Agenda item

Resolved:

 

The Committee agreed to refer the following to Mayor & Cabinet:

 

·         The Committee endorsed the referrals made by Select Committees to the Committee and asked that the Mayor takes these referrals into account alongside officer reports when taking a decision on the Lewisham Future Programme – 2015/16 Revenue Budget Savings Report.

 

·         The Committee noted the lack of proposals including shared services and asked that shared services options are explored fully in the next round of savings.

 

G1: Increasing income from schools SLA, debt collection, investment strategy and blue badges

 

·         The Committee agreed with the concerns raised by the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee and also highlighted the reputational risk to the Council that could occur through the introduction of charges for issuing blue badges.

 

I1: Reduction in corporate management and professional support services

 

·         The Committee recommended that further savings in Corporate Communications should be explored.

 

Cllr Alan Hall (Chair of Overview & Scrutiny) spoke to the Committee, highlighting the following key points:

·         The scale of the savings presented is unprecedented and it is important for there to be thorough pre-decision scrutiny and consideration of the proposals.

·         A lot of effort has been put in by officers to produce these proposals and members thank them for their efforts.

·         There will be further in-depth scrutiny of the Public Health and Youth Service proposals carried out by dedicated working groups.

 

Sir Steve Bullock (Mayor of Lewisham) then addressed the Committee, highlighting the following key points:

·         Four years ago the savings put forward were ones that could be easily achieved. This is not the case now and few of the proposals put forward here are as easily achievable.

·         Scrutiny’s role in the process is important as it can help identify the impacts that proposals will have, such as a short term saving that could have a longer term knock on effect, possibly in a different area of activity.

·         The Mayor is looking for surety that decisions are not being taken that then have to be revised or are undeliverable.

 

Cllr Bonavia (Cabinet Member for Resources) addressed the Committee and highlighted that the proposals here do not reach the halfway point of the amount of savings that are required over the next few years. The approach taken has been to look at everything the Council does.

 

David Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) introduced the report, highlighting the following key points:

·         The Council faces an £85m budget gap over the three years to 2017/18 with an estimated £39m gap for 2015/16.

·         This report presents £39.9m of new proposals, of these proposals £28.7m are for 2015/16, with the balance of£11.2m contributing to future year targets.

·          

·         There have been revisions made to the A2 and A9 proposals with further details included as requested by the Healthier Communities Select Committee. Proposal A8 has also been corrected.

 

Referral from Housing Select Committee

 

Cllr Carl Handley (Chair of Housing Select Committee) introduced the referral, highlighting that the cut proposed in B1 (Reduction and remodelling of Supporting People housing and floating support services) will have a major impact on the vulnerable and that a focus on prevention and early intervention would be beneficial.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee resolved to refer the comments of the Housing Select Committee to Mayor & Cabinet

 

Referral from Children & Young People Select Committee

 

Cllr John Paschoud (Chair of Children & Young People Select Committee) introduced the referral, highlighting the following key points:

·         The potential cumulative negative impact on service providers of proposal K2 (YOS reorganisation, changes in interventions & reduction in contracts) could mean that services may no longer be viable in the future.

·         The proposal in Q2 (Reduction in Youth Service provision) to create an employee led mutual for youth services is a challenge but is possible although it will require resources and support to make it happen and is highly dependent on the involvement of the voluntary and community sector.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, Frankie Sulke (Executive Director for Children & Young People) and Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime and Supporting People) provided the following information:

·         Officers have spoken to organisations involved in commissioned YOS provision and they have indicated that the impact of the reductions will not cause them to close.

·         Youth groups providing commissioned services have been informed about the amount of money they will receive and for how long they will receive it and information on this will be provided to Mayor & Cabinet.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee resolved to refer the comments of the Children & Young People Select Committee to Mayor & Cabinet.

 

Referral from Healthier Communities Select Committee

 

Cllr John Muldoon (Chair of Healthier Communities Select Committee) introduced the referral, highlighting the following key points:

·         Public Health is a recent addition to local government responsibilities.

·         Healthier Communities Select Committee raised concerns over the amount of agency staff used.

·         Adult Social Care faces major changes and salami slicing of budgets will not address the pressures.

·         Healthier Communities Select Committee asked for revisions to the A2 and A9 proposals, which have been made.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, Aileen Buckton (Executive Director for Community Services) provided the following information on proposal A1 (Cost effective care packages):

·         The reductions in budget reflect changes in social work services and are related to the Care Act. The Council has flexibility in the way it provides services and has the ability to meet the needs of users in different ways.

