Agenda and minutes

1.1    That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2015 be agreed as an accurate record.

2.1     The following non-prejudicial interests were declared:

Councillor Colin Elliot: Council’s representative for the Lewisham Disability Coalition (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17).

Councillor David Michael: member of the Lewisham Safer Neighbourhood Board, Council representative for Lewisham Citizen’s Advice Bureau Management Committee (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17) and working patron of the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17).

Councillor Pauline Morrison: volunteer at Crofton Park Library (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17), Chair of the Ackroyd Community Association (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17) and a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (in relation to agenda item 3: Police and fire brigade update).

Councillor Pat Raven: Council’s representative for the Lewisham Disability Coalition (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17).

Councillor Paul Upex: Member of the Greenwich Cooperative Development Agency (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17).

Councillor Alicia Kennedy: Member of the Executive Committee of the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust (in relation to agenda item 5: Main Grants Programme 2016-17).

3.1     Apologies were offered as the police borough commander was not able to attend the meeting.

3.2     Keeley Smith (Borough Commander for Lewisham, London fire brigade) introduced a report to the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      The Fire Brigades Union’s announced in December 2015 that it had suspended their strike action over a dispute with the Government on pensions (until Summer 2017) therefore allowing the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) to stand down the contingency arrangement for strike action thus saving £1.7m in 2016/17.

·      There is still a budget gap for LFEPA of £6.4m for 2016/2017. There is a public consultation ongoing on two different options to achieve the required savings. The consultation closes on 1 February 2016.

·      Option A recommends putting the 13 fire engines back into service but making savings by establishing alternate crewing at stations with some special appliances. Alternate crewing means that in stations where there is a fire engine and a special appliance, such as an aerial ladder platform, there would be one crew for both appliances. Option B recommends the permanent removal of the 13 fire engines and reinvesting some of the savings into increasing the number of staff available to crew Fire Rescue Units (FRUs).

·      London fire brigade has a commitment to attendance times for the first appliance of an average of 6 minutes, and 8 minutes for the second appliance. The fire brigade is achieving these attendance times across the borough of Lewisham. In 2012/13, Downham fire station was still open and the pumping appliance hadn’t been removed from Forest Hill fire station yet, so 2012/13 is used as the base year to compare attendance times against.

·      If the 13 appliances including the pump from Forest Hill fire station were retained, it is believed that this would improve average London wide attendance times by around four seconds for the first engine and by around 18 seconds for the second fire engine.

·      Attendance times are published per ward, but the commitment for attendance times from the London fire brigade pertains to the average time per borough and not per ward. If these times were to be achieved for every ward in London, £90m would need to be spent and at least a 100 extra fire appliances would need to be hired.

·      The fire brigade offers free home fire safety checks and will install fire alarms if none are present. Partner organisations can refer people to this service, but the referral rate in Lewisham is low.

·      From November 2015 a new mobilising system VISION has been used to respond to emergency calls, which is expected to improve attendance times. The new system uses GPS to identify and despatch the fire appliance that is closest to the location of the fire. The old system would identify which station ground or geographical zone the location of the fire was in, and despatch a fire appliance from that station.

3.2     Keeley Smith answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.1    Barry Quirk (Chief Executive) gave a presentation to the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      The causes for poverty are difficult to identify. Problems can be divided into simple, complicated, complex and chaotic situations. A complicated problem is one where there likely is a clear relationship between cause and effect, but it requires expertise to work out the right solution to a problem. In a complex situation, many factors are interrelated so there is no one action to take that will certainly result in a desired consequence. This requires experimental practice to work out a solution. The problem of poverty is probably somewhere in between being a complicated and being a complex problem.

·      Poverty is Lewisham is mostly concentrated in the north and the south of the borough. That geographical distribution has been persistent for the last 30 years. In the north, the surrounding areas are also not that well off so residents are likely to experience less deprivation relative to their neighbours. In the south of the borough, neighbouring areas tend to be well off, which means residents in poverty there are likely to experience more relative poverty compared to the people living near them.

·      Lewisham doesn’t have a lot of river front. River front properties tend to attract high income households as can be seen in neighbouring boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark. Lewisham has never really had high value land compared to other areas in London.

