Agenda and minutes

(a) To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Housing, Health & Adult Social Care Select Committee held on 24 September 2012.

(b) To monitor the acceptance and implementation of recommendations as set out at Appendix 1.

(c) To note the outstanding actions.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2012 be approved and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Apologies were received from Councillors Peter Graham and Peter Tobias, and from Councillor Stephen Cowan for lateness.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

There were no declarations of interest.

From April 2013 there is a statutory transfer of public health functions to local authorities. A ring-fenced grant will be received to discharge the new responsibilities, and staff carrying out these functions will transfer into the local authorities from the PCTs.

The recommendations in the report attached as Appendix A were agreed by the Cabinet at its meeting on 15 October 2012.

Dr Melanie Smith presented the report in respect of the statutory transfer of public health functions to local authorities from April 2013.  The Cabinets of the three boroughs (Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster) had agreed the establishment  of a single tri-borough public health service, with the retention of individual borough sovereignty in relation to public health decision making and priorities, and with Westminster City Council as the lead authority.

Dr Smith stated that, during 2013/14, it was planned to focus on maximising the opportunities of an in-house public health function. Staff and contract liabilities would transfer into the local authorities from the PCTs. The transfer of staff from the PCT to Councils was a TUPE-like PCT owned process. The new organisational structure would be in place prior to transfer.

A register of all contract liabilities had been completed by the PCT. The three councils had procured an external forensic examination of the number and values of contracts to provide assurance as to which contracts and their values would transfer to the councils.

A ring-fenced grant would be received. However, on the basis of prudent financial planning assumptions at this point, it was believed that there would be a funding shortfall of £6.2 million, of which  £2.8 million had been  identified to Hammersmith & Fulham. There had been an unfavourable movement since the paper was written due to the identification of an additional cost of £300,000 to adult social care, and a decision to plan on the basis of no inflationary uplift.

Councillor Coleman queried the options to meet the funding gap. Dr Smith responded that the planned tri-borough structure achieved10 – 15% efficiencies and there was scope for savings in the contract portfolio. Displaced staff would be supported through the NHS redeployment pool, but it was possible that there might be  compulsory redundancies.

Councillor Craig queried the funding shortfall for a full year. Dr Smith responded that the allocation would be based on historic spend and, for the three boroughs, was above the national average. However, historic spend was over capitation for public health, and there was an issue in respect of whether the borough would continue to receive growth money. There were concerns in respect of sexual health funding as this was an open access services, and demand was increasing each year.

Prior to the forensic audit, contracts worth £53 million had been split approximately equally between NHS and external contracts. Most external contracts would have been negotiated locally and inflationary uplifts would be unusual. The key NHS contracts would be CLCH and genitourinary medicine with the larger trusts, and these would contain inflationary uplifts. The three councils would be responsible for any shortfall; the worse case scenario was £6.2 million.

Dr Smith stated that the biggest concern was in respect of the increase in activity generally.

Councillor Carlebach noted the indisputable value of the Community Champions.

Councillor Vaughan queried the accountability of the new structure and the portfolios of the Deputy Directors of Public Health. Dr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

This report is a follow up to that presented to Committee on 22 February 2012 which analysed the potential impact of the Government’s Housing Benefit Caps on households residing in the private rented sector and which reported progress on the Council’s HB Assist Project. 

Mr Mike England presented the update report, which covered two distinct cohorts. The first cohort was those households which the Council had placed in temporary accommodation. HB Assist had been set up in December 2010 to deal with the impact of the introduction of Local Housing Allowance (LHA) on those properties already being used as temporary accommodation. There had been an initial 546 tenancies where existing rents exceeded LHA rates, of which eight were currently still to be resolved.

The second cohort was households in the private rented sector who had no relationship with the Council and were affected by the HB Caps.

Mr England stated that there had been no significant change in the quantum of households and numbers of dependent children. However, the information gathered between 30 January 2012 and 30 September 2012 indicated that:

·         The total number of households in the private rented sector affected by the Caps had decreased from 540 to 307.

·         The potential impact of an additional £20 per week contributed by either the household or other party had decreased from 338 to 163 households.

·         The impact of the HB Caps on Child dependents in the private sector had decreased from 949 to 386 children.

Members queried the impact on large households. Mr England responded that, of the 98 households of 4 bedrooms and over, 66 households remained in the same home. The other 32 households had not been moved out.  but might have moved to a different part of the borough

Mr England stated that, whilst there was no clear pattern, there were a number of likely reasons: a combination of people moving out of the borough and those moving in not being affected by HB Caps; and housing issues being resolved by other means, such as the landlord agreeing to reduce the rent, the household moving to another part of the borough, the household being able to meet the increased rent and the receipt of a discretionary housing payment or contribution from the Council. In addition, some tenants might seek assistance from the Council by declaring themselves homeless.

Mr England responded to a member’s query that he was unable to quantify the number of households with children who had moved out of the borough, and that some of these would have had no contact with the Council.

Mr England informed that the number of tenancies still to be resolved by the HB Assist Team were currently eight, and there were  a variety of circumstances to explain why accommodation had not been found. for example some households were waiting to move from temporary to permanent accommodation. When tenants moved from one private landlord to another, the Council aimed to take account of schools or other connections with the borough. However, there was likely to be relationship with landlords of temporary accommodation who had agreed to reduce their rents, which might not be typical of other private landlords.

Mr England responded to a member’s query that he believed there were in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

This report presents performance on key housing indicators.

Mr England responded to queries in respect of the 49 families in bed and breakfast accommodation for over six weeks, as shown in the Housing and Regeneration Department Key Performance Indicators report. The number had peaked at 58 at the beginning of October and had then been brought back to 46. Whilst there was generally a fast turnover of families, there were a small number who had been in bed and breakfast accommodation for a considerable period because of circumstances which made it difficult to move then, for example a large family or technical queries in respect of immigration status. The typical length of stay was 10/12 weeks because of problems with the supply of other temporary accommodation.

The Cabinet had recently approved two measures: an expanded role for HB Assist to help a wider group of residents affected by the Local Allowance cap and forthcoming changes to universal credit; and a £750k incentive package to private landlords to accommodate households on a temporary basis. Mr England referred to the Council’s good record in resolving potential issues before a homelessness application and the rigorous way in which it interpreted the law. In response to a member’s query, Mr England clarified that the Council applied the letter and spirit of the law, investigated thoroughly and, where proven, accepted a duty to assist. Where a duty was not proven, the Council would still assist, whilst not accepting a duty.

Councillor Cowan considered that this approach was subjective and the Council would have to make judgements in complicated cases. Homelessness was not necessarily prevented by the best measures and there was a disparity between the increase in homelessness across London and in Hammersmith & Fulham. Mr England responded that homelessness numbers were rising and that the process was a statutory one with a right of review.

Councillor Cowan stated that the Council had not built affordable housing and should re-apprise its housing policy.  Councillor Johnson responded that he Council had 12,000 tenanted properties of which 33% were social housing and a range of policies to assist tenants were being pursued.

RESOLVED THAT:

1. The Committee recommended that the Council’s figures and projections be compared with those from the GLA.

2. The report be noted.

The Committee is asked to review its work programme for the current Municipal Year. Details of forthcoming Key Decisions which are due to be taken by the Cabinet are provided in order to enable the Committee to identify those items where it may wish to request reports.

The Committee is asked to note that the dates of the meetings scheduled for this municipal year are as follows:

22 January 2013

19 February 2013

09 April 2013