(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 03/10/2018 19:30

Public Document Pack

Lewisham Council Members

Members of the committee, listed below, are summoned to attend the meeting to be held on Wednesday, 3 October 2018.

Ian Thomas, Chief Executive September 25 2018

Mayor Damien Egan

Councillor Obajimi Adefiranye

Councillor Abdeslam Amrani

Councillor Tauseef Anwar

Councillor Chris Barnham

Councillor Paul Bell

Councillor Peter Bernards

Councillor Chris Best

Councillor Kevin Bonavia

Councillor Andre Bourne

Councillor Bill Brown

Councillor Juliet Campbell

Members of the public are welcome to attend committee meetings. However, occasionally, committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of agendas, minutes and reports are available on request in Braille, in large print, on audio tape, on computer disk or in other languages.

Councillor Suzannah Clarke

Councillor Patrick Codd

Councillor Tom Copley

Councillor Liam Curran

Councillor Janet Daby

Councillor Brenda Dacres

Councillor Sophie Davis

Councillor Amanda De Ryk

Councillor Joe Dromey

Councillor Colin Elliott

Councillor Alex Feis-Bryce

Councillor Aisling Gallagher

Councillor Leo Gibbons

Councillor Alan Hall

Councillor Carl Handley

Councillor Octavia Holland

Councillor Sue Hordijenko

Councillor Coral Howard

Councillor Mark Ingleby

Councillor Liz Johnston-Franklin

Councillor Caroline Kalu

Councillor Silvana Kelleher

Councillor Louise Krupski

Councillor Jim Mallory

Councillor Paul Maslin

Councillor Sophie McGeevor

Councillor Joan Millbank

Councillor Hilary Moore

Councillor Pauline Morrison

Councillor John Muldoon

Councillor Olurotimi Ogunbadewa

Councillor Jacq Paschoud

Councillor John Paschoud

Councillor Stephen Penfold

Councillor James Rathbone

Councillor Joani Reid

Councillor Sakina Sheikh

Councillor Jonathan Slater

Councillor Alan Smith

Councillor Luke Sorba

Councillor Eva Stamirowski

Councillor James-J Walsh

Councillor Susan Wise

RECORDING AND USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

You are welcome to record any part of any Council meeting that is open to the public.

The Council cannot guarantee that anyone present at a meeting will not be filmed or recorded by anyone who may then use your image or sound recording.

If you are intending to audio record or film this meeting, you must :

• tell the clerk to the meeting before the meeting starts

• only focus cameras/recordings on councillors, Council officers, and those members of the public who are participating in the conduct of the meeting and avoid other areas of the room, particularly where non-participating members of the public may be sitting.

• ensure that you never leave your recording equipment unattended in the meeting room.

If recording causes a disturbance or undermines the proper conduct of the meeting, then the Chair of the meeting may decide to stop the recording. In such circumstances, the decision of the Chair shall be final.

Council Agenda

Wednesday, 3 October 2018 7.30 pm, Council Chamber - Civic Suite Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall London SE6 4RU

For more information contact: Kevin Flaherty 0208 3149327

Part 1

Item Pages

1. Declaration of Interests 1 - 3

2. Minutes 4

3. Petitions 5

4. Announcements or Communications 6 - 7

5. Member questions 8 - 13

6. Public questions 14 - 87

7. Members allowances 88 - 126

8. Appointment of Council Representative to the Brent Knoll and 127 - 147 Watergate Co-operative Trust

9. Local Government Social Care Ombudsman 148 - 187

10. Action by Chair of Council 188 - 190

11. Motion 1 Cllr Daby Cllr Dacres 191 - 192

12. Motion 2 Cllr Johnston Franklin Cllr Dromey 193 - 194

13. Motion 3 Cllr Walsh Cllr De Ryk 195 - 196

14. Motion 4 Cllr Penfold Cllr Holland 197 - 198

15. Motion 5 Cllr John Paschoud Cllr Morrison 199

Agenda Item 1

COUNCIL

Report Title Declarations of Interests

Key Decision Item No. 1

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

Declaration of interests

Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the agenda.

