Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Corrall and Hunter.

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

Councillor Gugnani declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item, 7, “Working with the City’s Voluntary and Community Sector to Support Engagement with Communities”, in that he was Secretary of the Leicester Council of Faiths.

Although not a member of the Commission, Councillor Sood, Assistant City Mayor (Communities and Equalities), declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item, 7, “Working with the City’s Voluntary and Community Sector to Support Engagement with Communities”, in that she was Chair of the Leicester Council of Faiths.

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.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 1 October 2015 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Commission noted that, further to minute 18, “Progress on Actions Agreed at the Previous Meeting: Call-In of City Mayor Decisions – Highfields Community Association”, three of the staff affected by the loss of preschool provision had requested voluntary redundancy.  This had been accepted.  The fourth member of staff had chosen to stay with the service and had been transferred to a vacancy in another setting.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 1 October 2015 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions received

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations or statements of case received

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

The Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance presents information on the Using Buildings Better programme and an update on the next phase of customer-facing buildings transformation in north-west Leicester.  The Commission is recommended to consider this information and comment as appropriate.

The Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance presented information on the Using Buildings Better programme and an update on the next phase of customer-facing buildings transformation in north-west Leicester.

The Commission noted that:-

·           The vision of the Using Buildings Better programme was to rationalise Council-owned premises, so that there were fewer buildings, but of a higher quality than at present;

·           That the Transforming Neighbourhood Services programme was now part of the wider Using Buildings Better programme;

·           Ward Members and residents were being consulted to identify factors such as the most important services to them and where they travelled to.  Service need would then be considered to determine what access to buildings people needed before assessments were made of whether better use could be made of individual buildings;

·           Opportunities would be taken where possible to co-locate with partner agencies, such as the Police;

·           The same team as had undertaken phase 1 of the Transforming Neighbourhood Services programme in 2014 would be undertaking this next phase, except that consultation with young people would be undertaken by Children’s Services;

·           Additional focus group sessions had been arranged in the North West of the city for the latest consultation on youth centre provision, due to the high level of interest in the proposals for these programmes;

·            Monthly meetings would be held with trades unions representing staff to discuss progress with the programmes;

·           A list of depots, stores and workshops could be circulated, giving the addresses of these buildings, so that the buildings could be identified accurately;

·           Some wards did not have many buildings that could be used for customer-facing services.  This needed to be taken in to account when considering how services could be accommodated;

·           Use of a service could be mapped across the city.  For example, people often moved across the city to access libraries or other large facilities;

·           The accessibility of buildings for users of public transport was very important;

·           The Council was still learning the best approach to be taken when a community group took over the management of a building.  However, time would be given for officers to engage with such organisations, to help them understand what they were taking on;

·           The Locality organisation would provide advice to community groups considering taking over the management of buildings.  For example, workshops had been run explaining others’ experience of asset transfers to community groups, including the advantages and disadvantages.  Locality also could provide one-to-one support;

·           As some parts of the city did not have many Council buildings that could be used by customers, if groups representing communities could be identified and worked with to get engagement in the consultation, it could be possible to identify other buildings that could be used.  However, this was not a core focus of the review;

·           These reviews did not include examining the commissioning of community services, (for example, youth services), but focussed on the best way to enable people to access those services;

·           It was anticipated that some buildings being reviewed would have land associated with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

On 4 November 2015 the City Mayor took a decision on working with the city’s Voluntary and Community Sector to support engagement with communities.  The Commission is recommended to note this decision and comment as appropriate.

The Commission was reminded that the City Mayor had taken a decision on 4 November 2015 on working with the city’s Voluntary and Community Sector to support engagement with communities. 

It was noted that this decision was based on the results of consultation carried out across the city with stakeholders representing those with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010.  Details of this were set out in the report.

Many community and voluntary organisations had been supported by the Council in their work with specific groups or communities for many years.  However, it had become apparent that a lot of groups representing newer communities were doing good work, but with no Council support.

Of the people responding to the consultation, many had indicated that they preferred not to work through representative organisations and wanted a different approach to be taken.  The decision therefore had been taken to establish a new fund to support activities and projects, which it was hoped would be of benefit to a wider range of communities.  In addition, some funding for contracted provision of advice and guidance services still would be provided, through The Race Equality Council and the Somali Development Service.

Councillor Sood, Assistant City Mayor (Communities and Equalities), addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair, reminding Members of her declaration of interest in this item.  She noted that community organisations had established a lot of respect from the community due to their hard work and this should not be lost.  The organisations had engaged with a lot of partners, often with no funding from the Council, leading to Leicester being recognised as an excellent example of a city with multi-cultural and diverse communities. 

Councillor Sood noted that many organisations were upset by the Council’s decision.  Change was always a challenge, so care should be taken to ensure that the work and experience of these organisations was not lost.  Not all organisations were good at completing tender documents, so officer support was needed, (for example, there was still a large proportion of the city’s population that did not access technology and this needed to be taken in to account).

The following points were then made by Members:-

·           Although many communities were mentioned, there was no mention of women;

·           An indication was needed of what services were delivered by the organisations that would no longer receive funding;

·           Would this jeopardise people in need?;

·           A lot of people arriving in the city did not speak English, particularly women.  How would they be helped?; and

·           When community groups supported financially by the council had surpluses at the end of a financial year, was this surplus “clawed back”?

In reply, the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance stressed that this review was an assessment of what needed to be provided in the future, not a judgement on past performance.  It was recognised that it was very important that what was put in place was very accessible, so the consultation undertaken had included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To consider a proposal by the Chair that a Task Group is established to consider the impact of betting shops on local communities within Leicester.

The Chair reported that it was proposed to establish a Task Group to consider the impact of betting shops on local communities within Leicester.  He explained that this followed concern that betting shops were opening in areas where people were vulnerable, (for example, due to low incomes). 

Members noted that Councillor Waddington, Assistant City Mayor (Jobs and Skills), had welcomed this proposal and had suggested that outcomes from it could contribute to local area profiles.  Outcomes also would be used to put recommendations forward to the Executive and possibly to the government.

It also was noted that the Deputy City Mayor had asked to be kept informed of progress with this review.

The Chair suggested that the review should be led by the Vice-Chair of this Commission.  A Task Group would be established, which would hold meetings at City Hall and make visits within the community.  These visits were likely to be made during the day.  Witnesses would include the Police, betting shops and associated businesses.

Members were advised that Dr Heather Wardle, from Geofutures, had done some work on the impact of gambling on communities.  She would be providing an informal briefing on this at City Hall on Friday 20 November 2015.  Members of the Commission were invited to attend.

Comments on the Scoping Document that had been circulated with the agenda were welcome.

AGREED:

1)    That a review of the impact of betting shops on local communities in Leicester be undertaken as set out in the Scoping Document circulated with the agenda, this review to be led by Councillor Gugnani;

2)    That all members of the Commission advise the Scrutiny Policy Officer as soon as possible if they would like to take part in the Task Group referred to under 1) above;

3)    That any comments on the Scoping Document for the review referred to under 1) above be passed to the Scrutiny Policy Officer as soon as possible; and

4)    That the Scrutiny Policy Officer be asked to contact Members who express an interest in this Task Group to arrange meetings of the Task Group.

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 Commission’s Work Programme be received and noted.

Industrial Action by City Taxi Drivers

A Member requested that a discussion be held on the proposed industrial action by the City’s taxi drivers, but as this was not considered to be an urgent matter, in accordance with Procedure Rule 14 of Part 4E of the Council’s Constitution the Chair declined this request.

The meeting closed at 7.23 pm