Agenda and minutes

1.1       RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 4^th February be amended to include all Councillors who attended the meeting as guests.

2.1       Cllr Sophie Davis declared a pecuniary interest in item 9 as she worked for the Behavioural Insights Team and the Metropolitan Police and MOPAC were clients of the organisation.

2.2       Councillor Colin Elliott declared a pecuniary interest in item 9 as he was a Community Assessor for the Metropolitan Police.

2.3       Councillor Pauline Morrison declared a personal interest in item 6 and 7 as she was Chair of an organisation in receipt of money from the Main Grants Programme and Chair of Crofton Park Ward Assembly.

2.4       Councillor James Rathbone declared a personal interest in item 6 and 7 as he was a trustee of Lee Green Lives and a member of Lewisham Citizens Advice Bureau and Voluntary Action Lewisham.

There are no response to referrals due at this meeting.

3.1       There were no responses to referrals considered at this meeting.

4.1       Councillor Morrison invited Councillor Walsh to speak on this item.

4.2       Paul Aladenika, Service Group Manager, Policy Development. introduced the report to the Committee. During the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         The report included updates from July 2018 and current updates where available.

·         The Council had now delivered a number of important milestones as a response to the review. In particular the “Pride in Practice” which would see staff in 50 frontline Healthcare services being trained to a standard to meet this award.

·         No Equalities Champion had been nominated to date and there were other areas where there were still outstanding actions.

·         The recommendations and actions arising from the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee’s Review were an important part of the programme of work for the Corporate Equalities Board chaired by Aileen Buckton. Regular updates could be provided to the Committee.

·         The baseline data on the LGBT community in Lewisham was still not in the Corporate Equalities Strategy (CES) and more work could be done on this. This was discussed further during the item on the Comprehensive Equalities Scheme Annual Review where this was raised as an area of work across protected characteristics.

·         There would be consultation and engagement sessions on the new CES. Work would also be done through the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment processes too.

·         It would be useful for the committee to hear more about the research being undertaken into the Trans community.

4.3       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. (see also item 11 for referral on this matter)

5.1       Paul Aladenika, Service Group Manager, Policy Development,  presented the report to the committee. During the presentation and discussion the following key points were noted:

·         The Council had had the same equalities objectives since 2012. Over the next 12 months, work would be undertaken in conjunction with key stake holders and the local community to help create a new set of objectives for preparation of the new equalities scheme for 2020 - 2024.

·         Data quality and availability would continue to be a key issue; looking at how the Council could improve data and encourage people to share data where necessary was important.

·         Since the introduction of the Equalities Act in 2010, there had been some challenges in obtaining data particularly around some of the “newer” protected characteristics.

·         Rethinking how to communicate why people needed to provide their data was important to help ensure the Council had better data about service users and residents.

5.2       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

6.1       James Lee, Head of Service, Culture and Community Development and Winston Castello, Community Development Manager, presented the report to the Committee. During the discussion that followed, the following key point was noted:

·         The case studies in the report were to give examples of the type of projects funded and work undertaken by the Local Assemblies.

6.2       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

7.1       James Lee, Head of Service, Culture and Community Development, presented the report to the Committee. During the discussion that followed, the following key points were noted:

·         The appeals process for the applications was still live at the time of the meeting.

·         There were no bids received from organisations to undertake the work around disabilities following the closure of Lewisham Disability Coalition. The funding had been held for when a group/s had been identified or came forward who could provide some of these services. This was therefore showing as an underspend until that had happened.

·         The recommendations for the grants totalled £2,562,102. Appendix 1 of the report would be amended prior to Mayor and Cabinet to ensure it was clear regarding the Better Care Fund funding for Age UK Lewisham and Southwark which did not form part of the Main Grants allocations.

·         Monitoring and governance was important. Members of the Committee heard that the formal monitoring process was the same regardless of the size of the grant received, however in practice communication between organisations receiving larger grants was much more substantial.

·         The governance structure of organisations could be monitored but it would not be appropriate for the Council to dictate how organisations should be governed.

·         The Council offered a range of support during and prior to the grants application process including workshops and telephone support to help groups who were interested in submitting applications.

·         Funding from the Main Grants Programme for refugee groups had increased overall despite the overall reductions to the available funding. Difficult decisions sometimes had to be made as to which specific organisations to fund where proposals were similar.

·         Previously the appeals process had been challenging for some organisations. Changes had been made to ensure the guidance and process was clear.

·         £35,000 was specifically put aside for a bid around funding for a group providing coordination and advocacy for disabilities groups. There was also an additional £15,000 available as a contingency should there be a specific proposal where there was a need for more money.

·         Learning from past experiences was important in terms of governance, monitoring and the overall process.

·         The Advice Lewisham Partnership was taking on the immediate advisory role that had previously been delivered by Lewisham Disability Coalition.

·         The Council was looking at setting up an Accessibility Coalition working with stakeholders and the local community.

7.2       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. (see also item 11 for referral on this matter)

8.1       Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney, Head of Public Protection and Safety, introduced the report to the Committee. During the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:           

·         A member of the Committee requested clarification as to how the Council knew the improvements were due to the changes in approach in the YOS and what evidence there was to show this conclusively. The Committee heard that the Council was working with academic partners to look at the processes which would help to ensure there was clear evidence and academic rigour behind the changes of approach.

