Agenda and minutes

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeitng held on 15 September be agreed as an accurate record.

·         Councillor Elliot declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item 4 as the Council’s representative to the Lewisham Disability Coalition.

·         Councillor Michael declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item four as a patron of the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust and as Chair of Lewisham EqualiTeam.

·         Councillor Mallory declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item four as Chair of Lee Green Lives, which receives a grant from the Council; a board member of Lee Fair Share, which is funded by the local assembly and a member of Deptford Challenge Trust, which is a provider of funding.

3.1      Councillor Dromey (Cabinet Member for Policy and Performance) introduced the response from Mayor and Cabinet, the following key points were noted:

·         Mayor and Cabinet welcomed the Committee’s report.

·         Cllr Dromey had been appointed as cabinet lead, to take forward the recommendations in the report.

·         There was a recognition of the difficulty in adequately and accurately defining poverty.

·         Mayor and Cabinet had accepted the recommendation of establishing a poverty task force. Proposals would be brought back to the committee about how this would be progressed. The intention was that the taskforce would include a broad range of stakeholders.

·         The causes of poverty were complex and included issues with housing, low pay and insecure work.

·         The Council would be looking to innovate and learn from best practice by other councils.

·         The final report produced by the taskforce would be brought to the Committee before being agreed at Mayor and Cabinet.

·         A briefing would be produced for circulation to the Committee, which would set out a proposed timescale of activities.

3.2    In the discussion that followed these key points were noted.

·         Members thanked the cabinet member – and said that they would be happy to be involved in the taskforce.

·         The Council should be cautious about making unrealistic promises in a time of constrained resources.

·         Members asked that there be a structure of accountability in place for the taskforce. The taskforce would present recommendations to Mayor and Cabinet, and this report would be presented to the Committee before going to Mayor and Cabinet. The work of the group would be limited but it would have to have the authority to do things by itself.

·         Better understanding residents’ experiences of poverty – as understood through diverse identities and characteristics- would be an important part of the work of the taskforce.

·         It was recognised that there were a number of interlinked issues facing residents in poverty, often including mental health and access to housing and services.

·         Officers would also look at the potential to create a measure for poverty in the Council’s management report.

·         It was recognised that poverty might increase in the borough, despite the efforts of the Council.

·         The Committee also asked that the taskforce work with officers from public health. It was recognised that people with long-term health conditions were at significant risk of falling in to poverty as a result of struggling in employment or becoming unemployed.

Resolved: to note the response from Mayor and Cabinet and to continue to add additional items on the work of the task force and its final report to the Committee’s future work programme, as required.

4.1      James Lee (Head of Culture and Community Development) addressed the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         It was a difficult time for the sector. The Council was making substantial cuts to the main grants programme budget.

·         Public sector commissioning budgets were being tightened at the same time that accessing funding form alternative sources was becoming more competitive.

·         London Councils was also withdrawing its funding for infrastructure support organisations.

·         There was still a high level of demand for services provided by the community and voluntary sector and there were significant numbers of people living in relative poverty who needed support.

·         The Council recognised the need for a strong sector and there was a recognised need for local communities to be supported through civil society.

·         Infrastructure support was also needed to assist organisations to monitor how well they were performing and diversity their sources of funding.

·         There was a recognised need for mergers and partnerships in the sector.

·         Officers were also working with organisations to help them understand what funding reductions from the main grants programme would look like for them.

·         Officers were working with organisations to build the capacity of peer support networks.

·         The local partnership of community organisations was strong.

·         Specific work was now taking place with Voluntary Action Lewisham (VAL), Rushey Green Time Bank and Volunteer Centre Lewisham to consider Lewisham’s infrastructure support offer based on the ‘way ahead’ proposals.

·         It was recognised that infrastructure support needed to be less bureaucratic, better community led and more flexible.

·         A combined infrastructure support offer might include a disclosure and barring service hub; it might procure or provide training. It might also provide a focus for local activity. It should be responsive to local issues and help the Council to engage with the sector. It should also mobilise local people to tackle local issues.

·         An important role for infrastructure support organisations in the future would be to provide a voice for the sector: to raise issues, challenge the Council and to collect information to demonstrate the cumulative impact on the sector.

·         This would allow the Council to better meet its responsibilities without shunting costs from one area to another.

·         There would be a proposal relating to infrastructure support as part of the main grants update to Mayor and Cabinet in the December. The report would be presented to Committee before the decision was taken.

4.2      Cllr Millbank informed the committee that London Councils leaders group decided to prioritise grant funding for frontline services over infrastructure support out of necessity, rather than based on the performance of specific organisations.

4.3      James Banks (Chief Executive, Greater London Volunteering) addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The ‘way ahead’ report brought together a wide range of stakeholders to consider the future of civil society in London.

·         The report broadened the definition of voluntary activity to encompass a wider range of actions to achieve change.

·         It helped to demonstrate the requirement for civil society support.

·         In challenging economic situations, new approaches were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1      Timothy Andrew (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The Committee was reminded that the following items were scheduled for the meeting on 28 November:

·         MOPAC police and crime plan

·         Local assemblies

·         Main grants programme

·         Demographics review: scoping report

5.2      In the discussion that followed, the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee requested an update on initiatives to tackle knife crime and hate crime as part of the item on the Mayor’s police and crime plan.

·         It was expected that the report on the voluntary sector would inform the comments/referral the Committee made on the main grants programme report.

·         The scope for the demographics review should set out options to explore the Council’s approach to forward planning, with particular emphasis on future requirements for infrastructure and new policy approaches. The Committee was concerned about the borough’s readiness for dealing with the impact of medium/long term changes in the composition of the population. Members highlighted the social changes occurring as a result of new patterns of mobility and transition in and out of the borough due to increasing gentrification.

·         The Committee also asked that further work be carried out to follow up on the poverty review. It was noted that Cllr Dromey offered to provide a written briefing for members setting out next steps for the creation of the poverty taskforce. Members recognised that further updates may need to be factored into the work programme toward the end of the year.

There were none.