Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·         Cllr Tam declared she was employed by Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network and members of the Committee had met informally with a representative of the organisation in the run up to the meeting.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·         Cllr Tam declared she was employed by Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network and members of the Committee had met informally with a representative of the organisation in the run up to the meeting.

There are none.

There were none.

There were none.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Amanda de Ryk, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Performance

Sherene Russell-Alexander, Director of People and Organisation Development

Key points from discussion

4.1.       The Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development introduced the report, highlighting key data.

4.2.       The Staff Survey was held in the autumn to enable its findings, and those of planned, subsequent staff engagement sessions, to inform the next round of service planning.

4.3.       A Committee member welcomed the older age profile of the council’s workforce given the presence of age discrimination in the labour market. The Service was working to understand whether there were features of the council’s recruitment practices which led to older candidates being more likely than younger candidates to receive offers at interview.

4.4.       People and Organisational Development was working with the Department of Work and Pensions to promote the breadth of diverse and interesting roles available in the council. In the summer, the council ran a paid internship programme to provide young people with project-based work experience and exposure to the work of the organisation. The roles being paid made them accessible to young people who were financially precluded from undertaking unpaid work experience.

4.5.       JNC-grades included director-level posts and above, SMG-grades related to heads of services, grades PO6 to PO8 were senior managers, and PO3 to PO5 middle managers.

4.6.       The overrepresentation of male and PO5 and PO6 staff in human resources casework was recognised, but its causes were unknown. However, it was noted that the small number of cases rendered the data statistically unreliable.

4.7.       The council’s rate of attrition was above the mean but around the median for London councils. 

4.8.       The adverse change in the disability pay gap was a direct result of Lewisham Homes staff being transferred to the council’s workforce. Councils were not required to publish their disability pay gaps; therefore, comparator data were not available.

4.9.       Eight per cent of Lewisham Council staff had formally declared they had a disability. Fifteen per cent of staff survey respondents declared they had a disability or long-term impairment.

4.10.    Engagement with the Disabled Staff Forum had been undertaken to encourage disabled staff to update their protected characteristics in the council’s human resources system. New starters were now required to make an active selection regarding their disability status, which included ‘prefer not to say’. Anecdotal evidence suggested that there was a culture where staff who did not believe their disability affected their work chose not to declare it, but it was nevertheless important they declared their disability so the council could better understand its workforce.

4.11.    A quarterly audit of reasonable adjustments was undertaken. However, only four employees had responded during the last audit. The process by which adjustments were obtained was to be reviewed to understand whether there were certain types of adjustments which were proving difficult to provide in a timely manner.

4.12.    The council’s leave policy provided for disabled staff to take reasonable paid time off. The amount of leave required by disabled staff  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Edison Huynh, Cabinet Member for Culture and Communities

Steve Evison, Executive Director for Place
Helen Clarke, Director of Communications and Engagement
James Lee, Director of Communities

Key points from discussion

5.1.       Waltham Forest’s approach to engagement on 15-minute neighbourhoods had been highlighted an example of good practice.

5.2.       The council’s corporate channels of resident engagement were distinguished from ward-level engagement by councillors.

5.3.       The completion of the first phase of the Review was suggested as an opportune time for Overview and Scrutiny to re-engage with the topic.

5.4.       A member of the Committee considered the approach set out in the report to be ‘top-down’, drew a distinction between stakeholder engagement and co-production and encouraged a participatory approach to secure a diversity of input, even if that necessitated a longer timeline.

5.5.       There was a broader piece of work to be undertaken on community development, i.e. how the council worked with communities to deliver programmes. 

5.6.       Local assemblies were only a small part of the consultation and engagement activity of council services; this was to be fully mapped so connections and opportunities to fill the role of local assemblies could be identified. The Review was to engage with local assemblies.

5.7.       The Local Democracy Review was highly relevant to the project and provided a good foundation for it. Further, it was important not to duplicate the Local Democracy Review. The councillors who had participated in the Local Democracy Review were to be engaged by the Strategic Review.

5.8.       How best to engage with seldom-heard communities was to be considered.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Edison Huynh, Cabinet Member for Culture and Communities
Cllr Sakina Sheikh, Safer Lewisham, Refugees and Equalities

Steve Evison, Executive Director for Place
Helen Clarke, Director of Communications and Engagement
James Lee, Director of Communities

PC Karen Troullides, Metropolitan Police Service – South East Basic Command Unit Faith Liaison Officer

Key points from discussion

6.1.       The government had announced a review of Prevent in light of the perpetrator of the Southport murders having been referred to Prevent three times. 

6.2.       PC Troullides had developed an extensive network of solid, trusting relationships with faith groups across the BCU, which were described as the gateways to the community. It was important to develop and nurture such relationships outside times of crisis as it was harder to form trust during crises. Faith groups now proactively reached out to the Police following high-profile local incidents.

6.3.       The Lewisham Interfaith Forum was regenerating, following a period of inactivity after the departure of key figures and it ceasing to be supported by the council’s Safer Communities Service. Additional funding was being provided by the government to support the operation of the interfaith forum and the development by the council of robust and reliable relationships with faith leaders.

6.4.       The Police was to hold a community engagement event in Lewisham in connection with their London Race Action Plan.

6.5.       It was recognised that promoting community cohesion went far beyond working with faith groups.

6.6.       There was potential for a community cohesion strategy to be developed; however, whether that was the most efficient and effective approach was yet to be determined by the council’s political and corporate executives.

Committee members made the following comments:

6.7.       A social cohesion strategy considering new and emergent threats, such as mis- and dis-information and new forms of extremism, could be useful.

6.8.       There should be contingency planning for public disorder scenarios which involved testing community networks and how they could be used to counter disinformation.

6.9.       There was a notable lack of measures of community cohesion. Listening exercises to understand the experiences and views of the community were potentially useful.

6.10.    Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network and Action for Refugees in Lewisham had commented that they were well connected with the council and Borough of Sanctuary was much better embedded within the council than previously.

6.11.    Amnesty International had concluded that Prevent was Islamophobic and racist.

6.12.    The impact of voluntary and community sector organisations on community cohesion must not be overlooked.

6.13.    Civic events could be anchors for work to promote community cohesion.

6.14.    The council’s network of contacts in the community was likely insufficiently comprehensive.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Item 7 –

7.1.       The Scrutiny Manager was to follow up on the progress towards a CCTV review and the potential for a visit to the CCTV control centre.

7.2.       It was suggested that representatives of the Safer Neighbourhoods Board and the Police be engaged in relation to the forthcoming item Police-community engagement and tackling crime update.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.