Agenda item

Councillor Sue Burke Portfolio Holder for Reducing Inequality:

 

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee regarding activity and achievements within her portfolio, covering the following main areas:

 

·       Welfare and Benefits Advice

·       Welfare Reform and Cost of Living Support

·       Housing Benefit/Council Tax Support

·       Discretionary Rate Relief Policy

·       Financial Inclusion

·       Safeguarding

·       Skills and Training

·       Allocations, Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

·       Asylum Seekers and Refugees

·       Neighbourhood Working

·       Equality and Diversity

·       Public Protection and Anti-Social Behaviour Team (PPASB)

·       CCTV Service

·       Lincoln Community Lottery

·       Lincoln Social Responsibility Charter

 

b)    welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

 

The Chair offered his thanks to Sue Burke, Portfolio Holder for Reducing Inequality, for her extensive and thorough report. As a result of discussions, the following points were made: -

 

Question: Reference was made to Safer Streets Funding at paragraph 12.3 of the report on page 110 of the agenda pack, and CCTV installed on the way into the Scampton site. Were there any plans for the CCTV to be moved to a location where it could be used?

Response: Consideration would be given to the suggestion and information provided further to the meeting.

 

Question: As a percentage, how much had inequality reduced?

Response: A percentage figure was not known however the CoLC remained extremely dedicated in the name of serving residents well.

 

Comment: It was difficult to measure performance within the portfolio in the absence of performance data.

 

Question: How many visits through the door of Sincil Bank neighbourhood working had taken place?

Response: The information was contained within the report and was approximately 4000.

Supplementary Question: Were visits direct visits to City Council services?

Supplementary Response: Advice was given by CoLC but also facilitated other services such as Citizens Advice.

 

Question: Many years ago, a discussion had taken place with regard to neighbourhood working in Sincil Bank. When was the review due to take place?

Response: The Rose Regeneration report was awaited further to an evaluation of the scheme which considered what had worked well, what lessons could be learnt and what was transferable. The report was key and once received, a Members workshop would be arranged in order that it could be considered.

 

Question: Reference was made to Enforcement Action within Appendix A of the report. Was that a direct results of the work within the Portfolio or city wide?

Response: A great deal of work had taken place on fly tipping within Sincil bank and CCTV had been installed. Consideration had been given to enforcement action in Sincil Bank.

 

Comment: It would be useful for figures to be presented to Performance Scrutiny Committee in order that comparisons could be made and improvements seen.

Response: It would be helpful for officers to be given a clear definition of the period data required for each Portfolio Holder report.

 

Comment: Data would be included within the quarterly performance reports for each area, and in November, side by side comparisons could be made.

 

Question: Reference was made to CCTV installed for fly tipping hotspots. Could a similar scheme be introduced in other areas of the city. How successful had it been?

Response: CCTV had helped however it was no fail safe solution. There had been some success and it would be kept under review. When there was a future opportunity for funding, plans would be considered.

 

Comment: As a Committee, statistics were important as they were a measure of how well the Council had performed.

Response: There were some issues which were difficult to directly measure with numbers. Officers continued to find ways of demonstrating differences. It was difficult for the change in quality of life and people’s wellbeing to be measured, although not impossible. If an improvement in health of an area e.g. life expectancy was seen, it was difficult to evidence via data in the short term but was better longer term.

 

Comment: The issue was about measurability. The average processing time for benefits was one measure and the CoLC were approximately 6/7 days ahead of the national. We had a small cost of living support team and there was no target on phones calls, some of which were difficult conversations. However, a one-hour call had the potential to lead to an improved quality of life although that was difficult to measure.

 

Comment: Reference was made to safeguarding figures on page 102 of the agenda pack and the dramatic rise over the years was noted.

Response: Figures had increased however it was evidenced that recognition of problems and intervention of appropriate support, had improved.

Supplementary Comment: Officers were successful in the identification of individuals that required support and signposting effectively.

 

Comment: There were elements that lent themselves to qualitative data which could include testimonials from people. A narrative at the beginning of the report would be helpful. Performance could be measured in a variety of ways and some statistics could be skewed.

 

Question: Reference was made to microchipping under Enforcement within Appendix A of the report. Could further information be provided?

