Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cank.

Members of the Children, Young People and Children Scrutiny Commission had been invited to attend the meeting for agenda item 9, “Leicester City Community Safety Work”.  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Dr Moore and Councillor Riyait in relation to this.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 25 October 2017 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

AGREED:

That, subject to the deletion of the second paragraph of minute 36, “Community Languages”, the minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 25 October 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.

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

The Chair reported verbally that, where appropriate, all actions agreed at the last meeting of the Commission, (held on 25 October 2017), had been included in the Commission’s work programme.  One change from that meeting was that knife crime would now be considered at a future meeting, (minute 37, “Work Programme”, referred).

It was noted that a report on barriers created by language and IT skills was being prepared and was likely to be presented to the Commission at its meeting in January 2018. 

AGREED:

That the Scrutiny Policy Officer be asked to add a report on barriers created by language and IT skills to the Commission’s work programme for its meeting on 24 January 2018.

Councillor Gugnani reminded the Commission that he had chaired its last meeting as Vice-Chair.  Since then, he had been appointed as Chair of the Commission at the meeting of Council held on 30 November 2017.  He thanked Members for their support in this.

In addition, at the 30 November meeting of Council, Councillor Thalukdar had been appointed as Vice-Chair of this Commission.  On behalf of the Commission, the Chair welcomed Councillor Thalukdar to the meeting.

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 Chair advised the Commission that various questions had been received in relation to the re-procurement of Social Welfare Advice, but these could only be asked if the questioner was present.  Consequently, the following three questions were put to the Commission:

a)     Question from Mr M Shenton, (presented on his behalf by Mr A Ross)

Can the Council confirm that the Welfare Rights Service will not face cuts to its budget based on the levels of need identified in paragraphs 4.2-4.5?

b)     Question from Mr J Grocock, (presented on his behalf by Mr A Ross)

Will any savings be used to meet the needs identified in paragraphs 4.2-4.5?

c)     Question from Mr C Goodwin, (presented on his behalf by Mr A Ross)

What criteria will be used at the initial client’s needs assessment when determining whether someone can use self-help channels?

In response to question a), the strategic Director for Adult Social Care and Health advised that the Council had no intention of creating a saving in the budget of its internal Welfare Rights Service at this time.  In response to question b), Mr Forbes stated that, as no saving was to be made, there was no funding to be used in the way set out.

In response to question c), the Head of Revenues and Customer Support stated that throughout the recent review it had recognised that self-help was beneficial, as the Council was unable to help everyone, but the approach recommended was that a move to self-help channels should take place slowly.  For this reason, a three year programme was recommended to facilitate this shift.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support stressed that no decision had been taken yet, but if this model was adopted, soft market testing, on how self-help take up could be promoted, would be undertaken before it was introduced.  In addition, work would be carried out to identify the gateway for clients to establish whether they could use a computer and had access to IT equipment.  If they were unable to use this technology, additional help would be offered to them, including referral to digital skills training.

The Director of Finance submits a report providing an analysis of the recent Social Welfare Advice consultation, which took place between 31 July 2017 and 6 October 2017, and details of the preferred model for the future provision of social welfare advice.  The Commission is recommended to note the analysis of the consultation and comment on the preferred model of future provision of social welfare advice.

The Director of Finance submitted a report providing an analysis of the recent Social Welfare Advice (SWA) Consultation and the preferred model for the future provision of SWA.

Councillor Master, Assistant City Mayor – Neighbourhood Services, introduced the report, thanking officers and Councillor Waddington, formerly the Assistant City Mayor – Jobs and Skills, for the work they had done on this review. 

Councillor Master noted that the responses received during the consultation had been varied, as a result of which three options for the way forward had been drawn up.  These were outlined in the report.  He stressed that the aim of the review was not to generate a financial saving, but to find a service model that was the best fit to customer need.  For this reason, the report did not contain an indicative saving.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support reminded the Commission that consultation had been held on four main proposals.  The majority of the respondents did not support the main partnership model or locating the service only in the city centre.  The Head of Revenues and Customer Support then went through the report highlighting and explaining key sections (tables 2 and 3) to the Members. 

Of the options now presented, the third option met the Council’s procurement aims, including the reduction of contract management pressures, and made a more streamlined offer, focussing on specialist advice.  Delivered from a central location, the Customer Service Centre Granby Street, access to each area of advice would be through a single gateway, with advice on discrimination matters being embedded across all advice categories. 

