Agenda item

Resolved: that referrals from other select committees as well as the Committee’s own comments (under sections 5.6/5.11/5.15 and 5.17 of the minutes) be referred to Mayor and Cabinet for consideration alongside the budget cuts proposals.

5.1    The Committee considered the street sweeping cuts (CUS07) at the beginning of this item.

5.2    Councillors Patrick Codd and Louise Krupski introduced the referral from the Sustainable Development Select Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Members of the Sustainable Development Select Committee had reiterated their concerns about the impact of this cut and on the public perception of Council services.

·         The Committee also believed that additional consideration should be given to the options for mitigating the impact of this cut.

·         Members of Sustainable Development also highlighted their concerns about the findings from the street cleaning pilot. It was felt that the results of the pilot were too unspecific to allow any real consideration of the issues.

·         The Committee had also highlighted the importance of bolstering civic pride to prevent littering.

5.3    The Committee discussed the proposed street sweeping cut – the following key points were noted:

·         Members shared experiences of instances of lack of delivery of street sweeping services in their wards.

·         Members also questioned the implementation, the analysis and the presentation of findings from the street cleansing pilot.

·         Specific concerns were raised about the lack of a control area with which to compare the results of the trial areas.

·         An example was given of residents regularly sweeping their own street in the pilot area – during the trial period. Officers acknowledged that they had not been aware that this was the case.

·         Members highlighted concerns about the risks of ‘swapping costs’ between routine sweeping and increased enforcement activity.

·         There was concern (as noted in previous years) about the potential disproportionate impact on low-paid workers.

·         The Committee also thanked officers for their commitment to the delivery of quality services.

5.4    Nigel Tyrell responded to questions from the Committee about the proposed cut and the street cleansing pilot - the following key points were noted:

·         The service was stretched to carry out any monitoring of the quality of street cleansing. Officer posts that had been available to monitor the cleanliness of Lewisham’s streets had been cut during a previous round of budget reductions.

·         This meant that there was no comparable data with the rest of the borough.

5.5    Councillor Sophie McGeevor addressed the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Members’ concerns about the lack of information in the report were valid.

·         Scrutiny committees should receive more information about the proposal before any decision was taken.

·         One of the pieces of information missing from the report was an accurate breakdown of numbers of permanent and agency staff.

5.6    Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows - the Public Accounts Select Committee endorses the comments of the Sustainable Development Select Committee and in particular it acknowledges concerns about the limitations of the findings from the cleansing pilot. The Committee also reiterates previous concerns about the impact of this proposal on low-paid workers. It recommends that Mayor and Cabinet does not agree the proposal until further work had been done to address the concerns of both Committees.

5.7    A number of members of the Committee commented on the coherence of the cuts report and noted the difficulties they had experienced in navigating the different sections.

5.8    David Austin (Acting Chief Finance Officer) provided an overview of the cuts proposals for Community Services. The Committee noted that the Healthier Communities Select Committee had not chosen to make a referral on the cuts to Mayor and Cabinet.

5.9    David Austin and Kevin Sheehan provided an overview of the cuts that had been considered by the Housing Select Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         There were two budgets which paid for the Council’s no recourse to public funds work – one for staffing and the other for the provision of services. There was no proposal to cut the budget for staffing – however – it was believed that money could be taken from the budget for services.

·         The service had been effective at ‘regularising’ the status of its clients – which meant they could access alternative funding for services.

·         The services budget was based on demand. Should additional funding be required in the future then the Council could decide to re-provide funding.

5.10  The Committee considered the written referral from the Housing Select Committee on savings generated through no recourse to public funds service (CUS15)– the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee expressed its concerns about officers’ delay in the production of a report which was expected on the no recourse to public funds service.

·         The Committee was unable to determine what course of action was recommended by the Housing Select Committee.

5.11  Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows – further to the concerns expressed by some Members of Housing Select Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet should insist on publication of the report on the no recourse to public funds service before it makes a decision about this cut.

5.12  Councillor Juliet Campbell introduced the referral from the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee sought more information about the likely equalities impact on service users of the proposal to increase rental charges for nurseries (RES20).

·         There was also a discussion at the Committee about other properties in the commercial estate that were receiving subsidised rents.

5.13  Councillor Amanda de Ryk addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Cabinet members had requested additional information about a number of the cuts proposals which had not been forthcoming from officers.

·         It was not clear why some nurseries were being offered reduced rents whilst others were not.

·         Once detailed information about charges (and the historic reasons for reductions) were understood – then the Council could make an informed decision about the future of any subsidy.

·         Any ongoing rent subsidy might be offered through the grants programme.

5.14 In Committee discussions, the following key points were also noted:

·         These nurseries might be in former Sure Start centres that had been handed over from the Council.

·         The Committee found it difficult to make any decision based on the information that had been provided in the report.

·         Members were concerned about playgroups that were being run in parks. The Council had previously made a commitment to keep these open.

5.15  Resolved: the Committee endorsed the comments of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee. 

5.16  David Austin provided an overview of the proposals that had been allocated to the Public Accounts Select Committee (CUS11a – process automation in revenues and benefits; CUS14a – parking service budget review; RES21 –savings generated through not allocating inflation uplift to contract costs; and RES22 – savings generated through improved ICT provision).

5.17  Resolved: the Committee agreed that these cuts should proceed to Mayor and Cabinet without additional comment. It was also agreed that the briefing on the Mayor’s Office and Communications should be deferred to a future meeting.

5.18 There was a discussion about the referral from Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee regarding neighbourhood community infrastructure levy. There were differing opinions about whether there should be top down alignment or some other form of coordination between capital programme priorities and plans for spending the neighbourhood community infrastructure levy. Members noted that the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee and the Sustainable Development Select Committee were due to consider updates on the neighbourhood community infrastructure levy at future meetings.

5.19  Resolved: that referrals from other select committees as well as the Committee’s own comments (under sections 5.6/5.11/5.15 and 5.17 of the minutes) be referred to Mayor and Cabinet for consideration alongside the budget cuts proposals.