Response: If the CoLC became aware that a dog was not microchipped, the owner would be serviced with a notice but it had not become necessary. A dog would be microchipped at a kennel further to collection. Cats were not collected as strays as it was not a statutory responsibility however the action taken would be the same if a cat came into possession.

 

Comment: A discussion had taken place previously in regard to qualitative and quantitative data. It was important that a customer continued to receive the best possible service, and it was not possible that calls be rushed.

 

Comment: Safeguarding figures had been introduced for the first time on a quarterly basis. It was not possible for the outcome of calls to be shared in a public forum. However, many of these calls were dealt with and supported by officers.

 

Question: Reference was made to childhood obesity. There were only 5 local authorities in the country worse than Lincoln in regard to childhood obesity. Was there anything more that could be done?

Response: Childhood obesity was a very important issue and links could be drawn between obesity and poverty. It was often cheaper to buy poor quality food and education around food nutrition was important. The issue required closer consideration. The Community Grocery carried out fantastic work.

 

Comment: Through various grants, the ‘Go Grow’ scheme had been supported which taught individuals how to cook healthy food at low costs, approximately feeding a family for £1. The scheme had been a real success.

 

Comment: Performance measure fell under a national public health profile. Councillor Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing, sat on the County excessive weight group which fed into the LCC Health and Wellbeing Board. There was a wide stream of work delivered by Public Health and Children’s Services etc. There was a physical activity strategy, and football pitches, cricket pitches and green areas had been provided. Statistically, there was strong correlation with obesity and lack of physical activity.

 

Comment: Themed work around poverty and an anti-poverty strategy agenda was considered at recent meetings of the Community Leadership Scrutiny Committee (CLSC). Poverty and Health and Education would be considered by CLSC in the future.

 

Question: Reference was made to Rough Sleeping at paragraph 8 on page 102 of the agenda pack. Rough sleeping had increased within the city. Was the rise caused by early prison releases?

Response: Within the first tranche of the early release scheme, four individuals had been released into Lincoln. Officers worked with The Probation Service prior to their release. The next tranche of early releases would take place in October, for individuals that had served more than 5 years. Officers had not been informed that any individuals under the second tranche would be released into Lincoln. It was hoped that individuals released early from prison could be assisted into supported accommodation on the day of release. In order to be counted as a rough sleeper, as per Government guidelines, individuals had to have been bedded down, and Lincoln had approximately 12-13 rough sleepers. There was a fine narrative of what a rough sleeper actually was.

 

Question: Reference was made to Lincoln Embracing All Nations (LEAN) at paragraph 10.7 on page 105 of the agenda pack. Who had paid for the three newly appointed members of staff?

Response: LEAN was not a CoLC organisation and as such, there was no cost to CoLC.

 

(Note: Councillor Bob Bushell left the meeting at this point in proceedings).

 

Comment: Reference was made to Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) at paragraph 12.5 on page 111 of the agenda pack. There were no figures for achievement of enforcement.

Response: There was a city centre team that worked wider than only the city centre. Dedicated staff concentrated on the city centre. If behaviour were to be identified, individuals would be signposted however enforcement powers were retained.

 

Comment: Figures would be circulated further to the meeting.

 

Comment: Staff were well coordinated to ensure that behaviour such as aggressive begging and the public consumption of alcohol were dealt with. Some of the lifestyles were chaotic and at times, it was difficult for individuals to be engaged with. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Team, CCTV, Anti-Social Behaviour Team and the Police were engaged and continued to work collaboratively on the issues.

 

Comment: Reference was made to the number of live cases open at the end of the Quarter (across full PPASB service) on page 120 of the agenda pack. It was disappointing that figures had worsened with 2 additional staff members.

Response: Employment of additional staff resulted in the identification of more issues, and it was a part of improved reporting. Businesses within the city centre and Bailgate had been encouraged to report into the Council. Therefore, additional reporting activity had been generated. Some cases were not closed quickly as they could be very complex.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1. Figures in relation to the enforcement of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) be circulated further to the meeting.

 

2. Feedback in respect of potential relocation of CCTV installed on the way into the Scampton site be provided to members.

 

3. The contents of the annual report be noted with thanks.

 

(Note: Councillor Thomas Dyer left the meeting at this point in proceedings).