Agenda item

Report of the City Treasurer and the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications

7.1     Steven Mair, City Treasurer, provided an overview of the Council’s financial position as at period 9 as set out in the report.  The Committee was informed that the general fund had projected to underspend by £3.497m by the year-end.  He advised that at the current time the projected underspend had increased to £4-5 million by the year-end.  The gross projected outturn for service area capital expenditure was £93.482m against an approved gross budget of £188.308m.  This was due to slippage on a number of schemes.  The unspent sum would be carried over into the following financial year.  There was also an underspend in the HRA capital budget due to slippage on the major works budget as well as an underspend on the housing renewal/regeneration budgets.

7.2     The City Treasurer was asked whether there was likely to be any risk to capital projects that had not progressed that required external funding to be spent by a particular deadline.  He advised that the Council maintains a schedule that sets out all the funding arrangements for each capital project and this is monitored.

7.3     The City Treasurer clarified that any underspend in the Council’s general fund would be added to the Council’s general reserves.

7.4     Members asked the City Treasurer about the high level of temporary cash balances.  He explained that the Council was looking to extend the term of some of its financial products in light of the current low interest rates.  He advised that the Council was earning a modest 0.6% on cash balances. In accordance with the Council’s Treasury Management strategy opportunities to improve returns whilst following a risk aware approach would be investigated to assist the Council in meeting its savings requirements over the next few years.

7.5     Following the government’s announcement that local authorities can take a four-year funding settlement to 2018/19, the committee asked the City Treasurer whether the Council was likely to take up the offer.  He advised that no decision had been made on this which would be a matter for the Council's executive.  The Council was yet to anticipate what such a settlement would mean. 

7.6     Damian Highwood, Evaluation and Performance Manager, Strategic Performance Team, introduced the remainder of the report which outlined of the progress made against the performance management framework between April and December 2015.  The committee considered the major achievements and challenges, performance issues against internally set 2015-16 targets and where key performance needed to be improved.

7.7     The Committee was disappointed to note that overall satisfaction with the Council dipped slightly in 2015 from the previous year.  Members wished to know the reasons behind the dip particularly around parking and environmental services - noise, environmental health, parks and open spaces.  The committee questioned whether the budget reductions had caused satisfaction to slip and whether there is a relationship between budget changes, changes in service performance and resident satisfaction. 

7.8     Mr Highwood reported that the 2015 results were largely similar to the City Survey results in 2013.  The results of the 2014 survey were unusually good.  It was unclear why there had been a spike in satisfaction levels last year.  This could have been due to the sample of residents interviewed.  The committee felt that a sample of 1,000 residents amounting to 50 people per Ward was inadequate to reliably reflect the views of those living in the City.  Members were informed that 4-5 years ago the Council canvassed a larger sample of 3000 residents.  The committee asked whether the Council analysed the results by Ward.  Mr Highwood advised that information was broken down to a ward level.  However, this was for internal use and was not published.

7.9     The Committee was disappointed to note that the quality of life from Adult Social Care survey results were lower than peer boroughs.  It requested more detail on the reasons for this.

7.10    With reference to the changing demographics analysis set out in the report, Mr Highwood explained that the next census would take place in 2021.  It would be conducted online and there would be fewer resources from central government to support it.  However, the Office for National Statistics would provide support for areas such as Westminster which were hard to count.  The government had indicated that it was interested in replacing the census after 2021 with an administrative process.  The committee asked what further insight can the Council produce to support the accuracy of Westminster’s population figure in light of the 2021 Census being the last, and being replaced by an administrative approach? 

7.11    Mr Highwood stated that while the Council was clear about the difficulties in accurately counting Westminster’s population and why previous census results were inaccurate it was less clear how this could be overcome using administrative data sets.  He stated that using GP registrations was flawed as many young people, students and those who do not live full-time in the city will not necessarily register with a local GP.  There were similar problems in using council tax or electoral roll registration.  He advised that given the implications of the proposed changes for Westminster the Council had submitted a response to the government’s consultation and was hoping to participate with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the London Borough of Camden in an investigation of why the demographic data from the census is often at odds with actual population figures.

7.12   RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

7.13    ACTION:

Finance

1.     Provide the committee with details of the Parliamentary Southern Estate capital project.

2.     Is the Council still funding the hub in New Zealand house?

(Action for: Steve Mair, City Treasurer/Greg Ward, Director of Economy and Infrastructure)

Performance

1.     City Survey Results 2015 - provide a note on how reliable the City Survey results are.  What are the reasons behind some results slipping in 2015?  What local insights can the survey provide?

2.     In future provide the committee with the City Survey Results at the same time as the annual corporate complaints review to determine whether there is a link between service satisfaction levels and the number of complaints received by Department.

3.     Adult Social Care Survey Results - why were Westminster’s results lower than peer boroughs?  Are there any issues with the way that the survey is conducted?

4.     Include alongside future performance data on rough sleeper numbers the number of foreign nationals sleeping rough so that changes on overall numbers from the previous quarter can be assessed.

5.     What are the responsibilities of the Council for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children between 18 and 25 years of age?  What numbers are involved and what are the financial implications of this?

6.     What further insight can the Council produce to support the accuracy of Westminster’s population figure in light of the 2021 Census being the last, and being replaced by an administrative approach? 

(Action for: Damian Highwood/Mo Rahman, Strategic Performance Team)