Agenda item

RESOLVED that the following referral be made to Mayor and Cabinet:

The Children and Young People Select Committee requests that the following information be included in all upcoming the Budget Cuts reports:

1.    The impact of a proposed cut on the users of a service

2.    The impact of a proposed cut on the staff of a service

3.    The impact of the proposed cut on the service overall

4.    The cumulative impact of the cut on the London Borough of Lewisham as a whole.

Pinaki Ghoshal – Executive Director for Children and Young People gave a brief introduction to the Budget Cuts report. He explained the approach taken as follows:

1.    the report had been prepared prior to the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review that had been announced the previous day. Some information was therefore slightly out of date.

2.    Responding to the Covid-19 pandemic had created a budget shortfall of £68m of which approximately £30m was due to costs and the remaining circa £38m was a result of lost revenue. While some central government funding was being provided, this would not be enough to meet the entire cost.

3.    Additionally there would be a CYP budget overspend of slightly less than £10m at the end of this financial year, and some would flow into the next financial year, largely due to the cost of social care placements for children.

4.    Even without the additional financial pressures brought about by Covid-19, there was expected to be a £40m budget cut over the next 3 years, of which £34m was to be made in the next financial year.

5.    Officers had taken a themed approach to finding ways of making savings and cuts, which each Executive Director leading on a theme that was not directly related to their business area.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

1.    In recent months there had been a reduction in the unit cost of residential placements, as well as a reduction in the number of children requiring residential placements. These measures were aimed at reducing the overspend on placement costs, and not at reducing the budget.

2.    Regarding the proposed saving on short breaks provision, one Member was concerned that overly tight gatekeeping was preventing parents from being able to access the short breaks provision that they needed. Officers responded that the reduction was relatively small, and some of this would be met in 3 ways:

a.    by looking at provision costs as costs varied greatly between providers

b.    by organising staffing in a more efficient and effective way, and not using social workers by default

c.    Looking to increase the uptake of personal budgets to give families more choice, rather than having to use the local authority offer

3.    Members had concerns about cutting funding for transition services when moving from children’s to adult’s social care. The Committee heard that work was underway to set up a new transition service, which would utilise staff with adult’s social care experience as well as staff with children’s social care experience, and would be working with families with children from age 14+. It was hoped that this would lead to a better transition experience for families.

4.    The saving of £1.2m relating to partner contributions to children in care placements combined 3 elements

a.    Housing Benefit – there were currently young people in care eligible for but not been claiming. Systems had been corrected to ensure the council no longer pays the provider for the equivalent amount of the benefit

b.    There had been positive conversations with the Care Commissioning Group (CCG) around health contributions from children in care with an EHCP where there is a health element to their care costs. Historically the council had not been good at getting health contributions for complex care placements. Recently the percentage of the CCG contribution was increasing.

c.    Education contribution to costs had previously been met from the general fund whereas they should have been paid from the High Needs Block (HNB) of the Designate Schools Grant (DSG). The HNB was already projected to overspend, so shifting this cost would place additional pressure on the HNB. However, this raised the wider question of why the HNB funding that the council receives is not adequate to meet the needs of Lewisham children and young people. This was a pan-London problem.

5.    It had been announced in the CSR that the Troubled Families Grant (TFG) would be extended by another year.  The government had also indicated a commitment to continuing this funding in some form.

6.    The Chair asked that a briefing note be prepared to inform Members how the CSR announcements would affect the council’s budget. The Chair was advised that the detail relating to Lewisham would not be available in time for the next Mayor and Cabinet meeting.

7.    There had been an increase in permanent social workers employed in Lewisham, with 25 newly qualified social workers being recruited straight from university. The service was on target to reach 80% permanent staffing by Christmas, and 90% permanent staffing by next year. Initially, the recruitment of large numbers of inexperienced social workers would present a challenge, and experienced agency staff had been brought in to support them during the initial stages. Ultimately the recruitment of NQ social workers presented an opportunity for the council to ‘grow its own’.

8.    New joiners were being attracted to Lewisham’s clear practice model, learning reflective culture, support offer and stated ambition. These were all bigger attracting factors than pay alone.

9.    Increasing the number of in-house foster carers would begin to deliver savings in year 2. Work was needed across the wider environment, to ensure the authority has a systemised approach to marketing itself and recruiting foster carers, including encouraging existing agency foster carers to come in house. For this to happen, Lewisham’s offer would need to be more attractive than that of an agency. Currently the percentage of in house foster carers was very low, so it was felt that bringing about an increase by the end of year 2 should be readily achievable.

10.  Cllr Bill Brown, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny MOVED that a referral be made to Mayor and Cabinet in the following terms:

In upcoming Budget reports could the following information be included;

The impact of a proposed cut on the users of a service.

The impact of a proposed cut on the staff of a service.

The impact of the cut on the service overall.

The cumulative impact of the cut on LBL as a whole.

11. This proposal was SECONDED by Cllr Jacq Paschoud and the Committee unanimously RESOLVED to make the referral.

12. The Chair noted that “the government had spent the last 10 years underfunding, as a political choice, local authorities and this has done great harm to children and young people and is nothing short of a national scandal. I commend officers for doing their best to mitigate the effects of this”.

RESOLVED that

1.     the following referral be made to Mayor and Cabinet:

The Children and Young People Select Committee requests that the following information be included in all upcoming the Budget Cuts reports:

1.    The impact of a proposed cut on the users of a service

2.    The impact of a proposed cut on the staff of a service

3.    The impact of the proposed cut on the service overall

4.    The cumulative impact of the cut on the London Borough of Lewisham as a whole.

2.    That the Committee be provided, in due course, with a briefing note setting out the implications for Lewisham of the Comprehensive Spending Review.