1 Personal interests

There are three types of personal interest referred to in the Council’s Member Code of Conduct :-

(1) Disclosable pecuniary interests (2) Other registerable interests (3) Non-registerable interests

2 Disclosable pecuniary interests are defined by regulation as:-

(a) Employment, trade, profession or vocation of a relevant person* for profit or gain

(b) Sponsorship –payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than by the Council) within the 12 months prior to giving notice for inclusion in the register in respect of expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member or towards your election expenses (including payment or financial benefit from a Trade Union).

(c) Undischarged contracts between a relevant person* (or a firm in which they are a partner or a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the securities of which they have a beneficial interest) and the Council for goods, services or works.

(d) Beneficial interests in land in the borough.

(e) Licence to occupy land in the borough for one month or more.

(f) Corporate tenancies – any tenancy, where to the member’s knowledge, the Council is landlord and the tenant is a firm in which the relevant person* is a partner, a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the securities of which they have a beneficial interest.

(g) Beneficial interest in securities of a body where:-

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\9\5\ai00020598\$rpcf21su.doc Page 1

(a) that body to the member’s knowledge has a place of business or land in the borough; and

(b) either (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or 1/100 of the total issued share capital of that body; or

(ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person* has a beneficial interest exceeds 1/100 of the total issued share capital of that class.

*A relevant person is the member, their spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom they live as spouse or civil partner.

(3) Other registerable interests

The Lewisham Member Code of Conduct requires members also to register the following interests:-

(a) Membership or position of control or management in a body to which you were appointed or nominated by the Council

(b) Any body exercising functions of a public nature or directed to charitable purposes , or whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy, including any political party

(4) Non registerable interests

Occasions may arise when a matter under consideration would or would be likely to affect the wellbeing of a member, their family, friend or close associate more than it would affect the wellbeing of those in the local area generally, but which is not required to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests (for example a matter concerning the closure of a school at which a Member’s child attends).

(5) Declaration and Impact of interest on members’ participation

(a) Where a member has any registerable interest in a matter and they are present at a meeting at which that matter is to be discussed, they must declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and in any event before the matter is considered. The declaration will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If the matter is a disclosable pecuniary interest the member must take not part in consideration of the matter and withdraw from the room before it is considered. They must not seek improperly to influence the decision in any way. Failure to declare such an interest which has not already been entered in the Register of Members’ Interests, or participation where such an interest exists, is liable to prosecution and on conviction carries a fine d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\9\5\ai00020598\$rpcf21su.docPage 2 of up to £5000

(b) Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a disclosable pecuniary interest they must still declare the nature of the interest to the meeting at the earliest opportunity and in any event before the matter is considered, but they may stay in the room, participate in consideration of the matter and vote on it unless paragraph (c) below applies.

(c) Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a disclosable pecuniary interest, the member must consider whether a reasonable member of the public in possession of the facts would think that their interest is so significant that it would be likely to impair the member’s judgement of the public interest. If so, the member must withdraw and take no part in consideration of the matter nor seek to influence the outcome improperly.

(d) If a non-registerable interest arises which affects the wellbeing of a member, their, family, friend or close associate more than it would affect those in the local area generally, then the provisions relating to the declarations of interest and withdrawal apply as if it were a registerable interest.

(e) Decisions relating to declarations of interests are for the member’s personal judgement, though in cases of doubt they may wish to seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer.

(6) Sensitive information

There are special provisions relating to sensitive interests. These are interests the disclosure of which would be likely to expose the member to risk of violence or intimidation where the Monitoring Officer has agreed that such interest need not be registered. Members with such an interest are referred to the Code and advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer in advance.