·         Officers are taking into consideration how other organisations and funding work for the user and will work through packages case- by-case to see how to meet needs in a cost effective way. There are alternatives and opportunities for different provision and there will be consultation with all service users over changes.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee resolved to refer the comments of the Healthier Communities Select Committee to Mayor & Cabinet.

 

Referral from Sustainable Development Select Committee

 

Cllr Liam Curran (Chair of Sustainable Development Select Committee) introduced the referral, highlighting the following key points:

·         The need for adequate ICT systems to implement and support proposed service changes

·         The potential benefits of increasing the use of school premises outside school hours in proposal E2 (Optimisation of operational estate), although it will be difficult to greatly increase the use of school premises for community use.

·         There was support for the proposal set out in H1 (Restructuring of enforcement and regulatory services) although concerns were raised that the proposals could end up being simply a reduction in staffing.

·         Concerns around the proposal N2 (Reduction in street cleansing frequencies and cleansing management costs) including the potential negative impacts it will have on the borough and the cumulative effect of cuts to cleansing services.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee resolved to refer the comments of the Sustainable Development Select Committee to Mayor & Cabinet.

 

Referral from Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee

 

Cllr David Michael (Vice-Chair of Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee) introduced the savings and offered apologies on behalf of Cllr Pauline Morrison (Chair of Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee) who was unable to attend due to ward business. Cllr Michael highlighted comments from the Committee that services provided by the Council should have regard to the most vulnerable residents and communities, including those affected by poor mental health and disabilities.

 

There was then discussion around the impact of the changes to the probation service on the delivery of local services, including the allocation of probation service contracts.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee resolved to refer the comments of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee to Mayor & Cabinet.

 

Proposals E1 (Structural re-organisation of the Regeneration & Asset Management Division), E2 (Optimisation of operational estate), E3 (Creating income from asset portfolio) and E4 (Improving rent collection for commercial assets)

 

Rob Holmans (Director of Regeneration and Asset Management) introduced the proposals E1 to E4 and highlighted the following key points:

·         Savings will come from a re-organisation that will draw together the existing structures so they become more cohesive. This will enable the sharing of processes and systems and help breakdown silos. Inspection roles for highways, property and building control can be brought together in one area and Asset Management will similarly be looked at to bring functions together.

·         The new structure will comprise of 4 key elements: Asset Strategy and Technical Support, Commercial and Investment (including the Programme Management Office), Capital Delivery (Projects and Programmes) and Operational Delivery.

·        There is a proposed £600k saving from proposal E1

·        There has only been high level consultation with staff since the proposals have not yet been presented to Mayor & Cabinet, consultation will take place after approval and once the outstanding detail is finalised.

·         The overall aim is to ensure that staff are able to recognise and maximise opportunities in redevelopment and asset management, such as in areas like Deptford High Street.

·         There is potential to improve IT systems and a new asset management platform is currently being put in place.

 

In response to questions from the Committee about proposal E2, Rob Holmans and Frankie Sulke provided the following information:

·         Officers are working on proposals to ensure PFI schools can be used. A toolbox is being built to help schools set costs for charges outside school hours.

·         A small group of headteachers has been brought together in a working group to address this. At the moment there are no incentives for schools to open up for community use, so work needs to be done to show the benefits for them and persuade them to pursue this. It will not be easy to do but it can be done.

 

The Committee then discussed possible engagement with Local Assemblies around this, as well as influencing school governors.

 

F1 (Centralisation of business support services)

 

Ralph Wilkinson (Head of Public Services) highlighted that savings can be achieved through economies of scale, basic technical and process redesign (such as improved use of technology and demand management) as well as some reduction in non-core business support functions. The structure is being developed and will create 5 hubs serving key areas.

 

G1 (Increasing income from schools SLA, Debt collection and Investment strategy (inc blue badges))

 

Alan Docksey (Head of Resources & Performance (C&YP)), Ralph Wilkinson and Selwyn Thompson introduced the proposal, highlighting the following key points:

·         Schools Service Level Agreements will increase the range of charged for services and decreasing the number of “free” services, so that full cost recovery is achieved.

·         Council Tax Collection assumes £500k increase, which will be achieved through improving collections and by developing approaches built upon the work of the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights Team.

·         The Investment Strategy will focus on the level of return the Council receives on its current investments, which should be achieved to current market conditions.

