Agenda item

Resolved: that a report would be provided on budget pressures in the environment division; it was also agreed that the Committee would add an item on the finances of Public Health to a future agenda.

6.1    Selwyn Thompson (Director of Financial Services) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The report provided the financial position for the first quarter of 2019-20. It projected spending forward from this point to the end of the year.

·         As a result of the Committee’s previous comments - and those in the financial control review- more clarity was being provided in the reporting. This set out the key areas of pressure - as well as the management action being taken to deal with those pressures.

·         One of the other new things in the report - was the provision of activity data throughout the report. Finance managers were working with teams to improve this work throughout the year.

·         A ‘savings tracker’ had also been provided in the report.

·         There was a projected end of year overspend of £4.6m - the main pressures remained in the children and young people directorate (As a result of pressures in the transport budget) and in customer services - in the environment budget.

·         It was hoped that the pressure in the environment budget would be relieved by the decision made at Mayor and Cabinet (that evening) to purchase new fleet vehicles.

6.2    Selwyn Thompson, Mala Dadlani and David Austin (Acting Chief Financial Officer) responded to questions from the committee, the following key points were noted:

·         There had been some changes to the titles and service areas in different divisions.

·         There had also been some movement of services between different divisions.

·         There would be further changes between divisions between services. Further information could be provided about these changes and titles for divisions in future reports.

·         It was anticipated that (as a result of the decision at Mayor and Cabinet) new fleet vehicles for the environment service would be purchased as soon as possible - it was anticipated that the new vehicles would arrive towards the end of the financial year and that savings could be anticipated from the beginning of the next financial year.

·         Further work was taking place to manage spending on SEN transport.

·         An external review of passenger services had been carried out by a group of external consultants.

·         Additional budget had been added to cover the costs of transport pressures. This would enable better monitoring of the work being carried out by the consultants.

·         There had been concern that the Troubled Families grant would be ended. However, indications from government were that it would continue. If for some reason it was ended - a rapid review would need to take place to decide which parts of the programme should continue to be funded from Council budgets.

6.3    Councillor Amanda de Ryk (Cabinet Member for Finance, Jobs and Skills) addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The consultants working on the review of transport had previously reviewed spending on transport at LB Hillingdon. The model for reviewing transport services was now known as ‘the Hillingdon model’. It entailed a focused, detailed look at all transport costs.

·         The initial view from the consultants was that they could save the Council money.

·         Consultants would be managing the transport service over three years - and close attention would be paid to all of the costs and pressures in this budget over that time.

·         It was anticipated that the end result would be a saving of up to £2m (annually).

·         Section 106 and neighbourhood community infrastructure funding could be used for projects to mitigate the impact of development - including those designed for climate change mitigation.

6.4    In the Committee’s discussion, the following key points were also noted:

·         Members noted discrepancies in the reporting of figures in the budget and in the financial forecasts. In particular, there were comments about the differences in reporting of expenditure in different service areas.

·         The Committee would welcome further information about changes in Council management arrangements and financial reporting.

·         There were concerns about the grant funding from Government for the Troubled Families programme.

·         Members welcomed the funding that had been made available for the Council’s ‘climate emergency’ declaration.

6.5    Tom Brown (Executive Director for Community Services) was invited to address the Committee with his ‘first impressions’ of the Directorate’s finances, the following key points were noted:

·         He had been in post for a month.

·         He had seen fundamentally good quality of practice - with staff that also ‘had an eye’ on the resourcing implications of the services they were providing.

·         He was ‘delighted’ to hear from an independent audit of adult safeguarding services that it was some of the best practice the auditor had seen.

·         He felt that the approach started by the previous Executive Director (supported by the Director of Adult Social Care) to focus on the means that service users had available to them to help them live independently (a recovery/ablement model) - was the right one.

·         This practice was embedded in the service - but there were opportunities to do more.

·         There were significant pressures on adult social care budgets (locally and nationally) from children and young people transitioning from children’s to adult social care. Work had started to address this challenge in Lewisham.

·         He was confident that staff were providing good quality services.

6.6    Tom Brown responded to questions and comments from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         There was a range of Council services that provided support for people to avoid the requirement for care. For example, services - such as adult education, libraries and leisure services- might enable people to interact in their communities – and be less isolated.

·         Lewisham spent about £2m on prevention work in the community. Given the current financial position of local government, this was not common in London.

·         Placements in residential care had reduced in recent years, which was a significant achievement. Some of the money saved could be redirected to services in the community so that people could stay in their own homes as long as possible.

·         About £5m of the Public Health grant was spent on ‘wellbeing’ services.

6.7    In the Committee’s discussion, the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee would be inviting the Executive Director to its meeting in November for a more comprehensive review of the adult services budget.

·         Members highlighted the cuts that were still required to the Council’s budget and noted the importance of demand management in reducing potential future costs.

·         The Council’s work on healthy neighbourhoods (to improve walking and cycling routes; as well as improving air quality) was also a part of preventative work.

·         The Committee wanted to consider the Public Health budget at a future meeting.

6.8    Resolved: that a report would be provided on budget pressures in the environment division; it was also agreed that the Committee would add an item on the finances of Public Health to a future agenda.