Agenda item

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views to the Public Accounts Select Committee; the Cabinet Member for Resources was also asked to task officers with examining best practice in relation to employee equalities monitoring.

5.1      David Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) introduced the budget savings report, focusing on the equalities implications; the following key points were noted:

• Two thirds of the equalities impacts identified fell in a small number of proposals.
• 38 proposals had equalities implications – 6 had high levels of impact and most were low or neutral.
• All proposals, including delegated decisions had equalities implications included.
• There were a significant number of staff implications that were not available yet.
• Consultation had begun in some cases – but had not yet been completed.

5.2      David Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) and Aileen Buckton (Executive Director of Community Services) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

Equalities

• Work was not carried out on ‘secondary linked equalities impacts’ such as the combined impact of reductions in mental health provision on trans people.
• The equalities impacts of the staffing restructures would not be known until after decisions had been taken on savings proposals.
• The Head of Human Resources would bring back a report in the summer about the impact on staffing – as part of the scrutiny of the annual employment profile.
• The report from the Head of HR would also include analysis of employment trends over a number of years.
• Available data about staff had been included in relevant savings pro-formas.
• Equalities assessments were carried out by gathering all the information about service users and determining whether or not there might be disproportionate impacts on some groups.
• In cases where everyone would be affected by a change (such as adult social care) analysis was carried out to see if the changes would disproportionately impact on some service users.
• The quality and validity of equalities analysis was checked by senior management teams.
• Where multiple impacts from the range of different areas of Council provision were identified for one person or family – then officers would take supportive action.

5.3      The Committee also discussed the broadness of the term ‘disability’ and how this might apply to different people.

The Broadway theatre

• The Broadway was a listed theatre, which was in need of significant capital investment in order to make it a viable space for modern productions.
• There were also limited facilities in the theatre for commercial use.
• Building services (heat and power) at the theatre were closely linked to services in the Council’s civic suite.
• The most significant problem was the lack of access at the rear of the theatre.
• The intention was not to close the theatre.
• There had been a number of reports in recent years about future viability options for the future of the theatre.
• It was felt that the theatre could form an essential part of a vibrant night time economy – but only if there was significant investment.
• The future of the theatre would be part of future plans for the development of Catford.
• It was proposed to focus future efforts on two short seasons of theatre.
• Consideration would also be given to allowing community organisations to use the theatre.
• The consultation being proposed would take into account the importance of the theatre to black and BME theatre groups.
• Consultation would be required with staff and community groups.
• The proposal had not been put forward because of the health and safety concerns highlighted by the Health and Safety Committee.
• Much of the health and safety work was completed in November – before the discussion at the Committee.
• This was not a new proposal; similar proposals had been put forward in previous budget rounds.

Main grants

• The consultation on the savings proposal for the main grants programme had been extended – there weren’t any additional relevant submissions to the consultation.
• Submissions for main grant funding would close shortly, they would be evaluated and recommendations would be made to Mayor and Cabinet.
• In the past the Committee had received information about the funds being allocated in the different funding streams and some examples of the grants being allocated.
• Decisions about funding would be taken by Mayor and Cabinet Contracts.
• Organisations had an opportunity to appeal their level of funding.
• Local assemblies organising groups would be asked to identify areas of importance for community development – but there was no provision for grant giving decisions to be delegated to assemblies.
• Community development organisations would have to demonstrate that they would be able to work with local groups to identify local issues. It would be strange if organisations came forward with preconceived ideas about what they’d deliver for the community without having input from the community first.

Community development savings

• The savings to the community development budget would be from the arts festivals and events.
• Black history month would remain, as would events where the Council was able to lever external funding.
• There would be an increased projection for funding from the car park at Glass Mill leisure centre to subsidise facilities there.
• There would be a reduction in the leisure management budget – which would not have an impact on service delivery.
• There would also be a salaries saving through the deletion of empty posts– as a result of efficiency in the work of the combined culture and community development teams.

Youth offending service

• Work had taken place over a number of years to increase the efficiency of the service and move it to paperless working.
• The court service expected all boroughs to move to paperless working at the same time – it was also expected that if the service was audited – all of the information would be in the same place electronically, rather than in different paper files.

Blue badges

• The Committee discussed the proposal of charging for blue badges, noting views for and against charging.

5.4      The Chair adjourned the meeting for five minutes and Council officers were asked to leave the meeting room.

5.5      The Committee agreed the following referral be made to Public Accounts Select Committee:

The Committee recommends that the Public Accounts Select Committee reconsider savings proposal G1c: Blue Badge Administration Fee, with a view to finding an outcome that is cost neutral. The Committee notes the cost of each Blue Badge (£4.60, excluding the cost of administrating the scheme) and the proposed charge being put forward (£10). The Committee does not believe that the Council should generate income from the implementation of this proposal.

The Committee endorses the recommendation of the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel for the Public Accounts Select Committee to consider the two new savings proposals - L3: Community Development budgets and L4: Broadway theatre.

The Committee also recommends that the Public Accounts Select Committee consider the overall equalities implications of the savings proposals.

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views to the Public Accounts Select Committee; the Cabinet Member for Resources was also asked to task officers with examining best practice in relation to employee equalities monitoring.