·      Lewisham has a relatively large population from African and African-Caribbean background, a group which suffers from discrimination on the labour market. This has an impact on average earnings in the borough.

·      There are significant variations in median household income.

·      The geographical distribution of poverty used to replicate where social housing was provided. Currently, the distribution of poverty replicates where people live in the private rented sector. 28% of the population of Lewisham live in the private rented sector. Three quarters of the house moves in Lewisham each year happen in the private rented sector.

·      Averages can make a proper understanding of the issue of poverty more difficult, as there significant variations in median household income in London which can mask the situations people live in. It is difficult to ensure that policies that aim to tackle poverty or alleviate its outcomes, target the right people.

·      Residents living in poverty can’t be identified simply be their locality. For example, every ward in the borough will have children living in child poverty and children that don’t live in child poverty. When looking at smaller geographical areas to focus on, one could focus on lower super output areas (LSOAs), which are the areas of measurement for the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

·      Lewisham has 169 LSOAs: 7 of them are in the 10% most deprived LSOAs in the country. However, 7 out every 10 children in child poverty in Lewisham do not live in those specific LSOAs. So policies targeting certain areas facing deprivation would miss out large groups of the children the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1    James Lee (Head of Culture and Community Development) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·      The Main Grants Programme 2015-18 had started in July last year. This report related to the second year of the Main Grants Programme.

·      The Grants were reduced in the last round of savings. Five organisations received transitional funding to cope with the reduction in grant or the removal of grant funding.

5.2     James Lee responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      There is no particular definition of a ‘failing’ organisation in receipt of grant funding. The development officers are there to challenge and support the organisations that receive grants from the Council. These assessments are often judgement calls by the development officer involved with a particular organisation. If there is a lapse in judgement by an officer, that would become a management issue. 

·      Officers are awaiting monitoring reports for the second quarter of the 2015-16 grant programme. One criterion for concern is if the monitoring reports indicate for two quarters in a row that an organisation may not be able to meet their agreed outcomes.

·      The Rocket Science self-assessment tool (section 7 and appendix 3 of the report) is used to support organisations in identifying their strengths and weaknesses and taking appropriate action to remedy any problems.

·      A grant is not automatically taken away by the Council when it’s not spent by an organisation as organisations for instance have experienced delays in recruiting staff and so have spent less than expected. However, if this recruitment does not happen, the grant funding will eventually be removed.

·      The faith grants do not fund religious activities, but are explicitly only used to fund community activities conducted by faith based organisations.

·      The outcomes that are measured as part of the grant monitoring regime are the agreed outcomes when the Main Grants Programme 2015-18 was decided on in April 2015.   

5.3     The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·      The Committee questioned why the faith grants and small grants were run through the same programme.

·      The Committee requested that paragraph 7.4 of the report contain more detail on what the consequences would be for an organisation that does not meet their agreed outcomes, and what process would be followed. 

·      The Committee noted that there was a lack of clarity of which organisation received rent grants and to what extent.

5.4     The Committee resolved to advise Mayor and Cabinet of the following:

The Committee noted that ‘the Council provides support to organisations in a number of different ways, including providing repairs & maintenance, rent grants, main grant funding, peppercorn lease arrangements and so on’[1]. 

The Committee is concerned that there is a lack of transparency about which voluntary sector organisations receive the support listed in paragraph 3.2 above. This can create difficulties for voluntary organisations who may not be aware of the financial value of the support they are receiving and the risk to their organisations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1     Simone van Elk (scrutiny manager) introduced the report. The Committee discussed its work programme and decided that: 

·      The following items would be on the agenda for the March meeting:

o  Lewisham Disability Coalition’s review into Hate Crime

o  Provision for the LGBT community

o  Comprehensive Equalities Scheme

o  Safer Lewisham Plan

·      The following items should be considered in the next municipal year:

o  Lewisham police service update

o  Leisure centre contract update

o  Poverty review – final report and recommendations

o  Violence against women and girls service update

·      The Committee meeting scheduled for 9 March should start at 18.30 instead of 19.00.

·      The item on the Review of the Enforcement service should be considered in the next municipal year instead of at the March meeting if possible.