Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED: The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as a true record.

RESOLVED: LDWG meeting scheduled for 14^th January to be rearranged for early February 2020 (Rosalind Jeffrey to review member availability for w/c 10^th February).

Prior to the review of the minutes from the previous meeting, Salena Mulhere apologised to the LDWG for the late dispatch of the reports for this meeting – this was because the normal date for dispatch (10^th December) was within the pre-election period. She also advised the LDWG that this meeting was originally due to take place in November 2019, but had been delayed to ensure that the outcome of the consultation on options for a new Overview & Scrutiny structure could be fully considered by LDWG members. As a result, it was suggested that the next LDWG meeting in January 2020 be moved to February 2020 to allow officers sufficient time to progress work between meetings – two dates (5^th and 6^th February) were tentatively proposed.

RESOLVED: LDWG meeting scheduled for 14^th January to be rearranged for early February 2020 (Rosalind Jeffrey to review member availability for w/c 10^th February as well as the two other dates proposed).

RESOLVED: The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as a true record.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG noted the work undertaken to date and proposed next steps. They also noted the updated Programme Plan.

RESOLVED: Barrie Neal agreed to provide Cllr Elliott with a timetable for future NCIL funding workshops.

Salena Mulhere introduced the report and the key points to note:

§  Work within each of the eight thematic areas has become more closely aligned, so these thematic areas have now been grouped under the three overarching themes within the Local Democracy Review’s original terms of reference (openness and transparency, public involvement in decisions and effective decision-making)

§  A comprehensive review of the work to deliver the Local Democracy Review’s recommendation will be undertaken and presented to the LDWG in March 2020

§  Officers have taken significant steps to raise the profile of the LDWG’s work, including attending Cabinet Briefing and EMT and delivering a presentation to senior officers at the Council’s Leadership Event. They will also be present at the all-staff event on 13^th January 2020

§  A refreshed programme plan, which outlines the current status of each recommendation via a RAG rating system, has also been developed

§  Theme 1: Openness and transparency – a report outlining options for the introduction of an open data approach will be presented at the next LDWG meeting, work on specific communications-related recommendations is expected to progress more rapidly as the new Communications Strategy and associated resourcing is finalised whilst the new report template has been developed and is currently being tested with officers

§  Theme 2: Public involvement in decisions – work to improve online engagement with young people is underway and the piloting of councillor question time sessions in schools will take place in early 2020. The Appreciative Inquiry undertaken with seldom-heard groups and individuals has also been completed, with the learning expected to inform a wider redesign of the Council’s approach to engagement

§  Theme 3: Effective decision-making – an interim report on the delivery of all Planning-related recommendations will be presented at the next meeting of the LDWG

Cllr Bonavia then invited each LDWG Champion to provide an update on their thematic area. The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  Open data and online communications – Cllr Bonavia advised that, as noted by Salena Mulhere, officers are currently developing options for a Council-wide open data approach whilst webcasting for all Mayor & Cabinet and Full Council meetings has started, with LBL staff being trained to operate the system themselves

§  Language and reporting – Cllr Kelleher advised that the new report template had been developed and the initial feedback from officers was positive. She had also shared the report template with some of her constituents and their feedback was also broadly positive. In addition, work was underway with appropriate officers to develop a specific template for Planning reports whilst an online feedback form for residents had been created on the Council’s website. In the discussion, it was noted that members should challenge officers if they think that the engagement activities outlined in the ‘timeline of engagement and decision-making’ box are not sufficient. There had also been some feedback from officers who had found writing a simple summary of the report to be difficult, but it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

A.   Update On The New Report Template & Guidance (Recommendation #19)

4A. Update On The New Report Template & Guidance (Recommendation #19)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG noted the work undertaken to date and proposed next steps for implementation.

RESOLVED: Officers will continue to refine the new report template and guidance, incorporating initial feedback received from members of the LDWG (particularly in relation to engagement).

