Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gugnani and Councillor Halford.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Dr Chowdhury declared Other Disclosable Interests in the following agenda items:

·           Agenda item 8, “Community Asset Transfer Update”, in that he worked in a voluntary organisation that could be involved in asset transfer in the future;

·           Agenda item 10, “Citywide Voluntary and Community Sector Support”, in that he had received support under the contract discussed in the report and the organisation he worked for was a delivery partner for a project funded through the European Social Fund and the Lottery Fund; and

·           Agenda item 11, “Response to the Leicester Advice Sector: A Report Outlining the Risk and Demands in the City”, in that his employer received some funding from the Council and HMRC to provide advice to city residents.

Councillor Fonseca declared Other Disclosable Interests in the following agenda items:

o    Agenda item 10, “Citywide Voluntary and Community Sector Support”, in that he was a member of a voluntary organisation affiliated to Voluntary Action LeicesterShire (VAL) that had received assistance from VAL some years previously to frame a constitution; and

o    Agenda item 11, “Response to the Leicester Advice Sector: A Report Outlining the Risk and Demands in the City”, in that he had done some voluntary work with the Citizens Advice Bureau, (now Citizens Advice Leicestershire), approximately three years ago.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the Councillors’ judgement of the public interest.  They were not therefore required to withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the relevant items.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 30 November 2016 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Commission received the minutes of its meeting held on 30 November 2016, noting that amendments to minute 54, “Transforming Neighbourhood Services – North East”, had been tabled at the meeting.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 30 November 2016 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the incorporation of the amendments attached at the end of these minutes, (new text shown in italics).

To note progress on actions agreed at the previous meeting and not reported elsewhere on the agenda (if any).

The Chair gave a verbal update on actions greed at the last meeting, reminding Members that the Commission had asked her to write to the City Mayor, asking him to advise the Executive of the Commission’s regret that the Youth Services Review was not being undertaken concurrently with the Transforming Neighbourhoods Programme, (minute 54, “Transforming Neighbourhood Services – North East”, as amended, referred).

As consultation on the Youth Services review had only just started, the sending of this letter had been deferred, in order to ascertain what was being included in the review and therefore whether the letter was still needed.  Having seen the scope of the review, it was clear that it did not include a review of the use of buildings, so the Chair would now send the letter to the City Mayor.

The Chair advised the Commission that, further to minute 39, “Citizens Advice Leicestershire City Advice Services Contract Performance 2015-16”, (Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission 5 October 2016), work on developing “problem noticer” training was progressing and it was hoped that it soon would be formally incorporated in to the Member Development Programme.

The Chair also noted that the format of the standing item on the Commission’s agenda relating to Spending Reviews had changed, so that details of each review relevant to this Commission’s work now would be presented in a table, setting out details of the reviews and updates on their progress, including the timeline for each review and the Commission’s involvement.  (See agenda item 13, “Spending Reviews”)

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations or statements of case had been received.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report providing an overview of the Community Asset Transfer policy, a summary of the work undertaken as part of the Transforming Neighbourhood Services project and noting lessons learned from early experiences.  The Commission is recommended to note and comment on the progress made to date, feedback and lessons learned regarding Community Asset Transfer.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report providing an overview of the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) policy, a summary of the work undertaken as part of the Transforming Neighbourhood Services project and information on lessons learned from early experiences.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services introduced the report, explaining that:

·           The process used enabled community groups to make an early offer to lease community premises before firm options for those premises were developed.  This gave such groups time to develop an understanding of what was involved in managing community premises before they made a commitment;

·           This was followed by a six-week consultation period and early consultation was undertaken with Ward Councillors;

·           The Council procured assistance for groups through the organisation Locality.  This assistance was optional, but could include things such as helping groups write business cases, so helping provide groups with an understanding of what was involved in managing a building;

·           Bids received were assessed by Property Services officers against the criteria specified for each transfer and Ward Councillors were consulted again before a decision was taken;

·           The business case provided by the successful bidder was written in to the lease for the building they would manage; and

·           It was recognised that some asset transfers had been more successful than others.  For example, some organisations had increased hire charges significantly, and access to transferred buildings had become difficult for some groups.  Work to resolve these issues was ongoing.

The Assistant City Mayor for Neighbourhood Services noted that every time a CAT was undertaken, the Council learned something, as all transfers were different.  Great care was taken throughout the transfer process to ensure that the organisations leasing premises were able to take on this role, as it was important that assets did not become liabilities for the groups managing them.

