Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·       Re item 3, Cllr Tam declared she was employed by the Lewisham Refugee & Migrant Network (LRMN), which was a Borough of Sanctuary partner. Her employment was not directly related to any funding received by the LRMN from the Council.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·       Re item 3, Cllr Tam declared she was employed by the Lewisham Refugee & Migrant Network (LRMN), which was a Borough of Sanctuary partner. Her employment was not directly related to any funding received by the LRMN from the Council.

To follow on 8 March due to pre-election rules on publicity.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

James Lee, Director of Communities Partnerships and Leisure
Katya Griffin, Borough of Sanctuary Manager

Key points from discussion

The witnesses introduced the report. Key points raised included:

3.1.     The Borough of Sanctuary Programme aimed to ensure the Council and its partners provided a high standard of support to sanctuary seekers, not to prioritise them above other groups.

The meeting adjourned from 7.19 pm to 7.24 pm.

3.2.     The Committee’s previous meeting, at which it had been joined by voluntary sector partners, had led to a collaborative, borough-wide partnership approach.

3.3.     The Council had resettled 127 refugee households (the most of any London borough), supported 650 Ukrainian nationals, heavily invested in immigration advice for people designated as No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), delivered bespoke employability support to Ukrainian and other sanctuary seekers, conducted coproduction work to strengthen the voice of sanctuary seekers, provided wraparound support including complex casework, introduced move-on and mental health support and community building.

3.4.     All GP surgeries had signed the Safe Surgeries pledge. South East London Integrated Care System staff had worked with GP surgeries to ensure they were fulfilling their Safe Surgery commitment to not require identification from service users and the Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network had conducted secret shopper exercises to test consistency.

3.5.     The Asylum and Refugee Partnership, including the Council, Integrated Care System, voluntary sector partners, the Home Office, Clearsprings Ready Homes, and asylum hotel management, enabled close partnership working and accountability.

3.6.     The Borough of Sanctuary Strategy Group enabled approximately 50 staff from across the Council to convene to solve problems, share good practice and monitor progress against the Priorities and Outcomes Framework.

The Committee put questions to the witnesses. Key points raised included:

3.7.     The decision on the Council’s reaccreditation by City of Sanctuary was scheduled for 25 March.

3.8.     Immigration advice was mainly provided by Southwark Law Centre.

3.9.     Clearsprings Ready Homes and its contracted partners were quite accepting when there were issues. However, they often did not deliver on the commitments they made in response to issues. The Council was persistent in ensuring Clearsprings and its partners delivered what they said they would while making clear it genuinely wanted to work in partnership and appreciated their operational challenges.

3.10. The Council’s work was helped by the pan-London asylum working group as many of the issues affecting Lewisham were not unique to the borough. For example, Clearsprings required safeguarding referrals by accommodation staff to be made through Clearsprings’ own process, but, after a year of work, a position had been arrived at whereby local referrals would be made concurrently. 

3.11. Councillors could support the sanctuary movement by being involved and engaged in ward-level work, such as housing applications, and would be welcome at the Lewisham Migration Forum – where the Council met with its Borough of Sanctuary partners.

3.12. An online learning module and lunch and learns for all council staff were to be launched in April.

3.13. Initially, the Council’s Borough of Sanctuary approach was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To follow on 8 March due to pre-election rules on publicity.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People
Sara Rahman, Director of Families, Quality and Commissioning
Maleeka Dachi, Safe Space Manager

Key points from discussion

4.1.    The Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) arrangements replaced the Concern Hub in 2022. Its structure comprised operational, tactical and strategic fora intended to safeguard children from extrafamilial harm, including criminal exploitation, sexual exploitation and radicalisation.

4.2.    A dedicated team, Safe Space, worked with children at high risk of exploitation, although MACE could support children engaged with other services. Contextual responses went beyond supporting specific children and also included upstream work with communities and partners to prevent exploitation.

4.3.    MACE enabled the identification and redress of bias in services and prevention of disproportionality in outcomes.

4.4.    The Youth Justice Board reviewed data to identify disproportionality and how it could be prevented through early intervention.

4.5.    There were cases where victims of childhood exploitation went on to exploit other vulnerable people. National Referral Mechanism decisions made by the local pilot panel were subject to ratification by the Home Office, which had a high threshold. If there was not sufficient evidence that, at the time of a referral, the person was a victim of modern slavery, they would not receive a positive conclusive grounds decision. In such cases, other paths would be followed, such as the allocation of a social worker or referral to a partner agency. Council services adopted a child-first approach and understood that children’s behaviours were contributed to by prior experiences.

4.6.    Good progress was being made with the implementation of the Child Lilo case review recommendations. The broader picture was that the numbers of children requiring statutory social care interventions, entering care, being excluded from school, in the criminal justice system or involved in serious violence were reducing. However, failures nevertheless did and could occur.

4.7.    A theme in the Child Lilo case review, and other similar cases elsewhere, was the disconnectedness of the response to his needs. The Integrated Adolescent Safeguarding Service had since been formed to provide a single response to children with safeguarding concerns and greater connectivity with education services developed.

4.8.    A greater awareness of neurodiversity as a potential risk factor of exploitation – a feature of the Child Lilo case – was also being developed. Services were also seeking to understand and meet children’s needs early, regardless of whether they had received a formal diagnosis.

4.9.    Missing education was common theme among children about whom there were safeguarding concerns. The Integrated Adolescent Safeguarding Service was to work closely with education settings.

4.10. The Child Lilo case had also highlighted how adverse childhood experiences affected children’s functioning, particularly for children with additional needs. The mental health of children who had such experiences required support in order to prevent them being exposed to violence or exploitation.

4.11. Existing participation groups were used to capture children’s voices. At individual level, children’s voices were recorded by children’s services staff in assessments and plans; however, there was a challenge of collating those  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

5.1.    The Chair noted he intended to schedule an item on the use of Live Facial Recognition technology by the Police in Lewisham for the Committee’s first meeting of the next municipal year. Key areas of interest included racial bias and privacy considerations. He suggested organisations as Stop Watch, Big Brother Watch, Liberty and the Open Rights Group as potential external witnesses.

5.2.    Suggested items for the next municipal year contained in the Work Programme were noted: Lewisham Disabled People’s Commission implementation and Cultural Strategy implementation.

5.3.    Committee members suggested further topics for the next municipal year: community centres and the implementation and future development of the Domestic Violence and Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy.

5.4.    The Chair noted his preference for single-issue meetings.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.