Minutes of a remote meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee held at 6.30pm on 12 November 2020.

This was a fully remote meeting held using Microsoft Teams software and ‘livestreamed’ via a weblink publicised on the Council website in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. PRESENT

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Cllr. Marie-Therese Rossi (Chair) Cllr. Adrian Berrill-Cox (Vice-Chair) Cllr. Max Chauhan Cllr. Janet Evans (Chair, Family Services Select Committee) Cllr. Marwan Elnaghi (Chair, Adult Social Care & Health Select Committee) Cllr. Gregory Hammond Cllr. David Lindsay Cllr. Pat Mason Cllr. Will Pascall (Chair, Environment Select Committee)

OTHERS PRESENT Members of the Leadership Team Cllr. Elizabeth Campbell (Leader of the Council) Cllr. Kim Taylor-Smith (Deputy Leader, Grenfell, Housing & Social Investment) Cllr. Sarah Addenbrooke (Lead Member for Adult Social Care & Public Health) Cllr. Anne Cyron (Lead Member for Communities) Cllr. Josh Rendall (Lead Member for Family & Children’s Services) Cllr. Mary Weale (Lead Member for Finance and Customer Delivery) Cllr. Emma Will (Lead Member for Community Safety, Culture and Leisure)

Other Councillors Cllr. Judith Blakeman Cllr. Linda Wade

Officers Taryn Eves - Director of Financial Management Sue Harris – Executive Director, Environment and Communities Jacqui Hird - Scrutiny Manager Sarah Newman – Executive Director, Children’s Services Stuart Priestley – Chief Community Safety Manager Tom McColgan – Senior Governance Administrator Rachel Merriman – Senior Community Safety Officer Luke Newman – Senior Strategic Adviser Joe Philp – Head of Partnerships Barry Quirk - Chief Executive Visva Sathasivam – Director of Social Care

1

Callum Wilson – Director of Grenfell Partnerships Martyn Carver - Governance Manager

Members of the public Abbas Dadou - Chair, Lancaster West Residents’ Association) David O’Connell - Vice-Chair, Lancaster West Residents’ Association) Kimia – Grenfell Next of Kin

Public agenda

72 SECONDS SILENCE At the invitation of the Chair, all present observed 72 seconds of silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy.

A1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Cllr. Kasim Ali.

A2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were made.

A3. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 September 2020 were confirmed as a correct record.

A4. GRENFELL RECOVERY FORWARD PLANNING

At the request of the Chair, the Committee was addressed by the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Campbell.

The Leader referred to the report which had been considered at the June meeting of the Committee and the progress made, in spite of the pandemic. The report on the agenda looked at plans for the next three years. It focused on the need for the remaining funding to have the maximum benefit for residents in the future. Collaboration and partnership working with residents were essential to achieve this. The programme was part of a wider change in the way the Council sought to engage and work with residents. The Leader sought views on the draft framework set out in the report.

The Chair, Cllr. Rossi, welcomed the report, in particular its emphasis on collaboration with residents.

Cllr. Cyron spoke of the Grenfell Assembly meeting on 18 November, which would focus on the design of the second year of the Grenfell Projects Fund. It was unfortunate that this would be held online and not face-to-face as a result of the current restrictions, but she hoped that residents’ feedback on the plans would still be forthcoming.

2

Cllr. Mason said that he would be led by the views of bereaved, survivors and residents. He asked what would happen after the three-year programme had ended. The Leader explained that some funding was being set aside for bereaved and survivors beyond the end of the programme. She noted that the Council would work closely with the wider community to ensure there were no cliff edges and to build a longer-term legacy from the tragedy.

Cllr. Evans welcomed the report and spoke of the need for flexibility to address the different stages of recovery. Cllr. Taylor-Smith added that the legacy would be different for different people. In terms of housing management, he hoped that aspects of the Lancaster West Neighbourhood team model could be extended beyond Lancaster West. The Housing Legacy Fund and housing allocations project were exciting developments which would help to build a lasting legacy from the tragedy.

Cllr. Elnaghi asked how many current projects funded through the Grenfell Projects Fund had been disrupted by the pandemic. Cllr. Cyron said that the Council had worked with all applicants to ensure that, where possible, projects could launch in a COVID-19 safe way. Callum Wilson added that about one-third of projects were up and running and that alternatives were being explored for the remaining projects.

Cllr. Pascall asked how the current programme had been adapted to help children suffering from a lack of schooling during the pandemic. Cllr. Rendall said that this issue had been looked at by the Family Services Select Committee. Voluntary services had been used. Lessons had been learned following the first lockdown in March. He added that it may be better for schools to commission their own services as they knew best what was required to help children.

The Chair then invited comments from other Councillors present. Cllr. Blakeman said that local councillors should have been invited to the regular presentations by successful applicants to the Grenfell Projects Fund. She also asked about steps being taken to ensure that quieter voices were taken into account and to ensure there was no duplication of projects.