It was noted the location of the face to face offer within the Customer Contact Centre was not supported in the consultation exercise.  However, the authority remained of the opinion this was the best solution, as it would provide a more joined up journey for clients with clear outcomes.  It also would speed up referrals, improve communication and make better use of buildings to ensure more funding was available for funding advice.  The co-location would help meet the Homelessness Reduction Act duty, with several services located in one area. These were Housing Options, Adult Social Care and Children’s Services Crisis, which going forward would be a key access point for new-comers to the city. Additional outreach facilities were recommended for Highfields, as the consultation had highlighted a gap in provision there.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support summarised the risks as:

• The market could not respond due to Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment implications;
• More people were unable to self-help than predicted and consequently experienced digital exclusion;
• Demand outstripped provision;
• Gateway assessment failed to identify those most in need; and
• New arrivals and other vulnerable groups could fear using the Granby Street location.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support then emphasised:

• The Council had listened to the sector;

• The option met the procurement aims;
• The advice service needed modernising and streamlining to improve the client journey; and
• Soft market testing  would be undertaken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report briefing members on the City’s work relating to the community safety agenda via the Safer Leicester Partnership and highlighting key areas that the Council and partners have identified as priorities to reduce crime and the fear of crime.  The Commission is recommended to note and comment on this work and identify any additional steps that the Partnership can take to address these areas of work.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report briefing Members on the City Council’s work relating to the community safety agenda through the Safer Leicester Partnership.  The report also highlighted key areas that the Council and partners had identified as priorities to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

Members of the Children, Young People and Schools Scrutiny Commission had been invited to attend this meeting to participate in the scrutiny of this item.  Councillor Cole therefore was present in his capacity as Vice-Chair of that Commission.

Councillor Clair, Deputy City Mayor, introduced the report, inviting Members to consider community safety issues on which further reports could be made to this Commission.

The Head of Community Safety and the Safer Leicester Partnership explained that the Council had a statutory responsibility to address crime and the fear of crime.  This was done through a partnership with other agencies, which identified its objectives and priorities in response to issues put forward by the partners.  Each objective and priority was delivered through a multi-agency approach.  It was recognised that different objectives and priorities needed to be approached in different ways, so the make-up of the delivery group for each was different.

In addition, within each strand, the partners developed different strategies, which determined how services within that strand were commissioned and delivered.  For example, a strategy for addressing violent crime was due to be launched on 8 December 2017.  This included the establishment by the Police and ambulance service of a medical treatment centre at the Clock Tower in the centre of Leicester on Fridays and Saturdays over the Christmas period.

A Partnership Plan was produced to explain the outcomes being sought and how these would be measured.  It had been agreed that plans would include information on the level of resources available to deliver the outcomes being sought.  Members were invited to identify key areas that could be programmed in to future Plans.

The Commission expressed an interest in viewing the Strategic Needs Assessment for Leicester, but was advised that this was a Police document that contained a lot of confidential information.  Officers therefore were unable to make it available to Members.  However, information in this Assessment was used to inform the Partnership Plan.

Councillor Cole addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair.  He drew attention to concern regarding the increase in knife crime in the city and nationally, but noted that no reference was made to this in the priorities set out in the report, despite several young people having died in the city as a result of knife crime.

The Head of Community Safety confirmed that knife crime was subsumed within the priorities and therefore, to reassure Members, it was covered.  However, clearly discussions during the past year and the work that was taking place was rightly highlighting this issue.  She confirmed that this was a high level plan and therefore it was not intended as a detailed document.  A number of partners, including the Council,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Head of Community Safety will give a presentation on the work the Council is involved in as part of the campaign against domestic violence.

Councillor Clair, Deputy City Mayor, introduced the campaign to improve awareness of sexual and domestic violence, advising Members that further information on any particular area of the campaign was available if required.

The Team Manager – Domestic and Sexual Violence then gave a presentation on the work that the Council was involved in as part of the campaign.  A copy of this presentation is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

The following points were then made:

·           The campaign had run throughout November 2017;

·           It was known that high numbers of men and women were affected by this form of abuse.  The figures in the presentation were taken from self-completion surveys as part of the National Crime Survey;

·           The majority of people affected did not tell the authorities about the abuse, but were more likely to tell family and friends;

·           There were many reasons why abuse was not reported.  These included the fear of things such as an escalation of the abuse, losing children, loss of life, not being believed and stigma / shame that those being abused would be judged and seen as to blame;

·           In Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland approximately 13,000 incidents had been reported to the Police in 2016/17 and approximately 11,000 telephone calls made to the helpline commissioned by the Council and partners.  These showed an increase in both sexual and domestic violence crimes, representing 44% of the violent crime in the City;

·           The “wrong” campaign had been developed in 2016 and was shaped differently for different times of the year;

·           The group in which it was felt there was the most under-reporting of domestic and sexual violence was those aged over 55.  There also was a degree of under-reporting by Asian / British Asian women;

·           Men were very reticent about reporting domestic and/or sexual violence;

·           Information on reporting methods was gathered where possible and the pathways / referral routes used examined to inform future work;

·           An aim was to encourage perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions and behaviours and self-refer to interventions to support them to change;

·           Funding had been made available to increase the visibility of the campaign through means such as large posters put up in various locations around the city.  It was hoped that further posters could be put up in areas where there had been a decrease in the number of incidents reported, or where a severe incident was known about, so that reassurance could be offered that services were available;

·           Low cost items, such as stickers with contact numbers on, had been given away at events and electrostatic stickers giving contact details had been put up in places like public toilets;

·           It was hoped that the number of community champions could be increased; and

·           A full evaluation of the campaign was likely to be received in January 2018, but it would take some time to see if the number of referrals increased.

The Commission welcomed the initiatives being taken, but some Members expressed concern that they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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.

AGREED:

That the work programme for the Commission be received and noted.

The meeting closed at 7.49 pm