Agenda item

Please refer to separate Lewisham Future Programme report

Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) and David Austin (Head of Corporate Finance) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         Specialist Saving proposal M4 (PLACE/Ladywell) will come from the surplus the Council will make from leasing the PLACE/Ladywell development to Lewisham Homes.

·         Saving proposal M5 (hostel acquisition) will similarly come from the surplus the Council will make from the rents collected from newly acquired hostel rooms.

·         Saving proposal M6 (handyperson service) is intended to come from finding an alternative way to provide the existing handyperson service. Officers will be carrying out a consultation over the coming months. The likely options are that the service will either be transferred to the voluntary sector or that people will be asked to pay.

·         Saving proposal M7 (no recourse to public funds (NRPF) costs) will come from working closely with the Home Office to get decisions on applications for leave to remain from people currently relying on NRPF provision from the Council. If someone is granted leave to remain they are then usually able to work and claim benefits. It will also allow the Council to move people to cheaper accommodation, outside of Lewisham. Most of those relying on NRPF provision are in expensive temporary accommodation.

Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) and David Austin (Head of Corporate Finance) answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted: 

·         In relation to saving proposal M5 (hostel acquisition), people are due to start moving into the new hostel rooms in the next few weeks.

·         In relation to saving proposal M6 (handyperson service), officers have been looking at how other boroughs provide similar handyperson services. Some boroughs charge by job and some are cheaper than the proposed £45 per hour – but some are also more expensive. Different boroughs have also set things up in different ways – Bromley’s service, for example, is provided free on a voluntary basis, whereas Southwark’s is charge for and provided in collaboration with age concern. Lewisham have not yet had any preliminary talks with any potential provider organisations.

·         Officers have proposed per-hour charging to keep things simple – a job-by-job way of charging would likely be too complicated to consult on and more costly to put in place.

·         The handyperson service is largely used by elderly owner-occupiers – people with disabilities are usually covered by the Disabled Facilities Grant. 

·         The handyperson service consultation will go out to everyone who has used the service in the last year, age concern and other local voluntary groups, such as the pensioners’ forum. It will also be available online.  

·         In relation to saving proposal M7 (No Recourse to Public Funds costs), there are currently around 180 families in Lewisham who rely of NRPF provision from the Council. The Council is also talking to the Home Office about having a dedicated immigration officer in Lewisham again.

The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·         In relation to the draft consultation for saving M6 (handyperson service), the Committee said officers need to be bold and make it clear that the choice is to either pay for the services or risk losing it altogether. The Committee said officers also need to be clear that the service does not apply to social housing.

·         The Committee commented that the handyperson services could be defined better than £45 per hour – the service covers a wide variety of jobs involving varying amounts or time and effort. The Committee also said that £45 per hour for the service seemed expensive, particularly for those earning minimum wage.

·         The Committee said that the Council has a responsibility to make sure that any future provider of the handyperson service pays the living wage to its workers.

·         The Committee noted that most of the current users of the handyperson service are likely to be vulnerable.

·         In relation to saving proposal M7 (NRPF costs), the Committee noted that there are risks when moving potentially long-established families out of the borough.

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views on saving proposal M6 (handypersons service) to the Public Accounts Select Committee:

The Committee welcomed officers’ plans to consult on the proposed savings to the handypersons service with service users and other stakeholders, but asked to be provided with more information about the final questions being asked, in particular those about the possible charging structure for the service. The Committee also welcomed the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals again in November, in light of the results of the consultation, before any decision is made about the future of the service.