4A. Update On The New Report Template & Guidance (Recommendation #19)

Salena Mulhere introduced the report and the key points to note:

§  The development of the report template and guidance delivers a number of the LDR recommendations (#19, #20, #21, #23 and #24)

§  It also complies with the new legal requirements for accessibility

§  The draft report template and guidance has been shared internally (via the intranet) and senior officers have been briefed on the changes at DMTs. Feedback will now be gathered from report authors and users, with examples of good practice developed – the template and guidance will then be refined, prior to a full roll-out from April 2020

Members of the LDWG suggested that engagement could be emphasised more in the report template (e.g. ensuring that specific engagement activities in the ‘timeline’ box at the beginning of the report are in bold text, or perhaps by creating a separate ‘engagement’ section in the body of the report), but acknowledged that the focus on engagement would depend to some extent on the nature of the report.

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG noted the work undertaken to date and proposed next steps for implementation.

RESOLVED: Officers to continue to refine the new report template and guidance, incorporating initial feedback received from members of the LDWG (particularly in relation to engagement).

A.   Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

B.   Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

C.   Piloting The Place Standard Tool (Recommendation #39)

5A. Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that a People’s Panel should not be set-up in Lewisham at this time, although the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a People’s Panel model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Officers to explore more bespoke options for involving seldom-heard communities in the business and decision-making of the Council and report back to the Working Group in early 2020. Other LDR recommendations currently underway within the ‘Public Involvement’ theme will also consider effective engagement with the seldom-heard as an integral part of their evaluation.

5B. Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG welcomed the report but, following a robust discussion on the cost-benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies and consideration of other public involvement mechanisms that have emerged from the Local Democracy Review or are already in use across the Council, it was agreed that the Working Group would not recommend to Mayor & Cabinet that a Citizens’ Assembly be undertaken at this time. However the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a Citizens’ Assembly model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Salena Mulhere agreed to engage with the Director of Culture & Community Development about how existing borough-wide mechanisms for civic participation (such as Local Assemblies) can be better utilised.

5C. Piloting The Place Standard Tool (Recommendation #39)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that the Place Standard tool should be piloted in support of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) process as well as broader Neighbourhood Development initiatives where appropriate.

5A. Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Purpose and operation of People’s Panels (e.g. how participants are selected, the frequency of meetings)

§  Cost implications of setting up and managing a People’s Panel

§  Overall strengths and weaknesses of the People’s Panel approach

§  A case study of the Lewisham Citizens’ Panel (1997-2007)

§  Outputs from a benchmarking exercise with a selection of local authorities who have established Citizens’ Panels

He then presented the four options outlined in the report for delivering this recommendation to the LDWG for consideration and recommended that option 4 be agreed.

The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  Many of the panels used by other local authorities were not representative, but rather an expensive way of encouraging more residents to respond to consultations – other mechanisms (e.g. information on Council Tax bills) could be used to do this instead

§  It was important for communities to have sufficient time to reflect on consultations (Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove confirmed that the Council’s engagement guidance provided advice on the suggested duration of consultations)

§  The creation of a ‘local entrusted resident’ (based on the Local Entrusted Organisation model) should be explored, particularly in relation to seldom-heard groups and individuals

§  If the LDWG agreed not to set up at People’s Panel at this time, then would this place more pressure on the delivery of other recommendations, such as the provision of information in places that constituents use and meet (#16) and expanding the model of councillor surgeries (#17). Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove advised that work regarding these recommendations was underway and a report would be presented to the LDWG in March 2020

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that a People’s Panel should not be set up in Lewisham at this time (option 4), although the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a People’s Panel model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Officers to explore more bespoke options for involving seldom-heard communities in the business and decision-making of the Council and report back to the Working Group in early 2020. Other LDR recommendations currently underway within the ‘Public Involvement’ theme will also consider effective engagement with the seldom-heard as an integral part of their evaluation.

