4.1 David
Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) introduced the report. The
following key points were noted:
- The Council had to make
significant savings to its budget.
- The Lewisham Future
Programme proposals provided opportunities as well as risks.
- Officers welcomed the
approach to scrutiny that had been set out by the Overview and
Scrutiny committee at its meeting on 29 September.
4.2 Geeta
Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
introduced savings proposal B1: reduction and remodelling of
Supporting People housing & floating support services, the
following key points were noted:
- Funding for supporting
people had previously been ring fenced grant
- The budget had been used
over a number of years to develop services for a broad client
group.
- Since 2012, the budget was
no longer ring-fenced.
- The majority of services
were provided through contracts with providers in the community and
voluntary sector.
- There would be a reduction
in the preventative elements of the programme.
- In future, services would
be focused on those most in need, in order to achieve the greatest
impact.
- A number of risks had been
identified, which were set out in the report.
- Changes were taking place
to a range of services, including mental health and social care.
Officers would work with colleagues in health and social care
services to ensure effective pathways were in place to support
people in crisis.
4.3 Geeta
Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
and James Lee (Service Manager – prevention and inclusion)
responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points
were noted:
- It was recognised
that there might be a cumulative effect of the changes being
proposed to services across the Council.
- Further work would be
carried out after decisions on the savings proposals had been taken
by Mayor and Cabinet.
- Government grants
might become available to continue some services. However, in the
past these tended to be time limited and of a smaller scale than
the funding managed through the Council.
- Some former service
users would eventually reach the threshold for social care; but it
was difficult to predict how the changes would impact on individual
cases.
- This saving proposal
might result in increased costs in other areas.
- The number of people
accessing floating support services each year changed. However,
approximately 2000 people would be affected by the proposed
changes.
4.4 The
Committee discussed the proposal and agreed to refer their views to
Public Accounts Select Committee as follows:
4.5 The
Committee recommends that the Council should work in a joined up
way to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. The Committee
believes that available resources should be focused on preventative
services, where this is feasible.
4.6
Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) introduced the
savings proposal M1: transfer of non housing stock from the HRA to
the general fund. The following key points were noted:
- Housing had taken
£2.2m from its £5.5m budget in the years since
2010.
- This had been
achieved through reorganisation of staff and services as well as
changes to leasing and procurement.
- The further savings
of £1m identified through the Lewisham Future Programme
should be viewed in the context of the savings already
delivered.
- An accounting
adjustment would be carried out to move a number of non-residential
properties from the Housing Revenue Account to the General
Fund.
- Approximately
£4.41m worth of garages and £5.6m of commercial
property would move across.
- Income from these
assets was approximately £2m a year.
- These properties
would generate income for the General Fund and remove debts from
the Housing Revenue Account.
- There would be no
impact on service delivery.
- It was intended that
more income would be generated in future years.
Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views
to the Public Accounts Select Committee.