The following comments were then made during discussion on the report:

o    The report was welcomed and the process by which organisations acquired a lease of community building was noted;

o    It could be useful for a handbook, or guidance, to be provided on how to prepare a business plan for a community asset transfer, in order to reduce the challenges faced by organisations interested in taking on the lease of a building;

o    The Council was very aware that voluntary groups often relied on a few key individuals to manage or maintain the group, but if those individuals were no longer able to continue in this role, the group could find it difficult to function efficiently.  The criteria for CAT therefore included the need for assurance from a group that its proposals were financially viable and that it had strong governance.  However, leases under CAT contained terms under which a group could terminate a lease before it ended;

o    Locality recommended that groups undertook their own risk analysis as part of the business case they prepared and some groups now did this;

o    The criteria that groups or organisations needed to fulfil to be considered for taking on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report providing details of the work undertaken to date to consider establishing a city-wide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) around new psychoactive substances (“legal highs”), along with information on plans to consult residents and communities on the continuation of the current street drinking PSPO.  The Commission is recommended to note and comment on the contents of the report.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report providing details of the work undertaken to date to consider establishing a city-wide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) around new psychoactive substances (“legal highs”).  Information on plans to consult residents and communities on the continuation of the current street drinking PSPO also was included in the report.

The Head of Community Safety explained that:

·           The Commission was being asked to comment on these PSPOs as part of the consultation process for each of them;

·           The street drinking PSPO gave Police powers to ask people not to drink in the street, or to take substances away from, or arrest, people who did not comply;

·           Both PSPOs would be valid for three years.  The previous street drinking PSPO was due to expire in December 2017, so consultation currently was being held on whether it should be renewed;

·           During its operation, the Police had monitored the operation of the street drinking PSPO and wanted it to continue as, although there had been a 24% decrease in street drinking within the inner ring road area, more use could be made of the order;

·           Currently it was not illegal to take new psychoactive substances (NPSs), but the Council wanted to avoid anti-social behaviour associated with their use;

·           86% of respondents to consultation on introducing a NPS PSPO were in favour of a city-wide order being introduced; and

·           Consultation on introducing a NPS PSPO also had shown that many people were not aware of what NPSs were, so it was hoped that ways could be found to raise awareness.

The Commission welcomed the proposals and made the following comments:

o    Licensing officers and Committee members already worked closely with the Police on maintaining the Cumulative Impact Zone and controlling the strength of alcoholic drinks being sold;

o    The Police were not always present when anti-social behaviour by street drinkers occurred, so could be unaware of the full extent of it;

Reply from the Head of Community Safety:

If the Police identified drinkers who it was felt were not behaving anti-socially at the time they were observed, but could do so later, under the PSPO the Police could take the alcohol from those drinkers to avoid anti-social behaviour arising.

o    Some shops sold alcohol outside of their licensed hours, which could exacerbate anti-social behaviour problems;

o    Large groups of people drinking could feel intimidating to other members of the public;

o    Evidence was available of large groups of drinkers gathering on some of the city’s outer estates and in parks.  Was there also evidence of anti-social behaviour by these groups?; and

o    NPSs appeared to be taken by individuals, rather than groups, who often were found in distress, rather than behaving anti-socially.

Reply from the Head of Community Safety:

Wrappers from NPSs caused litter problems in some areas and reports were received of people screaming and shouting when using NPSs.

The Head of Community Safety advised the Commission that, as part of the consultation on the street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Director of Finance submits a report responding to the issues raised in the annual Social Welfare Advice Partnership Report.  The Commission is recommended to receive the report and comment as appropriate.

The Director of Finance submitted a report responding to the issues raised in the annual Social Welfare Advice Partnership (SWAP) Report.

The Revenues and Benefits Manager introduced the report, reminding Members that this was a retrospective review, relating to 2015/16.  The report had been due in July 2016, but had been delayed due to cumulative delays to annual reports in other years as the SWAP developed its strategies and built its partnership.

The government’s welfare reforms had imposed a re-assessment programme to ensure that people claiming Employment and Support Allowance were eligible to receive it.  During 2015/16, SWAP campaigned/lobbied members of parliament and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) contract managers to ensure that the DWP’s third party provider of these assessments was offering access to their specified premises.  Previously, there had been no disabled access to the premises that disabled city residents were required to attend for their assessments, but they had been sanctioned for not attending.  Home visits now were offered, which had reduced the number of interventions needed by the SWA or Welfare Rights officers.

It was noted that the government’s programme to replace the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with Personal Independence Payments (PIP) was expected to be concluded by 2018.  SWAP had monitored this, providing a statistical basis in the city to inform policy decisions and showing that the transition from DLA to PIP was the main cause of the high volume of Tier 3 appeals work they had experienced.

The Revenues and Benefits Manager reminded Members that Universal Credit had been introduced in Leicester on 25 January 2016 for single claimants who were in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) (income-based).  Details of those impacted by this were included in the report.

The Chair welcomed Richard Evans, (Chief Executive of Citizens Advice LeicesterShire), and Emily Foskett, (Advice Session Supervisor, Citizens Advice LeicesterShire), to the meeting and, in accordance with Procedure Rule 8(2) of Part 4E of the Council’s Constitution, (Scrutiny Procedure Rules), invited them to address the Commission.

Richard Evans addressed the Commission, explaining that Citizens Advice Leicestershire was part of the SWAP.  The partnership had been established in 2013 and all groups and organisations providing social welfare advice across the city were able to join.  As a result, it was a diverse and developing partnership, signposting and promoting services in the city, as well as providing guidance, acting as a pressure group, providing joint communications activity (including a guide to SWA in the city), and monitoring all major statistics of concern.