(7) Exempt categories

There are exemptions to these provisions allowing members to participate in decisions notwithstanding interests that would otherwise prevent them doing so. These include:-

(a) Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception) (b) School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which you are a governor; (c) Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt (d) Allowances, payment or indemnity for members (e) Ceremonial honours for members (f) Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\9\5\ai00020598\$rpcf21su.doc Page 3 Agenda Item 2

COUNCIL

Report Title Minutes

Key Decision Item No.2

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

Recommendation

It is recommended that the minutes of the meeting of the Council which was open to the press and public, held on July 18 2018 be confirmed and signed (copy previously circulated).

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\9\5\ai00020599\$sbx1pggz.docPage 4 Agenda Item 3

COUNCIL

Report Title Petitions

Key Decision no Item No.

Ward n/a

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

1. The Council is invited to receive petitions (if any) from members of the Council or the public. There is no requirement for Councillors to give prior notice of any petitions that might be presented.

2. The Council welcomes petitions from the public and recognises that petitions are one way in which people can let us know their concerns. All petitions sent or presented to the Council will receive an acknowledgement from the Council within 14 days of receipt. This acknowledgement will set out what we plan to do with the petition.

3. Paper petitions can be sent to :-

Governance Support, Town Hall, Catford, SE6 4RU

Or be created, signed and submitted on line by following this link

https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Petitions.aspx

4. Petitions can also be presented to a meeting of the Council. Anyone who would like to present a petition at a Council meeting, or would like a Councillor to present it on their behalf, should contact the Governance Support Unit on 0208 3149327 at least 5 working days before the meeting.

5. Public petitions that meet the conditions described in the Council’s published petitions scheme and which have been notified in advance, will be accepted and may be presented from the public gallery at the meeting.

6. No public petitions for the Council have been notified for this meeting.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\6\6\6\ai00020666\$daz13mfn.docPage 5 Agenda Item 4

COUNCIL

Report Title Announcements or Communications

Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

Recommendation

The Council is invited to receive any announcements or communications from the Mayor or the Chief Executive.

1. OBITUARIES: Former Councillor Solomon Brown RIP and Former Councillor Gurbahksh Garcha RIP

The death took place in early September of former Councillor Solomon Brown at the age of 95.

He served one term as a Councillor for Hither Green ward from 1994 -1998 and in his last year as a Councillor, he was elected to serve as Deputy Mayor for the 1997/8 municipal year. He served on various Council committees, was a school Governor and sat on the board of various local charitable organisations. He had lived in the borough for over sixty years.

His funeral took place on Wednesday 26 September with a service a St. Michael’s and All Angels church, Champion Crescent Sydenham, followed by burial at Hither Green Cemetery in Verdant Lane.

The death of former Councillor Gurbahksh Garcha at the age of 83 took place on Monday 24 September in Lewisham Hospital.

Gurbahksh served five terms on the Council from 1986 to 2006. He was a former Deputy Mayor and Mayor and from 2002 to 2006 was the Cabinet member for Social Inclusion in Steve Bullock’s first Cabinet.

After his retirement he continued to play a very active part in civic life serving on SACRE, acting as Branch Secretary of the United Nations Association, assisting with Holocaust Memorial events and supporting the Rockbourne Youth Club which he helped found in 1978.

Details of funeral arrangements will be announced in due course.

2. Presentation of Civic Badges

The Mayor will present commemorative badges to former Mayor, Sir Steve Bullock DL and to former Mayoress, Kris Hibbert.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\3\6\ai00020632\$iqog4cbm.docPage 6

3. Black History Month

October will be Black History Month and a full range of events will be hosted at Lewisham Library. The month will also be marked by the flying of a celebratory flag outside the Civic Suite.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\3\6\ai00020632\$iqog4cbm.docPage 7 Agenda Item 5

COUNCIL

Report Title Member Questions

Key Decision Item No.6

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

7. Questions from Members of the Council

Section C, paragraph 14 of the Constitution, provides for questions relevant to the general work or procedure of the Council to be asked by Members of the Council. Copies of the questions received and the replies to them will be circulated at the meeting.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\3\6\ai00020630\$eaceu1z0.docPage 8 QUESTION No. 1 Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question by Councillor Hall of the Mayor

Question

In light of the new UNISON report, ‘Councils at breaking point’ which details how council workers and council services are suffering as a result of centrally imposed cuts to council budgets, what representation is the council making to a) the Government and b) local MPs to call for more funding for local councils in the November budget in Westminster?