·         The Blue Badge Administration Fee would mean that customers would have to pay a £10 fee each time they renewed their badge. Prior to 2011 it was only possible to charge a small amount, which was not worth the cost of collecting. 24 other local authorities currently charge for blue badge administration and the charge would raise £24k.

 

In response to questions from the Committee about the Blue Badge Administration Fee, Ralph Wilkinson provided the following the following information:

·         The pass is not means-tested; it is decided purely on mobility criteria.

·         There is no scope to increase charge beyond the £10 limit.

·         The blue badge is a national scheme, so there is no control locally on the number of badges and eligibility, although there is local flexibility on the number of parking spaces available.

·         £24k is not a lot out of £85m savings required, but there is a case for introducing charges such as these.

 

The Mayor highlighted that while there is a reputational risk in introducing this charge, there is also a reputational risk if Lewisham is the only borough in London not charging this administration fee.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee agreed to refer the following to Mayor & Cabinet:

·         The Committee agreed with the concerns raised by the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee and also highlighted the reputational risk to the Council that could occur through the introduction of charges for issuing blue badges.

 

I1 (Reduction in corporate management and professional support services)

 

Janet Senior (Executive Director for Resources & Regeneration) introduced the proposal, highlighting that the proposal offers proportionate savings across corporate services and reflects how corporate services are likely to operate in the future.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, Barry Quirk (Chief Executive) and Janet Senior provided the following the following information:

·         Shared services are something to look at and consider in the future and scrutiny of this issue by the Public Accounts Select Committee would be welcomed. It can take a lot of work to make shared services work properly so it should not be entered into lightly or with the expectation that it can be easily done.

·         A shared service, such as for enforcement, may be able to keep the specialisation within teams however there would be a loss of direct control of the service.  A more grouped internal service, as proposed for enforcement in Lewisham, may risk losing specialisation however control can be kept. It is not possible to do both and make the savings required.

·         Officers are looking at the costs of supporting council corporately; it is not about taking out a certain percentage of the costs as there are certain irreducible costs that have to be met such as governance.

·         When all the savings have been taken in three years’ time Lewisham will spend what Bromley does now, however Bromley is 217^th on the deprivation list and Lewisham is 15^th.

·         Many of the cuts proposed in this round of savings are frontline services, however there will be more back office proposals in the next round of savings.

 

The Committee then discussed whether more savings could be made from corporate communications.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee requested that savings made in service areas from 2010 onwards be shown in future proposals so it is possible to see the cumulative impact of savings.

 

The Committee agreed to refer the following to Mayor & Cabinet:

·           The Committee noted the lack of proposals including shared services and asked that shared services options are explored fully in the next round of savings.

·           The Committee recommended that further savings in Corporate Communications should be explored.

 

O2 (Reduction in staffing for parking contract client team) and O3 (Set up an internal “enforcement agency” (bailiff) service to collect council tax and other debts)

 

Ralph Wilkinson introduced the proposals, highlighting the following key points:

·         A strong client team was needed at the start of the parking contract, however now that the contract is underway this is no longer required.

·         Changes in legislation that came into force in April 2014 brought major changes to the enforcement industry to make it simpler to understand and more transparent, including a new fixed fee regime.

·         A review of the changes showed it would be possible to set up an internal ‘enforcement agency’ (bailiff) service which after taking into account running costs will generate a net surplus income.

·         It is anticipated that this agency will collect as much, likely more, than current arrangements and do it in a more sensitive manner.

·         Additional savings could be generated as the agency expands and builds in more collections.

·         Bailiffs contracts will be retained for high-risk and out of borough collection as well as for backup.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee agreed to refer the following to Mayor & Cabinet:

 

·         The Committee endorsed the referrals made by Select Committees to the Committee and asked that the Mayor takes these referrals into account alongside officer reports when taking a decision on the Lewisham Future Programme – 2015/16 Revenue Budget Savings Report.

 

·         The Committee noted the lack of proposals including shared services and asked that shared services options are explored fully in the next round of savings.

 

G1: Increasing income from schools SLA, debt collection, investment strategy and blue badges

 

·         The Committee agreed with the concerns raised by the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee and also highlighted the reputational risk to the Council that could occur through the introduction of charges for issuing blue badges.

 

I1: Reduction in corporate management and professional support services

 

·         The Committee recommended that further savings in Corporate Communications should be explored.