He then made the following comments:

·           Leicester had a higher level of indebtedness than the national average;

·           Case studies were collated from the work being undertaken by the Partnership.  Some cases were very complex and outcomes could change significantly on appeal;

·           The SWAP had drafted a strategic action plan for the next five years.  An important element of this was the desire to maintain face-to-face contact with clients, despite moves to channel shift to electronic means of communication; and

·           Monitoring of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The meeting adjourned at 7.25 pm and reconvened at 7.30 pm

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submits a report providing an update on the arrangements for citywide support to the voluntary and community sector.  The Commission is recommended to consider these arrangements and make any necessary representations around the future of the support arrangements, which will then be formally considered as part of the consultation process.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report providing an update on the arrangements for citywide support to the voluntary and community sector (VCS). 

The Head of the City Mayor’s Office introduced the report, explaining that the current three year agreement with Voluntary Action LeicesterShire (VAL) to provide support services to the VCS in the city would end in September 2017.  Consideration therefore needed to be given to what support the market required for the future and how this should be structured. 

In addition, the current co-funders, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group, were being consulted on whether they wished to assist with the funding of any support provided in the future.

The Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement Manager gave a presentation on the review, a copy of which is attached at the end of these minutes for information.  During this, he drew particular attention to the following points:

·           At present, responses were fairly evenly distributed across the three different response methods;

·           In an earlier review, the VCS had identified the support of collaboration as very important and wanted the Council to sustain this.  The commissioning of VCS support services at that time accommodated this, but it did not appear to have been used much;

·           The traditional roles of volunteers and volunteering were still very important;

·           The consultation was not an inquiry in to VAL’s performance under the current agreement, but asked the respondents how they valued the services and whether they had been beneficial to them.  VAL was not referred to anywhere in the survey;

·           Individuals responding to the consultation were not asked to identify themselves.  Those responding on behalf of an organisation were invited to say which organisation they were from, which some had done; and

·           To date, 79 responses had been received, which was considered to be good.  Although a large number of groups were eligible to respond, they were very diffuse and it could be difficult to get them to engage with things such as the consultation.

Members noted that the Council’s Libraries service maintained a list of volunteers, to which organisations had free access.  The Head of the City Mayor’s Office confirmed that volunteering was an area in which new approaches could be tried, such as using social media platforms to attract volunteers.

Some concern was expressed that VAL had not evolved to meet the current needs of the VCS and so did not fully appreciate the problems faced by VCS organisations.  It also was felt that VAL could be hard to engage with, particularly as they did not appear to be active within the community.

It was noted that Council officers worked with a wide variety of VCS groups and organisations, many of which worked in areas that related to specific Council service areas.  A list of these groups was compiled for the Service Analysis team, to assist with contract and performance monitoring, but the groups were not managed centrally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Director of Finance submits a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed budget for 2017/18 to 2019/20.  The Commission is recommended to pass any comments to the Overview Select Committee as part of its consideration of the report before it is presented to the Council meeting on 22 February 2017.

The Director of Finance submitted a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed budget for 2017/18 to 2019/20. 

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services introduced the report, explaining that the report did not contain a lot of detail, as this was scrutinised through the various spending reviews being undertaken in service areas.  The Commission noted this, but expressed some disappointment that it was not included in the report, as this would have facilitated consideration of issues such as alternative ways of releasing funds.

The Commission welcomed the increase in managed reserves, but felt that it would have been useful to know which service areas had made the savings discussed in the report.

It was noted that the report made reference to anticipated financial difficulties in coming years, but did not contain information on the approach that would be taken to these challenges, (for example, what would be prioritised).  This was felt to be an omission, as it made it difficult to comment on the proposed budget. 

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted; and

2)    That the Overview Select Committee be asked to take account of the comments made by this Commission in its consideration of the General Fund revenue budget for 2017/18 to 2019/20, particularly noting the Commission’s disappointment at the lack of detail contained in the report

To receive an update on spending reviews affecting services within this Commission’s portfolio and not considered elsewhere on the agenda.  Members are recommended to note the update and comment as appropriate.

The Commission received an update on spending reviews affecting services within this Commission’s portfolio and not considered elsewhere on the agenda.

Members were reminded that this was the first time the information had been submitted in this format, which it was hoped would evolve to incorporate information that Members felt would be useful to them.

AGREED:

That the report be received and welcomed.

The current work programme for the Commission is attached.  The Commission is asked to consider this and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

NOTED:

1)    That future reports on food safety regulation will be submitted to this Commission approximately one month before they are considered by the full Council;

2)    That it is hoped that a report on procurement options for social welfare advice can be considered at the meeting of this Commission scheduled for 22 March 2017, but as some work remains to be done on this report, it may need to be deferred; and

3)    That the Chair will contact all Commission members by e-mail regarding arrangements for the Task Group undertaking the review “Getting the best out of our services in neighbourhoods”.

The meeting closed at 8.23 pm