I warmly welcome the excellent UNISON report ‘Councils at breaking point’.

I recently met with UNISON to discuss the report and to support their campaign to reverse the damaging cuts imposed on us from central government.

I recently joined 24 other council leaders calling on the government to recognise the impact of austerity on local government and reverse it. A copy of the letter I signed to Theresa May is copied below:

“We, the undersigned, call upon the government to recognise the catastrophic impact which eight years of uninterrupted austerity has had on local government.

Local government is the primary provider of numerous essential services, which allow our country to operate on a day-to-day basis. It is the first port of call for children in need of care, for those facing homelessness and those fleeing domestic abuse and violence or caring for the elderly. We are responsible for quality controls on housing in the rental sector, responsible for maintaining our local infrastructure, preserving our public green space and bin collections and local sanitation.

Budget restrictions (in the form of direct cuts and budget pressures) have meant losses of almost 50% for councils across the country. This has had

Page 9 disastrous knock-on impacts for services, as the stop-gaps that were once in place to prevent destitution have been stripped back. Already, a number of councils have cut their services to a statutory minimum, with more likely to follow in the coming months and years.

The Local Government Association believes that councils will have lost 77% of their budget by 2020, and Conservative Chair of the LGA, Gary Porter, says that will leave an £5.8bn funding gap for local government: “We won’t be cleaning the streets, we won’t be cutting the grass, we won’t be putting streetlights on at all, your libraries will go, your potholes won’t get filled up.”

We believe that the huge increase in crime we have seen in recent years, decline in life expectancy and increase in foodbank usage, homelessness and rough sleeping are inevitable consequences of the destruction of the social contract between citizen and state. We believe government’s current path of austerity leads to infrastructural and social collapse.

We therefore call on government to reverse the disastrous policy of austerity that has dominated thinking in the Treasury since 2010 and has been disproportionately weighted against local authorities. We demand:

1. A needs-led approach to funding methodology for Local Government, recognising the differences in demand for services between different local authorities in different geographies, as well as different available levels of income (e.g. Council Tax and Business Rates collection).

2. More freedom for local authorities to set local taxes, retain local revenue and allow the proceeds of growth to be kept locally. A movement away from funding via ring-fenced grants, and towards allowing more discretion and local democratic oversight over spending by Local Authorities.

3. A reversal of the national drive towards Business Rates Retention as an alternative to central government funding, which creates a patchwork quilt of local authorities competing with one another to lower their rates.

In addition, I have joined lobbying campaigns led by the Local Government Association and London Councils against central government cuts.

I regularly meet with Lewisham’s MPs to discuss how we can work together to call for more funding, including at the Spending Review and Budget in November 2018. This includes briefing MPs on Council funding so they can raise issues in Parliament.

Page 10 QUESTION No. 2 Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question by Councillor Copley of the Cabinet Member for Housing

Question

What assessment has the Council made of the additional borrowing capacity that would be available if the government lifted the HRA borrowing cap and allowed Lewisham Council to borrow prudentially to build much needed new council homes?

In 2012 the Council undertook an exercise to establish the level of debt the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) could sustain, to fund much-needed new Council homes, if there were no artificial cap on borrowing imposed by central government.

This showed that Lewisham’s HRA could afford to borrow up to 35% of the value of its stock, which is approximately £350m. The Council’s current cap is £130m and as such there is £220m of house-building investment within the HRA that is currently being blocked solely by the artificial borrowing cap.

The estimate used for the Council’s house-building programme is that a new home costs approximately £250k, and under the GLA’s new funding regime £100k of this can be funded by grant subsidy. This means that the Council needs £150k of borrowing for every new home, and so the £220m of capacity that is artificially blocked could fund approximately 1,460 new council homes.

This number of homes would be sufficient to properly house three-quarters of the homeless Lewisham families who will spend tonight in unstable and high-cost temporary accommodation, which works only for the private landlords who own it.

