the year.  This represented a slight increase to the previous year.

7.4       The Committee was informed that the capitalEsourcing contracts register is regarded as the “single source of truth” and forms the basis for reporting on contract information across the Council. The use of a single system provides an important source of data and a complete audit trail of the Council’s activities, enabling full visibility of commercial commitments; better management of risk, identification of commercial opportunity and resource planning. 

7.5       It is the responsibility of Contract Managers to carry out the first assessment within the capitalEsourcing system, 12 months following the service commencement date, for all contracts that have a total contract value of £100,000 or above.

7.6       Of 174 active contracts over £100,000 150 (86%) were assessed and performance rated.  This was a positive increase on the number of contracts assessed and reported on during 2015/16 (63%) only 6 (3%) were assessed and rated as ‘Below Expectations’.

7.7       The Committee noted with concern that twelve of the twenty-four contracts that had not been assessed and performance rated within the system had a total value over £1.5 million each and collectively amounted to £333, 953,000.

7.8       Anthony Oliver, Chief Procurement Officer, clarified that contract performance was being assessed by contract managers just not within the system.  Procurement Services have been working with each of the service areas to ensure overall contract performance is carried out in the system. The Chief Executive had also stressed the importance of this to the Executive Management Team when quarterly contract review reports are issued to EMT.

 7.9      Mr Oliver recognised that the current methodology for recording contract performance is transactional in nature. Therefore, during 2016/17, feedback was sought from Contract Managers. The general view was that this method was too simplistic and did not provide a true representation on the overall performance of a particular contract. As such, during 2017/18, Procurement Services will be conducting a review of Contract performance with a view to piloting a contract performance score card. The approach will be focused on value and risk to provide more meaningful information and greater visibility.

7.10     The Committee noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the City Treasurer

8.1       The committee considered a report that provided an update on arrangements that are in place and which are further developing to manage the Council’s capital programme for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

8.2       The report covered the current capital programme, capital budget analysis – performance against net budget 2011/12 - 2016/17 and improvements implemented and planned: budget setting, business cases, Programme Delivery Office and governance.

8.3       The Committee was pleased to see action was being taken to address slippage in the capital programme.  Members asked how the new arrangements avoided duplicating processes that were already in place.

8.4       Guy Slocombe, Director of Property, Investments and Estates, reported that to help create an overarching, coordinated and consistent approach to the delivery of projects the Council had established a Programme Delivery Office (PMO). One of the key issues that the PMO will focus on will be removing historical processes that had accumulated over many years that are unworkable.  These will be replaced with Council wide governance processes which are much more streamlined.

8.5       Barbara Brownlee, Director of Housing and Regeneration, provided her experience of the improvements since the new arrangements had been implemented.  She explained that when she first joined the Council she observed that while there were highly skilled project managers working on capital projects within Growth, Planning and Housing and similarly accountants in Finance the Council did not have capital programme managers.  As these officers were not located within the same office the complex dependencies, slippage and changing costs within projects did not always clearly translate sensibly to finance colleagues. One of the significant differences now is that the finance support for a project is based in the same office as the project manager.  This has enabled a different type of finance support where there are more regular updates between colleagues. Additionally monthly reports on projects are provided to the Programme Delivery Office.

8.6       The Committee referred officers to a paper published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy (Vol 25, No. 3, 2009) on major infrastructure projects which highlighted the propensity for optimism bias in public sector projects.

Barbara Brownlee commented that the aspiration to deliver Housing Renewal in the City led the Council to be overly ambitious in forecasting that the programme would be delivered in a matter of a few years.  She stated that an HRA business plan session would be starting in September where officers would feed in all major assumptions over regeneration and other projects over the course of the week.  These would then be thoroughly tested and worked up by Christmas before they are entered into the HRA business plan.  Separate to this monthly capital programme monitoring meetings are held between housing and finance so that projects are tightly controlled.  She explained that this will not stop all delays as some matters are out of the Council’s control.  For instance, sometimes a contractor may decide not to move forward with a scheme for their own reasons.

8.7       The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the City Treasurer

9.1       The committee considered a report that provided an overview of DHP applications received and decided in the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.  Information was provided on the tenure of applicants and the reasons and total spend for agreed claims.  The report also detailed the average weekly award and duration for the different categories of DHP.  It also summarised the process for deciding claims and the verification measures undertaken.

9.2       The committee asked questions on the following issues:

·           The proportion of claims determined by Capita

·           The proportion of claimants impacted by the benefit cap having to re-submit claims after an initial six month award is made?

·           Whether the City Council requires applicants to submit bank statements as part of the claims process?

·           How delegated decisions are made and the level of scrutiny by managers of such decisions

·           Whether there have been any applications for judicial review of the Council’s DHP policy

9.3       Gwyn Thomas, senior benefits policy officer, informed the committee that as housing payments in the form of extra financial assistance with rent is discretionary the determination of applications cannot be outsourced to Capita and is undertaken by a small team of five officers within the Finance Team which he manages.  He explained that consideration and determination of applications is dealt with by individual officers rather than an officer panel.  He does not review each decision made although on-going spot checks are undertaken.  He advised that he does review decisions which are informally challenged whilst another officer scrutinises those cases that are formally challenged.

9.4       A high proportion of agreed claims are submitted by residents that are affected by the overall weekly benefit cap.  The purpose of a DHP award will be to support work by giving extra help with rent payments for a short period.  Successful applicants will be expected to take the steps needed to increase the amount that they can pay towards rent in the medium term in order to avoid reliance on DHP as an on-going solution.  It can take longer than 6 months for some applicants to find work and be in a position to pay their rent without support.  Where applicants can demonstrate that they are working towards such a solution the Council will consider making an award for a further 6 months.

9.5       Since 2015, when the policy was last reviewed, all DHP applicants are required to provide statements covering at least three recent and consecutive months for every bank, building society and Post Office account held. Officers dealing with DHP claims scrutinise the statements for any indication of undeclared income and further undeclared accounts where funds are being transferred to and from. The statements are also studied for signs of unusual spending patterns that suggest the applicant is living beyond their declared financial means. Any discrepancies are queried and referrals made to the DWP Fraud and Error Service where appropriate.  The only time when this requirement may be waived is where a renewal claim is submitted.  Where an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1     RESOLVED:

1.         That the agenda items for the meeting on 18 September, as set out in appendix 1 to the report, be agreed.

2.         That the responses to actions which arose from the last meeting which were set out in Appendix 3 to the report be noted.