·         The reduction in first time entrants was linked to the use of out of court diversions. Lewisham had triage in place, interventions, and was focussed on developing pathways into other services. The approach was also to work with families extensively and to work with the young person building relationships. There was a thematic HMIP report that was done nationally which could be shared with the Committee.

·         Restorative justice conferencing was an important approach in specific cases. The YOS generally focused on a “restorative approach” which was about the overall language and approach not just about a conference recognising the impact on the victim etc. but without necessarily having face to face contact. An emphasis on taking responsibility but without “blame and shame” culture.

·         The YOS received positive feedback from staff, families and young people on their work and the new approach.

·         Visits to the Youth Offending Service could be organised for members of the Committee.

8.2       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

9.1       Councillors Sophie Davis and Colin Elliott left the room as they had prejudicial interests in this item.

9.2       Katie Wood, Scrutiny Manager introduced the report to the Committee. The following key points were noted during the discussion.

·         The Chair tabled a list of possible themes for recommendations. This will be included in the agenda documentation pack.

·         The Committee agreed a five minute break at 7.55pm until 8pm.

·         The Prevent training attended by Councillor Sheikh on 24 January 2019 should be included in the list of evidence gathering at paragraph 3.4.

·         Paragraph 6.18 of the report should include the addition “perpetuating anti-Islam or Islamaphobic narratives.”

·         In should be made clear that “Disproportionality” in the context of the recommendation listed on the tabled item was referring to disproportionality of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic men and boys.

·         Any referral including reference to the “quality” of the interaction in terms of stop and search should refer to the impact on the young person, on the community in general, and on good community-Police relations.

·         The recommendation tabled regarding the lack of available data on the Prevent strategy should include an additional line stating: “A lack of local data limits our ability to scrutinise locally and assess whether the Prevent strategy affects certain communities disproportionately”.

·         Enabling anonymous feedback from teachers on Prevent could be a possible recommendation. Following discussion on this, committee members agreed that this was not necessary as the forms were already anonymous.

·         A possible recommendation around mirroring the National review into Prevent was put forward. Following discussion on this, it was agreed that once the terms of reference of the national review were agreed the Committee should consider them at a future meeting to decide whether they wish to look into this further. This would be highlighted in the work programme report for the first meeting of Safer Stronger of the next municipal year and specifically request an officer update on the national review.

·         A discussion was held around highlighting the work of KIKit as part of the recommendations. It was agreed that the recommendation would stand but removing the specific reference to any particular organisation. The referral would therefore note that the committee wished to request that the Mayor and Cabinet: “explore the benefits of community based referral pathways that allow issues to be dealt with by trusted individuals with the confidence of the community.” The importance of increased community dialogue should also be referenced.

·         Members of the Committee stressed that the young people from whom they had heard were not against stop and search in principle but were concerned about unfair targeting and young people having very negative experiences of stop and search. There also appeared to be some inherited generational mistrust of the Police. The recommendation around working with young people and the Police should include these details as background and specifically include reference to working in Primary Schools as referenced by some of the young people who gave evidence at different forums to the Committee.

·         The importance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1    Katie Wood, Scrutiny Manager, introduced the report to the Committee. In the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         A suggestion would be put forward for next year’s work programme that the Committee receive updates on the work of the Corporate Equalities Board. This would include updates on the work to be undertaken in conjunction with key stake holders and the local community helping to create a new set of objectives for preparation of the new equalities scheme for 2020 - 2024.

·         Concerns were raised about the Equalities Impact Assessments on reports to the Committee.

·         A potential review for the next year’s work programme was suggested on Equalities and the way it was implemented and embedded across Lewisham Council. This could look at the Council’s legal obligations and examples of best practice. This could also look at organisations that were being funded by the Council.

·         The National review on Prevent should be put forward as a possible item for next year’s work programme.

·         Standing orders were suspended at 8.55pm.

10.2    RESOLVED:

That the above suggestions be included on the Committee’s work programme report for the first meeting of the new municipal year.

11.1    RESOLVED:

            That the following referrals be made to Mayor and Cabinet:

RE: Item 4 - “Provision for the LGBT+ Community in Lewisham: 6-month update”

1)    The Committee noted that recommendation 8 of their in-depth review recommended that “an elected member be appointed Council Lead/Champion for each protected characteristic under the 2010 Equalities Act”. The Committee were informed in the initial response to their recommendations in July 2018, that “The Mayor will appoint a Member Champion for Equalities at the next Full Council meeting who would work alongside the Cabinet Lead for Equalities”. The Committee noted that this had still not been done and therefore recommended the following:

That the Mayor agree that a Member Champion for Equalities should be appointed at the next meeting of Full Council and ensure this is on the agenda for the meeting.

RE: Item 7 “Main Grants Programme”

2)    The Committee decided to make a referral to the Mayor and Cabinet requesting that the monitoring be amended to include the following:

That Organisations recommended for funding in excess of one-hundred thousand pounds (£100,000) be subject to more rigorous monitoring and scrutiny requirements, with note of critical indicators, including a review of their current governance arrangements, and that confirmation of funding be subject to this.