But we cannot sit still and accept ‘no’ as an answer. That is why at Mayor & Cabinet on 20th September we agreed to seek an additional £51.4m in HRA borrowing.

Page 11 QUESTION No. 3 Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question by Councillor Hall of the Cabinet Member for Parks, Neighbourhoods and Transport

Question

As the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War approaches, will the Mayor ensure that the Grade II Listed Livesey Hall War Memorial is maintained in good order and will he monitor progress?

The Council does not own Livesey Memorial Hall or the associated War Memorial. However the Council will contact the owners of the building and memorial to ensure they have an appropriate plan in place to provide long term maintenance of them both.

Page 12 QUESTION No.4 Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question by Councillor Hall of the Cabinet Member for School Performance

Question

Is the Council committed to continuing outdoor education provision for local schools? How do they plan to progress this?

Schools in Lewisham are very committed to providing outdoor education experiences for their pupils in the interests of health, personal and educational development. It is for individual schools to identify the best provision for their pupils and to complement their wider curriculum. All use a range of providers both near to Lewisham and further afield. Schools are working together to help ensure that their needs are met in the future, including through future provision in Beckenham Place Park.

Page 13 Agenda Item 6

COUNCIL

Report Title Public Questions

Key Decision Item No.5

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

. The Council has received questions from members of the public in the order shown in the table below. Written responses will be provided to the questioners prior to the Council meeting and they will be entitled to attend and ask a supplementary question should they wish to.

Question Questioner

1. Roger Lewis 2. Patricia Richardson 3. Mark Rochell 4. Maria Foley 5. Peter Richardson 6. Emma Miller 7. Gina Raggett 8. Nadya Phoenix 9. Richard Hebditch 10. Clare Phipps 11. Lucy Salek 12. Rosalind Huish 13. Andy Tonge 14. Anthony Crowther 15. Carole Hope 16. Patricia Richardson 17. Emma Miller 18. Clare Phipps 19. Roger Lewis 20. Lucy Salek 21. Rosalind Huish 22. Peter Richardson 23. Anthony Crowther 24. Carole Hope 25. Patricia Richardson 26. Clare Phipps 27. Rosalind Huish 28. Peter Richardson 29. Anthony Crowther

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\1\3\6\ai00020631\$ismg3iin.docPage 14 30. Carole Hope 31. Rosalind Huish 32. Anthony Crowther 33. Patricia Richardson 34. Carole Hope 35. Rosalind Huish 36. Rosalind Huish

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\1\3\6\ai00020631\$ismg3iin.doc Page 15 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 1. Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Roger Lewis

Member to reply: Councillor Barnham

Question

I would like to raise the following questions following the February 2018 decision of the Mayor to give his consent to the use of Department of Education 'Basic Needs' funds to double the size of a local authority controlled primary school, Ashmead Primary School, an OFSTED-rated 'Good' school on what I regard as a severely restricted site in the St. John's conservation area in the Brockley Ward.

- Are you aware LBL's Education Department's own data shows that primary school rolls are falling, and they anticipate will fall further with the effects of Brexit and a declining fertility rate (Lewisham School Governors' Pack, Spring 2018);

- Do you agree Freedom of Information requests show that LBL has a substantial surplus of primary school places in the Borough as a whole?

- Would you further agree FOI requests also prove comfortable capacity in each of the surrounding primary schools around Ashmead (St. Stephen's; Lucas Vale; Myatt Garden; Prendergast Ladywell), including in primary schools with a better OFSTED rating than Ashmead ('Outstanding'-rated Lucas Vale);

- Will you acknowledge Ashmead School was rebuilt in its entirety only ten years ago, with no 'future-proof' planning for sustainable expansion on a highly restricted and sensitive site;

Page 16 - Can you confirm LBL has within its care primary school sites with buildings dating from the 1960s and 1970s that are manifestly inadequate for educational use in 2018, several with levels of educational, social and ethnic diversity significantly greater than the educational, social and ethnic diversity of Ashmead?

