Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following to Public Accounts Select Committee:     

            B2: Supporting People – Reduction in budget across all client groups

The Committee notes with great concern the potential impact of removing services for some of the most vulnerable residents in the borough, as these services often function as a last resort. The Committee is also concerned about the risk of this proposal leading to cost shunts to other services. The Committee also noted its concern that a reduction in individual available places may result in lack of places for clients, and it also could lead to more work for partners such as the police, probation, mental health SLAM and the hospital if incidents escalate.  It could also lead to people becoming homeless, have an impact on statutory services/temporary accommodation/residential care, increased use of existing hostels by high needs out of borough clients and a rise in rough sleeping. The Committee rejects the proposal to reduce the provision of the accommodation and floating support services for these vulnerable residents, in line with the Healthier Communities Select Committee’s comments.

            M2a and M2b: Review of funding streams across housing strategy, development and partnership functions; and reduction in premises costs 

The Committee referred no comment on these saving proposals.

Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that Public Accounts advise the Mayor of its view that:

·         He should accept saving proposals: M2a and M2b

·         He should reject the savings proposal B2

3.1       Mark Humphreys (Group Finance Manager, Customer Services) and Jeff Endean (Housing Programmes and Strategy Team Manager) presented the report to the meeting. The key points to note were:

·         In July 2015 Lewisham’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to 2019/20 was presented to Mayor & Cabinet. Uncertainties in the strategy were recognised in the range of the possible outcomes considered – best, base and worst case scenarios. After allowing for the £11m of savings previously agreed for 2016/17 and 2017/18, the MTFS savings estimates to 2019/20 ranges from £57m to £105m.

·         Given the headline of austerity in non-protected areas of public spending is to continue and the uncertainty in potential impacts for local government to 2019/20, the report presented to the Committee updates on the savings proposals prepared against the current target of £45m for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

·         The first set of budget savings proposals, after scrutiny by the various Select Committees, will be presented to Mayor and Cabinet on 30 September 2015. The final set of proposals will go to Mayor and Cabinet in 10 February 2016.

3.2      In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

M2a and M2b: Review of funding streams across housing strategy, development and partnership functions; and reduction in premises costs 

·         This proposal envisages about £140,000 of savings. There should be no staffing reduction, the saving would be achieved by initiatives such as the relocation of the reorganised Single Homeless Intervention and Prevention Team (SHIP) team to a new building.

·         Some of Housing staff funding can come from the General Fund, or other avenues such as the Capital Programme.

·         Officers have to look at the structure of the Housing Team to best manage the temporary accommodation/homelessness in the borough and deliver the New Build Programme.

·         Officers will monitor the implications of legislative changes and housing trends when devising the new structure, but allowing flexibility to deal with unexpected changes that may come out of court judgements etc.

·         Officers will write to the Committee on the issue of how many of the 29 families affected by the Benefits Cap started in temporary accommodation.

B2: Supporting People – Reduction in budget across all client groups

·         This proposal has been brought about by the budgetary pressures the Council is facing.

·         The Council has a number of contracts with providers, and will look to reduce costs in this area.

·         Officers will monitor the changes, if implemented, to see if there is a knock-on effect on housing and other services.

N3: Review of Lewisham’s Waste Services (Doorstep collection & disposal) Transfer of estates Bulky Waste disposal costs to Lewisham Homes

·         The Council will look to re-charge bulky waste disposal costs to Lewisham Homes. Although the majority of collection costs are re-charged to Lewisham Homes, disposal costs are currently paid for by the Council. This arrangement does not incentivise housing managers to reduce the amount of waste being generated.

·         Officers will inform the Committee about how many ‘flats above shops’ are Council properties.

·         With the private sector licensing scheme, there will be conditions for the management of waste in the new conditions, to improve landlord behaviour in this area.

3.3       RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following to Public Accounts Select Committee:     

            B2: Supporting People – Reduction in budget across all client groups

The Committee notes with great concern the potential impact of removing services for some of the most vulnerable residents in the borough, as these services often function as a last resort. The Committee is also concerned about the risk of this proposal leading to cost shunts to other services. The Committee also noted its concern that a reduction in individual available places may result in lack of places for clients, and it also could lead to more work for partners such as the police, probation, mental health SLAM and the hospital if incidents escalate.  It could also lead to people becoming homeless, have an impact on statutory services/temporary accommodation/residential care, increased use of existing hostels by high needs out of borough clients and a rise in rough sleeping. The Committee rejects the proposal to reduce the provision of the accommodation and floating support services for these vulnerable residents, in line with the Healthier Communities Select Committee’s comments.

            M2a and M2b: Review of funding streams across housing strategy, development and partnership functions; and reduction in premises costs 

The Committee referred no comment on these saving proposals.

Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that Public Accounts advise the Mayor of its view that:

·         He should accept saving proposals: M2a and M2b

·         He should reject the savings proposal B2