Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

In response to a request from the Committee, Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) provided an update on the actions agreed at the last meeting. It was reported that:

• following discussions with the facilitators of the responsible retailers and City Safe Havens schemes - it was recommended that, rather than attempting to recruit businesses directly, Councillors who wanted to support these schemes could put businesses in contact with organisers.

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

Councillor David Michael declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to items three and four as a member of Lewisham’s safer neighbourhood board.

Resolved: to receive a further update on the SLP plan at the Committee’s meeting in March; to include a breakdown of locations (by ward) and types of anti-social behaviour; as well as figures detailing a broad range of crime types and additional information about the implementation of the community trigger.

Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• Over the previous year, there had been significant reductions in the majority of major crime types with the exception of violence with injury.
• One particular areas of success had been the reduction of residential burglaries.
• The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in Lewisham had piloted a system of ‘predictive policing’.
• The Lewisham MPS had examined burglary figures over ten years and mapped out the likelihood of crimes occurring in different areas of the borough. Resources where then focused on affected areas.
• This work resulted in a decrease in residential burglary.
• The increase in the figures for violence with injury should be viewed in the context of changes to the definition of this category.
• Some forms of violence, which weren’t previously recorded under the category of violence with injury, such as actual bodily harm, were now being recorded in this category.
• Tackling violence against women and girls had been a priority in Lewisham for most of the previous decade.
• There had been a recent increase in recorded instances of domestic violence, which had to be viewed in the context of an overall decline in domestic violence in the past six years.
• It was also important to note that increases in reports of some crime types were the result of targeted police activity or confidence on the part of victims to come forward.
• New legislation was coming into force which would place a statutory duty on the Council to respond to repeated reports of anti-social behaviour.
• The new duties included the ‘community trigger’, which would come into effect in early 2015. The measure had been put in place following high profile instances, nationally, of multi-agency failure to respond to repeated reports of anti-social behaviour.
• The ‘community trigger’ for anti-social behaviour would be activated if three instances of anti-social behaviour were reported to the council (or partner organisations) and not dealt with satisfactorily.
• The trigger would also be activated if five different people complained about an issue (without resolution) in a six month period.
• The Council would be required to publish its standards for the trigger, setting out appropriate forms of resolution. These would be agreed by the Safer Lewisham Partnership – and made available to the Committee for scrutiny in due course.
• Once the trigger had been activated, the Council would be required to hold a multi-agency conference within 10 days to provide a response to the complainant(s).
• Officers had been working with other London Boroughs to ensure that there was a joined up approach to the new legislation.
• Lewisham had a good history of tackling anti-social behaviour. The Safer Lewisham Partnership had a consistent victim centred approach. The anti-social behaviour multi agency risk assessment conference process was also widely recognised to be good practice.

Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People), Gary Connors (Crime Reduction Manager), Ade Solarin (Violence Against Women and Girls Coordinator) and Ian Alderson (MPS Lewisham) answered questions from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Resolved: to note the report and to receive additional information about familial abuse.

Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• Lewisham previously had the highest reported levels of domestic violence in the country.
• The Safer Lewisham Partnership had made the reduction of domestic violence a priority and had focused resources on a range of initiatives, including; a specialist domestic violence court, individual domestic violence advocates, multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC), victim support and refuges.
• In response to the broader context of inequality and violence facing women and girls; the government and the Mayor of London had developed violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategies which included plans to eliminate:
  • Domestic violence
  • Rape and sexual violence
  • Prostitution and trafficking
  • Sexual exploitation
  • Female genital mutilation (FGM)
  • Forced marriage
  • Honor based violence
  • Stalking and harassment

• In Lewisham, it was recognised that there was good information and data about domestic violence but there was a lack of information in the majority of the other areas.
• Lewisham had piloted the Multi Agency Sexual Exploitation (MASE) conference to improve coordination between agencies. The learning from this pilot had now been adopted by all London boroughs.
• Lewisham had also commissioned Imkaan (an organisation committed to tackling violence against women and girls) to review the borough’s violence against women and girls strategy and make recommendations for improvements.
• As a result of the consultation, a new combined service was being created to develop a single approach to tackling VAWG in the borough.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• A tendering process for the new service was underway. The new combined service would start in April next year.
• No decision had been taken about the location of the new service. There were no particular domestic violence hot spots in the borough. Crimes were distributed across Lewisham.
• The new service would be required to find its own premises; however there would be an expectation that it would have a presence at Lewisham Police station – which was a considerable source of referrals.
• The service would support all victims, including boys and men.
• There had been 49 responses to the consultation on the violence against women and girls strategy. There was concern that this number was low. However, it should be noted that there were only 69 responses to the Mayor of London’s violence against women and girls strategy consultation, so in comparison the response to the Lewisham consultation was good.
• The review highlighted some gaps in the provision of support services in Lewisham. Of particular concern was the experience some victims identified of approaching agencies for support and not being believed.
• It was proposed that the new organisation would develop an approach to prevention and awareness raising - as well as initiatives to encourage healthy relationships.
• There had been five reviews into domestic homicides in the previous two and a half years, which highlighted a number of issues but also enabled Lewisham to consider the combined dangers of poor mental health, substance misuse and violence.
• There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved: to receive a scoping paper for a review into violence against women and girls.

Timothy Andrew (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The Committee then discussed the work programme.

Resolved: to receive a scoping paper for a review into violence against women and girls.

None