Why do Mayor and Cabinet persist in supporting a policy decision to double the size of a school for which there is no need for LBL to meet its statutory requirement to provide primary school places, at a time of what we are told are such straightened financial circumstances, absorbing in the process educational funds available for capital investment where it IS needed, not least in educational institutions with greater levels of educational and social need?'

The decision to expand Ashmead Primary School to 2 forms of entry as of September 2017, was taken in March 2017, following a statutory consultation process that commenced in October 2016. From the start that consultation process mentioned the requirement for additional buildings to accommodate the expansion.

Accordingly, the school has admitted pupils as a 2-form of entry school since the start of the 2017/18 school year.

This decision to expand the school was taken following unprecedented growth in primary school numbers. It is true that there has subsequently been a small reduction. But, following this reduction in 2017 the forecast is for an upward trend. It should be noted that population trends over the short-term are cyclical, and remain under constant review, however the over-arching trend is for further population growth.

The recent reduction in demand has resulted in a surplus in primary places, and the council is working with those schools that have less demand to help control supply. Ashmead however remains a popular school, and we do not believe that the current demographic changes are serious enough to consider making changes that could significantly disrupt the school

The data released regarding spare capacity in local schools does not show that they have comfortable spare capacity, with the DfE expecting a vacancy rate of around 5% to allow for in-year changes. The majority of local schools are almost full, with only one school, Lucas Vale, having more surplus places than desired.

The Ashmead Primary School site is in fact relatively large, certainly in comparison with most other single-form of entry schools in the Borough. It is more than sufficient to provide for an extra form of entry.

We do not agree that the council has any primary school buildings that are inadequate for educational use in 2018. It should also be noted that the DfE Basic Need funding can only be used to provide additional places, not to refurbish or rebuild schools.

Page 17 It is important to keep the capacity and condition of schools under constant review, and we are committed to doing so. But in the case of Ashmead Primary School the priority is to ensure that this two-form entry school has the necessary facilities to accommodate the remainder of those children and young people going forward. At present that involves working with a design and build contractor to finalise a suitable design that meets planning requirements. As part of that planning process, the local community is able to input, comment and challenge those designs.

Page 18 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 2.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Patricia Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Dromey

Question

Is it true that from 2020, Adult Education in the London boroughs will no longer receive national government funding direct, but through the Mayor of London's office? Do you agree, this yet again puts provision of the service and accountability for that service a step away from local people and is happening increasingly with our local services. Does the use of out-sourced contracts, some of many years duration, has the same effect. Does our locally elected Mayor have any views/policies in mind that will ensure local need is met and accountability is enforceable, in the interests of democracy and the service, or will we live with less and less accountability and an increasingly diluted democracy as this seems to be a dilution of devolution?

The skills budget will be devolved to the six Mayoral Combined Authorities and the Greater London Authority from April 2019. The aim of this devolution is to give localities more control over their skills budget and use it to meet local needs and priorities. There will be a year of stability, with the proportion of funding unchanged for providers including Lewisham Council, and this may extend to 2021 as the GLA adjusts to managing this very important budget. The Mayors of the MCAs and of the

Page 19 GLA have welcomed this devolved skills budget, as it will mean that the needs of London’s and Lewisham’s communities will be focussed on in a way that was less possible when the budget was nationally managed through Whitehall.

In relation to the second part of the question the Mayor is committed to reviewing all Council contracts when they come up for renewal with a view to bringing them in- house where appropriate. Where contracts need to be renewed the Council is committed to ensuring that delivery is of good quality with transparent outcomes and accountability back to the Council.

We are also in the early stages of launching a Local Democracy Review which will enable residents to give their views on enhancing further the openness, transparency and accountability of the Council.

