The Overview & Scrutiny Committee met on Monday 10 January 2011 to interview the Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter John, about a range of issues including the provisional financial settlement for Southwark, budget savings, and the council's approach to various educational policies. The committee also received a briefing on upcoming budget scrutiny arrangements.

Interview with the Leader of the Council

The majority of the meeting was dedicated to an interview with Councillor Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council, who addressed a series of questions from committee members.

Provisional Financial Settlement

Councillor John expressed significant disappointment with Southwark's provisional financial settlement, stating that the borough was the biggest loser in cash terms of any London council, facing a loss of £30 million in the next financial year and £18 million the year after. This equates to an immediate 8.44% reduction in spending power, with a projected 28% loss over four years. He contrasted this with a 35% increase in spending power over the previous eight years. Members noted that other affluent areas like Richmond and Surrey had received relatively small cuts and questioned the grounds for judicial review and any action being considered by London Councils. Councillor John acknowledged political differences within London Councils making consensus unlikely and mentioned that counsel's advice had been sought on a challenge based on insufficient equality impact assessment, though its success was uncertain. The council's response to consultation on replacing the grant formula was being developed, with Central London Forward commissioning a report on the future of local government finance.

Budget Savings and Consultation

Regarding budget savings, Councillor John emphasised that consultation with residents was a dynamic process. Community councils would receive reports on consultation responses, and proposals would be fed into the budget process. He hoped the new approach to budget consultation would be built upon in future years. He also expressed a desire for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to be brought into the main budget process for greater political control and scrutiny. Significant savings were being considered in the council's communications budget, with staff consultation planned. In response to questions about savings within the cabinet, Councillor John noted that special responsibility allowances had already been reduced by £70,000, and the majority opposition had also seen a reduction in support. He indicated that all possibilities, including potential amalgamation of portfolios or community councils, could be considered in the future, though significant savings were not anticipated from community councils in the next year. The democracy commission would review community councils. Savings in the scrutiny area were also necessary, and the committee was invited to propose its own solutions.

Sharing Council Services

Councillor John stated there was no intention to share a chief executive with other councils but that the cabinet was exploring all avenues for savings to preserve front-line services. Procurement and human resources were highlighted as potential areas for efficiency savings through shared services with other councils, along with certain democratic and legal services. Discussions were underway with other councils and Transport for London regarding shared procurement for roads maintenance, and with Westminster City Council about sharing the communications function. He cautioned that such processes required considerable work to ensure service alignment and compatibility.

Use of Consultants

The Leader reported substantial decreases in spending on consultants, with £4,820,764 spent in the first nine months of the financial year compared to £10,124,161 in the previous year. He acknowledged the risk of increased reliance on consultants if staff numbers fell and vacancies were not filled, but hoped that redeployment of staff into vacant jobs would mitigate this. Voluntary redundancies would be considered, but carefully managed to retain essential skills. Councillor John agreed that tapping into expertise from other authorities could be cheaper than using consultants and noted that Southwark was already providing services to other authorities in areas like electoral registration and legal services. Concerns were raised about consultants involved in housing and regeneration, but Councillor John assured that expertise would remain in-house. He stressed the aim to minimise redundancies and re-skill and redeploy staff.

Impact on Employment

Councillor John predicted an adverse and disproportionate impact on employment in Southwark due to government spending reductions, noting that 27.5% of the working-age resident population was employed in public services, a higher figure than for London generally. Job losses were expected in the council, health sector, central government, and schools. He emphasised the need for ongoing regeneration and investment in the borough.

Pupil Premium and Building Schools for the Future

Regarding the Pupil Premium, Councillor John stated that a flat rate of £430 per pupil was insufficient for Southwark's needs and agreed that a London weighting should be applied to account for price differentials. He also addressed concerns about potential cuts to Building Schools for the Future (BSF) schemes, stating the council was in dispute with the Partnership for Schools and the Department for Education over a proposed 40% cut. He clarified that one school in Rotherhithe had fallen out of the programme due to insufficient projected pupil numbers.

Academy and Free School Status

Councillor John expressed his opposition to the academy programme, arguing that while it brought money into secondary schools, it removed control of education provision from local authorities. He stressed the importance of considering the community and education for all children when schools considered academy or free school status. He believed wider consultation would be useful and expressed concern about the long-term sustainability of the increased funding offered to academies and the monitoring of educational standards once schools were outside council control.

New Secondary School in Rotherhithe

The council remained concerned about secondary education in Rotherhithe and was in discussions with Bacon's College about rising pupil numbers. While acknowledging the need for a new secondary school in the area due to regeneration and an influx of families, the issue remained that this would not be within the timeframe of the BSF programme, requiring exploration of different funding routes. Councillor John assured the committee that the issue of places in Rotherhithe would not be neglected.

Free School Meals

The Leader indicated that details from pilot schemes would inform the final figure for offering free school meals to every school child, estimating a ball-park figure of £2.5 million. He acknowledged that stigma could be a barrier to take-up and that everything possible should be done to remove barriers. The obesity rate for year 6 pupils in 2010/11 was reported as 26%, with pilot schemes expected to provide additional data. He clarified that children attending schools outside the borough would not benefit from the policy. Regarding school meal standards, he stated that chips were not allowed more than twice a week and that the policy aimed to provide nutritionally balanced meals. He stressed the importance of developing a dialogue with schools and incorporating parental education on healthy eating. The manifesto commitment to free school meals was being delivered in a considered way, taking account of pilot schemes. An audit was underway to establish the costs of upgrading or building primary school kitchens to enable free school meals, with the results to be considered in due course.

Capital Programme and Retail Environments

The council was reviewing priorities and resources for the capital programme. A discrepancy was noted between the initial anticipated allocation of £54 million and the actual figure of £9 million, with the recent decision on three town halls providing an additional £8 million. Members expressed concern about the accuracy of figures. A decision on re-profiling the Improving Local Retail Environments element of the capital programme was scheduled for February.

Livesey Museum

The council was in discussions with several organisations about the former Livesey Museum premises and considered it premature to sell the building without exploring all possible options for its re-opening.

Scrutiny Involvement

Councillor John confirmed the cabinet's commitment to scrutiny helping to evaluate the free school meals and food waste recycling pilots.

Budget Scrutiny Briefing

The committee chair briefed members on proposals for the budget scrutiny meeting scheduled for 31 January 2011. The intention was to invite the Leader and Councillor Richard Livingstone to provide an overview, interview each cabinet member, and then formulate recommendations to the cabinet. Councillor John highlighted that the cabinet would be hearing deputations on 8 February and wanted as much feedback as possible from scrutiny, community councils, and the public.