Agenda item

6.1  Duncan Whitfield, Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services, and Jennifer Seeley, Deputy Finance Director, introduced the Policy and Resources Strategy 2014/15 to 2016/17 Provisional Settlement.

6.2  Members were concerned about the increasing demands on council services and wondered whether these reflected recent changes to the national benefits scheme.  Councillor Peter John, Leader, stressed that the council had set aside new funding including discretionary housing payment, the social fund replacement and the welfare hardship fund, while universal credit and changes to the disability living allowance had not yet been rolled out.  He had asked for a review of the hardship fund to ensure that it was providing support to the people who needed it.  The council also needed to determine whether Southwark faced greater pressures than comparable boroughs and any factors behind this.  The committee asked for the review to be circulated to its members.

6.3  Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive, stated that the council was aiming to hold expenditure down on no recourse to public funds in two particular ways; auditing of the people the council supported and holding robust conversations with the Home Office about individuals’ leave to remain in the country (which would enable them to work).  She also clarified the commitment of £990,000 relating to the increase in number of young people with learning disabilities receiving support (page 34).

6.4  A member drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 116 of the cabinet report which referred to growth bids to address pressures and asked whether there was confidence that future budget pressures could be brought under control.  The Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services stressed that this was the first stage of an ongoing programme of work.  Changes needed to be transformational in order to meet the new need.  However there was concern that local government was being invited to create its own welfare benefit system and this would be very expensive to administrate.  A member of the committee highlighted that evidence from the pilots of universal credit suggested a reduction in revenue and wondered whether funding would be available to alleviate this.

6.5  In response to questions about use of the Southwark Emergency Support Scheme, the Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services referred the committee to the details provided in the answer to a Member’s Question at Council Assembly on 22 January.  Councillor John added that £3 million had been set aside in the three different funds and confirmed that it was the cabinet’s responsibility to revise the criteria in respect of these funds in order for the council to support those most in need.

6.6  A member was concerned about private sector landlords not letting property to benefits recipients.  Councillors Livingstone and John commented on the results of the direct payment pilot which involved around 1,500 Southwark tenants and a small number of Family Mosaic tenants.  At the end of the pilot only around a half of the tenants involved were still receiving direct payments and 90% were in rent arrears.  It seemed unlikely that the policy could be more widely implemented.

6.7  A member highlighted paragraph 156 of the report and sought clarification of the proposals to generate additional income.  The Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services explained that these would be addressed in an individual Cabinet Member decision and offered to supply details in due course.

6.8  Members were concerned about the numbers of premises subject to outstanding business rate appeals and whether bringing Council Tax collection in-house had benefited the council.  The Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services indicated that there were around a thousand properties awaiting the result of an appeal and that the system was dependent on the Valuation Office.  Councillor Livingstone reported that the in year collection rate for Council Tax was at a rate of 91% and that he was confident that this could improve.  A member wondered whether re-occupation relief in respect of business rates would affect the council’s policies to deter pay-day loans companies from operating on the high street.  Another member asked the purpose of the high street innovation fund.  Councillor John stated that the intention was to re-launch the high street challenge.

6.9  A member asked whether council was confident that the proposed saving of £200,000 in respect of mental health day services (page 36 of the report) would not have a knock-on cost to the NHS.  Officers commented that this was achievable and part of the improvements to client independence and choice.

6.10  In response to questions about the additional savings arising from the acquisition of the Tooley Street building, the Chief Executive explained that prudent numbers had been put forward at the time of the acquisition.