Cllr. Cyron apologised for not inviting local councillors to previous events but undertook to do so in future. Support had been given to all applicants when funding presentations were made; this included one-to-one and video support. She committed to offering support with future applications. She felt that communities should be trusted to come up with beneficial projects, even if there was some duplication.

Cllr Blakeman also asked what work was being done with registered housing providers (such as Octavia and Anchor). She added that housing associations had not engaged with their residents as well as the Council had with theirs. Cllr. Taylor-Smith said that he had met the CE of Octavia to discuss housing quality and nominations. Officers were discussing matters with registered providers. He added that Government was being lobbied about registered providers who held four-times the housing stock held by the Council so had a big role to play in the area.

3

The Chair then invited questions from residents. Kimia, representing Grenfell Next of Kin, raised four issues:

(i) She said that she was concerned that too much of the funding had been spent on what she termed ‘infrastructure costs’, such as rent and salaries. She felt that it was disingenuous to say that it had been spent on the bereaved and survivors. (ii) She understood that the Grenfell Projects Fund had only 50 people deciding what £600k should be spent on; (iii) She reported that some next-of-kin had been unable to access public funds and support owing to issues with their visas. She called on the Council to take this up with the Home Office. (iv) She raised a question about funding for Grenfell United and the end of the current lease on Old Court Place. She asked what plans were in place for further funding.

In response to (i), Callum Wilson noted that some of the figures quoted related to the 2019-20 budget and that significant changes had been made since then. He explained that the Dedicated Service Management Team had worked closely with the Dedicated Service Steering Group, made up of bereaved and survivors, to reduce staffing costs by 50%. He undertook to provide detailed figures for this year’s expenditure on bereaved and survivors to the Committee and to the Next of Kin group. Action by: Callum Wilson

On (ii), Cllr. Cyron said that the funding had been allocated over two days. She recalled about 150 residents were present on the first day and about 100 on day two. The meetings had been widely publicised and there had certainly been more than 50 people involved.

On (iii), the Leader said that this was a matter for the Home Office, and she encouraged the Next of Kin group to make representations to the MP, Felicity Buchan, and directly to the Government. Callum Wilson added that the Dedicated Service was committed to supporting bereaved and survivors who were not eligible for public funds in whatever way they could within the legal parameters.

On (iv), Callum Wilson explained that the Council did not fund Grenfell United’s space, rent or staffing. This was provided by central Government and discussions were ongoing about future arrangements.

Kimia felt that the figure of 94% for those accessing services was misleading. If someone called it was marked as a ‘contact’. Some people needed more help. She considered that the Council should not be leading the recovery given that it was under investigation. The Chair commented that she understood why Kimia said that, but this was the position and the Council was taking the lead on the recovery.

Abbas Dadou and David O’Connell then spoke. They welcomed the report and the commitment to working more closely with the community. The legacy issue was important as projects needed to continue to support people and effect longer-

4

term change. Good quality projects were needed, even if they were fewer in number. Outcomes should be more results-focused and not simply refer to the number of people who attended an event. Last year, a breakdown of funding for Commissioned services had been provided; a similar breakdown was needed this year. The Leader agreed that outcomes were key. Cllr. Rendall undertook to provide a breakdown of figures for commissioned services for children and young people, as requested. Action by: Cllr. Rendall

Abbas Dadou said that he hoped the Lancaster West experience could be replicated across the borough. Cllr. Taylor-Smith agreed and added that the bid referred to expansion. David O’Connell added that areas outside Lancaster West also needed support. Cllr. Cyron spoke of a Council-wide overhaul of engagement and a long-term commitment to listen and co-create solutions with residents. Cllr. Addenbrooke referred to a review of how services were commissioned and welcomed comments that could be fed into the review.

The Leader welcomed the contributions made at the meeting and summarised by saying that this was the start of the process. Further engagement would take place between now and the final Leadership Team report and comments were welcomed. The Leadership Team would consider the matter in December and, if approved, consultation and engagement in individual areas would begin to shape plans for the next three years.

The Chair then drew discussions to a close and thanked those who contributed. She welcomed the good intentions set out in the report and stressed the need for these to be translated into positive action and for continued community involvement. She added that the Committee would continue to monitor the progress of the Grenfell Recovery programme.

The report was received and noted.

A5. COMMUNITY WARDEN SERVICE UPDATE

Stuart Priestley introduced the paper.

Following a question by the Chair about anti-social behaviour in Earl’s Court Ward, he said that this had been a challenge because other boroughs had placed some of their homeless people in accommodation in the ward. Cllr. Wade referred to a continuing problem with rough sleepers in the ward. There was displacement from the tube station area to neighbouring streets where there was no CCTV. Cllr. Will commented that co-ordination of wardens was key in addressing anti-social behaviour.

