Agenda item

Resolved: to move the update on the IT strategy to the Committee’s meeting on 13 July.

8.1      The order of the agenda was adjusted to take the update on the Lewisham Poverty Commission (related to the work programme discussion) after item four.

8.2      Simone van Elk (Cabinet Executive Officer) introduced an update on the work of the Commission, the following key points were noted:

·           The Chair of the Lewisham Poverty Commission (Cllr Dromey) sent his apologies.

·           The Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee carried out a review of poverty in Lewisham last year and recommended that Mayor and Cabinet establish a poverty task force to look into the issue.

·           There had been a realisation that, whilst the Council and its partners were carrying out good work in the borough, there were still significant numbers of people living in poverty.

·           The membership of the Commission included (amongst others) representatives of the Trust for London, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and the Child Poverty Action Group (a full list was included in the Committee papers).

·           The Commission was keen to have a genuine impact on the lives of people living in Lewisham, but it realised that it was limited by time and the request to make recommendations that would fit within existing budgets.

·           The goal was for the Commission to have ambitious recommendations that could be implemented.

·           The Commission was focusing on three areas: employment and skills; housing; and child poverty, childcare and lone parent unemployment.

·           Lewisham was in the top 20% of local authorities for the incidence of child poverty it also had also high numbers of lone parents who were unemployed.

·           The Commission had explored the affordability of childcare as part of its evidence gathering. The Commission had also looked at the availability of childcare in terms of the hours offered to working people- as well as opportunities for flexible working.

·           The Commission had been engaging with stakeholders, partners and residents because it realised that there were people living in the borough who might have greater understanding than themselves of issues relating to poverty in Lewisham.

·           Officers had attended drop-in sessions at voluntary organisations and children’s centres to talk to people.

·           There had been a realisation from this work that peer to peer and community support were important to residents, not necessarily to solve poverty but to mitigate against its impacts.

·           There was also a realisation that even people in the worst circumstances had things to offer, including time and skills that they might volunteer.

·           The Commission recognised that people should be approached to understand what they might offer, rather than just to determine their needs.

·           The Chair of the Commission had visited the Pathways to Employment programme, the housing options centre, a session of the Young Advisors and he would also be going to a children’s centre.

·           All councillors had been offered the opportunity to discuss the work of the Commission at their local assemblies.

·           There was also a questionnaire on the Poverty Commission website.

·           There was a call for evidence to all London Boroughs for examples of best practice.

·           The Commission was hosting a summit on 12 July to test some of its thinking and members of the Committee were welcome to attend.

·           A draft report would be available in September for comments from all Councillors.

·           The report would be presented to Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee before Mayor and Cabinet.

8.3      Simone van Elk responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           Visits had been made to a number of organisations over the course of a month to gather the views of residents.

·           The visits had not resulted in sit down interviews with everyone but officers spoke to everyone who was willing to engage with them. The work that resulted from this exercise had not been presented as comprehensive or representative but as the experiences of the 20 people who had taken part.

·           Six assemblies (and potentially more) would also be discussing the commission’s work at their meetings.

·           Visits had been organised for the Chair of the Commission and an online survey was being hosted on the poverty Commission’s website. Some residents would also be invited to the summit in July.

·           Information had been sent by email to all councillors about how they could engage with the work of the Commission, this included a toolkit on how they could deliver sessions for the Poverty Commission at their local assembly meeting.

8.4      Following consideration of items five, six and seven the Committee discussed its work programme. The following key points were noted:

·           Members wanted to see the full reports on the changes to IT services before their consideration at Mayor and Cabinet.

·           The savings proposals were not likely to be available for scrutiny until the autumn.

·           It was recognised that the Committee’s review of household budgets should not duplicate the work of the Poverty Commission. There was a desire to carry out an analysis of the pressures facing all residents, not just people living in poverty.

·           The types of issues (redundancy, sickness and wider issues such as the possibility of major changes in the economy because of Brexit) that might impact on the household budgets of ordinary people were highlighted.

·           The potential for carrying out a broad ranging consultation with residents as well as the challenges of achieving a representative response was considered.

·           That people who were in crisis would not necessarily think of approaching the Council for advice or support.

·           The difference between interesting analysis and the importance of making meaningful recommendations for change was noted.

·           The future pressures on household budgets and the potential of exploring future changes in policy that would allow the Council to take a more flexible approach to supporting all residents was mentioned.

·           Members planned to give more thought to their aims and ambitions for the in-depth review before the next meeting of the Committee.

8.5      Resolved: to move the update on the IT strategy to the Committee’s meeting on 13 July.