Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 2^nd November 2017 be agreed as an accurate record of proceedings.

Councillor James-J Walsh declared a personal interest in item 7 as he was a founding member of the London Borough of Lewisham LGBT staff forum.

Councillor Brenda Dacres declared a personal interest in item 6 as she had been working with the Ministry of Justice.

There are no responses to referrals due at this Committee

There were no response to referrals considered at this meeting.

Report to follow

4.1       James Lee, Head of Service, Culture and Community Development, presented the 6-month update to the Committee. During the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         Voluntary Action Lewisham’s new role included sign-posting support to voluntary sector organisations.

·         Corporate Social Responsibility could be looked at in more detail for example through companies that have interests in the borough such as City Bank who own land.

·         Using the Social Value Act as part of the procurement process was positive.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

5.1       Paul Aladenika, Service Group Manager, Policy Development and Analytical Insight, presented the report to the Committee. He highlighted an amendment to paragraph 6.2 which should read that the London Living Wage was £10.22. During the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         Members of the Committee welcomed the report and thanked officers for their work.

·         An update from Human Resources would be provided on the apprenticeship scheme.

·         An update from the Council’s Housing Team would be provided on when the first homes under the Council’s Besson Street Development were scheduled to become available.

·         The Council mostly used ONS data for analysing demographics. There were sometimes differences between data projections from different sources such as the GLA versus ONS.

5.2       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

6.1       Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney, Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People, presented the report to the Committee. During the presentation, the following key points were highlighted.

·         More work was being done to ensure that there was a greater link to outcomes when looking at the interventions by the Youth Offending Service.

·         There was a strong focus on partnerships working and governance. There was an independent Chair of the Partnership Board and lead roles had been allocated.

·         Work had been done on speech, communication and language to provide the skills to staff to help them access the services needed.

·         Risk and vulnerability management had been reviewed with clearer thresholds and actions, and escalation and learning frameworks.

·         The trauma informed approach had been very positive and was being embedded across the service.

·         Interventions were taking place such as through “Street Doctors” who were delivering sessions on the impact of trauma and first aid instructions for young people.

·         In terms of the Key Performance Indicators for the Improvement Plan – “reducing the number of first time entrants to the Youth Justice Service” was still red, however improvements had been made and Lewisham had had the biggest reduction across London.

·         “Reducing the numbers of reoffenders” had now moved from red to amber.

·         Episodes of youth custody was in the highest quartile in London. This did not reflect the number of children but the number of incidences. This had started to reduce which would hopefully be shown in the next set of statistics.

·         A pilot scheme similar to the Virtual Schools had been launched for the Youth Offending Service that flagged up those not attending school. The team were working hard to improve outcomes.

·         There was a new inspection regime that would come into effect from April 2018.

6.2       During the discussion that followed, the following key points were noted:

·         The new processes to monitor and track missing, exploited and trafficked young people were now more joined up across service areas and embedded in the work being done.

·         There were opportunities for young people in the YOS to do work linked to community groups but it was essential it was for a suitable project with the right supervision. Assessors checked each placement rigorously to ensure proper safeguarding for the young people.

·         For adult offenders the Community Rehabilitation Service managed the process.

·         Graffiti removal was an example of work that could not be carried out by young people in the YOS because of the toxins involved. Adults could carry out this work and the Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People would provide details to the Committee on who to contact to discuss this in more detail.

·         The reoffending statistics were prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The statistics are based on a 12 month period and evaluated which is why there is a delay in those versus the live statistics.

·         Members of the Committee were informed that additional details on variance from targets could be provided in relation to the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) ratings and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1       Katie Wood, Scrutiny Manager, presented the draft report to the Committee.

7.2       Cllr James-J Walsh tabled suggested recommendations a copy of which will be included in the agenda documentation. During the discussion that followed the following key points were highlighted:

·         Consideration of all protected characteristics was important.

·         Recommendations should be inserted throughout the body of the report in a different colour to the main text.

·         It would be helpful to separate the background information from the recommendation to make them clearer for the purpose of the report.

·         It was important to ensure that it was made clear to people why data was being collected when individuals were asked for details on equalities monitoring forms.

·         Equalities training should be mandatory for Councillors. There were cost and time constraints for officers but it was important that training should be undertaken where it was appropriate.

·         It was a positive use of staff forums when they were consulted on for relevant policies such as the End of Life Care Policy being taken to the LGBT+ staff forum.

·         There was a Lewisham Community Forum event being held on the 15 February 2015 on “Working Together to Challenge Homophobia and Reduce Hate Crime in Lewisham”.

·         A vote was held as to whether tabled recommendation 19 should remain as some members of the committee had concerns regarding “ghettoization” and protecting other disadvantaged groups. It was agreed by majority that the recommendation should remain but include reference to concerns regarding integration.

·         Councillor Walsh thanked Cllr Jacca for her support throughout the review and attending the visit to Manchester, and Katie Wood for her support throughout the review.

7.3       RESOLVED:

That the following recommendations be agreed to be included with the draft report and submitted to the Mayor and Cabinet for consideration at a meeting in February:

Recommendation 1: That the London Borough of Lewisham should resource, produce and adopt a Lewisham LGBT+ Community Action Plan. The Action Plan should be annually reported back to the SSSC throughout the next administration.

Context: That in recognition of the broad and diverse nature of this topic, the fact that Lewisham has 2.4 times the national average of LGB residents (para 4.5) and the limited time and resource available through Scrutiny, that we should draw on similar authorities’ approaches, in developing in partnership with the LGBT+ Community and other key stakeholders an action plan that should align with the Councils Comprehensive Equality Strategy.

Recommendation 2: That the Mayor should work to ensure that through the Council’s internal and external communications, the Council includes positive and celebratory stories and imagery that reflect all protected characteristics, including LGBT+ people, with these woven through specific interest pieces, and also through more generic topics.

Context: Although the report highlights areas where inequalities exist, it is important to consider the LGBT+ community, and all communities, particularly those with protected characteristics, in terms of a “community asset model”, empowering and facilitating them to use their inherent skills as a resource to form sustainable, community owned solutions.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1       Katie Wood, Scrutiny Manager, presented the work programme report to the Committee and highlighted two requested additions to the work programme. During the discussion that following the following key points be noted:

·         Members of the Committee requested that the final meeting of the municipal year be used in part to celebrate the contribution of community groups and others who have supported the Committee with their work over the course of the administration.

·         Members of the Committee requested that the Chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Board be invited to attend the next meeting.

8.2       RESOLVED:

1)    That an item be added to the work programme at the meeting of 25^th January entitled “Review of the Assembly Co-Group Guidelines”.

2)    That a report on the work of the Safer Stronger Select Committee over the course of the 2014-2018 administration be added to the work programme for the meeting of 7th March 2018. 

3)    That the meeting of the Committee on the 7^th March be dedicated in part to celebrating the work of community groups and individuals who have supported the Committee over the course of the last administration. 

There were no referrals to Mayor and Cabinet other than the in-depth review as listed in item 7.