Cllr. Berrill-Cox asked about the training of wardens. Rachel Merriman spoke of the assessment centre held at the Town Hall. Fourteen wardens had been recruited and had been given training on issues such as legislation and health and safety. Cllr. Pascall asked about the link between on-street wardens and the back office and whether they could communicate with other services. Officers referred to the mini-iPads carried by wardens which allowed them to input data

5

while on-street. Activity could then be monitored and wardens assigned accordingly. Weekly meetings were held to share information about hot-spots. The wardens were linked in with the community policing team and CCTV control rooms.

Cllr. Hammond drew attention to Table 2 and asked about the discrepancy in figures for actions by ward. It was noted that the wardens did not work on estates in Dalgarno Ward so that may account for some of the discrepancy.

Cllr. Mason drew attention to the fact that some people, particularly in North Kensington, were reluctant to report crime for fear of reprisals. This would have an effect on hot-spot figures so wardens were less likely to be deployed these areas. Officers commented that although part of the wardens’ role was to react to such data, they were also proactive and were on the streets of North Kensington daily. It was noted that wardens were also tasked according to information given to the Council, not just the police.

Cllr. Will spoke of the ward walks where local councillors could join up with wardens on patrol. She recommended councillors to take up the opportunity to gain an insight into their work.

Cllr. Chauhan referred to paragraph 2.1 about the PSPO in Brompton and Hans Town Ward set up to tackle noisy cars. He asked why this had not been extended to Queen’s Gate Ward. Stuart Priestley explained the background to setting up this PSPO and added that areas covered were regularly reviewed to address any displacement issues. Referring to Table 2 Cllr. Chauhan asked for a breakdown of the 110 actions in Queen’s Gate Ward. Rachel Merriman undertook to provide this. Action by: Rachel Merriman

Cllr. Lindsay suggested that Tables 1 and 2 could be recast to show the type of actions by ward. This would be helpful in showing which wards had high instances of brothels/sex carding, for instance. Action by: Stuart Priestley

Cllrs. Chauhan and Evans both welcomed the opportunity to undertake a ward walk. Cllr Evans also asked about shift work and coverage on Bank Holidays. It was noted that the day was split into three shifts covering 7am-11pm. Wardens did not work on Bank Holidays, except on Carnival weekend.

Cllr. Elnaghi referred to the lack of litter bins near the seating in Kensington High Street. Stuart Priestley said that he could not comment on the provision of such bins but would pass this on to the relevant officers. Action by: Stuart Priestley The report was received and noted.

A6. MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY

The Committee noted that the report which set out savings and budget planning proposals had been considered at the Leadership Team meeting on 11 November. Cllr. Berrill-Cox reminded members that the OSC had set up its own Working Group to look at the budget in more detail. There would be detailed

6

sessions with each Lead Member in the coming weeks following which a report would be submitted to the OSC meeting in December.

Following a question by the Chair about the business rates safety net referred to in paragraph 4.3.4, Taryn Eves explained that the Government would pay around £230m of the expected £370m this year to offset the expected loss in business rates.

The Committee noted the ‘spans and layers’ organisational review referred to in paragraph 8.14. Noted that the Director of HR would attend the Budget Working Group meeting to discuss in more detail. Savings would be adjusted as the process progressed.

Cllr. Pascall spoke of the costs to the Council of recycling and the need to lobby Government to get businesses to reduce the amount of packaging they use. This point could be discussed in more detail by the Working Group.

The report was received and noted.

A7. WORK PROGRAMME

The Committee was informed of the progress with working groups and the work programme set up by the Select Committees and referred to in paragraph 2.4.

The Chair spoke of the need to give further consideration to the process for monitoring key decisions. She was of the view that at present too much onus fell on the OSC Chair to monitor the Forward Plan. It was suggested that the list of key decisions could be sent to Scrutiny Chairs earlier to give them time to identify which decisions falling in their committee’s remit should be scrutinised in more detail. It was noted that items were often added to the Forward Plan well in advance of any report being available and that summaries were sometimes not helpful. This made it difficult to judge whether further scrutiny was needed. It was also suggested the Forward Plan could be moved up the agenda at OSC meetings so that sufficient time could be spent considering it.

Noted that a meeting between the Chief Executive and Governance would be arranged to discuss the process and recommend ways to improve it.

Action by: Jacqui Hird/Governance The report was received and noted.

A8. THE FORWARD PLAN AND KEY DECISION TRACKER

Cllr. Pascall suggested three Key Decisions for further consideration by the Environment Select Committee:

• 05713 Housing sustainability and fuel poverty strategy • 05456 RBKC website audit • 05651 Parks and landscape maintenance contract award

Action by: Governance Services

7

OTHER MATTERS

No other matters were raised.

EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC There were no matters requiring the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting.

The meeting ended at 9.42pm.

Chair

8