5B. Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Purpose and operation of a Citizens’ Assembly (e.g. key features, when should a Citizens’ Assembly be used, how participants are selected, average duration of an assembly)

§  Overall strengths and weaknesses of the Citizens’ Assembly approach

§  Cost implications of setting up and managing a Citizens’ Assembly

§  Proposal to focus on climate change as a topic for Lewisham

§  Outputs from a comparison exercise between Citizens’ Assemblies on this topic previously held in Lewisham (2005) and Camden (2019)

§  Proposal and indicative timeline for a new Citizens’ Assembly (approval by Mayor and Cabinet,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A.   Update On The Overview & Scrutiny Review (Recommendation #53)

B.   Update On The Development Of Member Role Profiles (Recommendation #45)

6A. Update On The Overview & Scrutiny Review (Recommendation #53)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG approved the following recommendations:

1. Note the results of consultation with councillors

2. Agree a task and finish group approach for in-depth/topical scrutiny, instead of in depth reviews being carried out by select committees

3. Agree that the number of select committees should remain as they are now

4. Agree that a task and finish approach only works if there is a balance between the number of select committee meetings and councillors on those select committees on the one hand, and the number of task and finish groups and their membership on the other

5. Recognise that the establishment of task and finish groups is an Overview & Scrutiny function and ask officers to prepare a report on the options for doing so

6. Agree that officers develop further detail to introduce the other suggested practice changes outlined at 6.8-6.23 in the report to improve the impact and effectiveness of scrutiny

7. Subject to agreement of 1-6 above, to ask officers to refer their further report to the Constitution Working Party for consideration in advance of the 2020/2021 AGM

8. Agree that Council should be recommended to alter the Overview & Scrutiny approach broadly within the parameters of the existing structure around membership and meetings

6B. Update On The Development Of Member Role Profiles (Recommendation #45)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed to note the work undertaken to date and proposed next steps. They also agreed to the inclusion of written guidance for all active councillor appointments to outside bodies as an appendix to the final set of role profiles.

RESOLVED: Rosalind Jeffrey agreed to circulate the draft role profiles to members of the LDWG once feedback from specific members/lead officers had been captured and incorporated (February 2020).

6A. Update On The Overview & Scrutiny Review (Recommendation #53)

Prior to introducing the report, Salena Mulhere read a message from Cllr Sheikh:

‘Cllr Sheikh wanted to send her apologies for not being able to report back tonight on the extensive work taken place over the past few months. She wanted to acknowledge the important work done by many councillors in Lewisham who have engaged in the consultation around restructuring our Overview and Scrutiny. Their diligence and commitment to achieving more effective structures has made working with councillors a pleasure on this. She would also like to acknowledge and thank our Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Cllr Bill Brown, who has been consistently working with myself and Cllr Juliet Campbell on this work and whose input has been invaluable. And of course, she would like to thank the officers, particularly Salena, for their fantastic work on supporting this area of work. It’s been a huge amount of work and commitment; all of which has felt manageable and enjoyable because of their support. And finally thank you as always to the Chair of the Democracy Review, Cllr Kevin Bonavia, for so supportively enabling members to spearhead this exciting work. It has felt privileged to be able to undertake his work. Cllr Sheikh.’

Salena Mulhere then introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Outputs from the five consultation events held with members

§  Overview of the three options for a new Overview & Scrutiny structure

§  Next steps for the review

The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  The LDWG were advised that if they agreed the recommendations in the report, then this would be the last time they received a report on the Overview & Scrutiny review (as it would be referred to the Constitution Working Party)

§  Officers clarified that Full Council is currently responsible for establishing task and finish groups, but that the review’s recommendation is that this should be the responsibility of an appropriate Overview & Scrutiny body in the future. None of the changes proposed would limit the ability of Full Council to set up time-limited working groups like the LDWG

§  Members welcomed the proposed changes as a positive step forward, although some felt that opportunities for more radical change in future should not be ignored

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG approved the following recommendations:

1. Note the results of consultation with councillors

2. Agree a task and finish group approach for in-depth/topical scrutiny, instead of in depth reviews being carried out by select committees

3. Agree that the number of select committees should remain as they are now

4. Agree that a task and finish approach only works if there is a balance between the number of select committee meetings and councillors on those select committees on the one hand, and the number of task and finish groups and their membership on the other

5. Recognise that the establishment of task and finish groups is an Overview & Scrutiny function and ask  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.