Page 20 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 3.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Mark Rochell

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

In the current 'Core Strategy Development Plan' for Lewisham (adopted June 2011) there is specific mention of certain wards amongst both the 'Core Strategy Objectives' and in the 'Spatial Strategy'. Specifically I refer to:

Core Strategy Objective 9 - Transport and Accessibility

5.13. b. The Council will ensure that transport and accessibility within the borough improves accessibility in the Evelyn, Whitefoot, Bellingham and Downham wards

Core Strategy Objective 11 - Community well-being

5.15. a. The Council with its partners will provide and support measures and initiatives that promote social inclusion and strengthen the quality of life and well-being for new and existing residents of the borough by addressing deprivation and health inequalities particularly within the wards of Evelyn, New Cross, Lewisham Central, Whitefoot, Bellingham and Downham

Page 21 Spatial Policy 5

Local Regeneration Area

3 To address deprivation in the Bellingham, Downham, and Whitefoot wards, the Council with its partners will work to improve: a. health inequality and well-being b. access to high quality housing including affordable housing and estate renewal c. education, employment and training opportunities d. access to public open space

Specifically I would like to hear from the council on:

A. How it feels progress has been made in these areas over the 7 years since the core strategy was adopted, with any examples of progress made, and,

B. Will the Council confirm that they will be maintaining these commitments to the wards as outlined above in the new Lewisham Local Plan that is currently being drafted to replace the Core Strategy?

A. The Core Strategy’s strategic objectives align with the Lewisham Sustainable Community Strategy (“Shaping our Future”), which sets out a vision along with key outcomes and priorities for the borough. The Core Strategy objectives broadly apply across Lewisham but also refer to specific areas or wards where targeted actions will assist in delivering positive outcomes for residents, businesses, visitors and the environment.

The council regularly assesses performance in the delivery of the Core Strategy objectives through the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) process. Reports are published annually and can be accessed from the council’s planning policy webpage.

B. The council has committed to the preparation of a new Local Plan for Lewisham. This will provide an opportunity to review the current strategic objectives and development strategy for the borough, as set out in the Core Strategy. In 2015 the council invited the public to comment on a “Main Issues” consultation document to help inform the scope of the new Local Plan. This early feedback is being considered in the preparation of a draft plan and policy proposals, to be subject to future public consultation, in line with the adopted Local Development Scheme.

Page 22 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 4.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Maria Foley

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Why do we still have parking in Zone H that is still all day? Why can it not be changed to 10am-12 mid-day, all the roads around me are empty, therefore the 10am-12mid day does work.

The Zone H CPZ would have been installed following a consultation with local residents and businesses. Making changes to the times of operation would require further consultation. This CPZ is also located near a number of parking generators, such as the Lewisham Hospital and the town centre, which could generate commuter parking outside of a typical two hour CPZ.

CPZ areas are reviewed as part of a programme of work, prioritised based on criteria set out in our parking policy, which is available on the council website.

The criteria to be considered includes:

 Evidence from borough-wide surveys

Page 23  Evidence from previous CPZ consultation identifying demand close to the 50% threshold  Requests, complaints, representation or petitions from stakeholders relating to parking pressure  Evidence of overspill from existing CPZs  Parking studies undertaken by the Council or Developers  Evidence of existing road safety issues  Evidence to support strategic infrastructure, town centres or car free developments  Introduction or changes to transport hubs.

The current programme of CPZ consultations was approved in March 2018 and is projected to run until the end of 2020, depending on the results of consultations and if new CPZ areas are to be introduced or existing areas amended based on these results. This programme does not currently include Zone H. Should Zone H meet the policy criteria for review, it may be included in future programmes. The programme is reviewed on an annual basis against the policy criteria.

Page 24 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 5.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Peter Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Slater

Question

What is Lewisham Council's policy on Library Users parking their cars in the front grounds of Manor House Library when other rooms in the Manor House are being used for other purposes and so may require parking space? Is this on a first-come-first-served basis or is there some system of allocation?

The Manor House in Lee is leased to V22 who are responsible for the day to day management of the building. This involves the management of parking within the grounds.

V22 confirms that:  within the limited spaces available – library users and other visitors to the House can park on a first-come-first-served basis.  No spaces are allocated and, under the terms of their contracts, tenants of Manor House are not allowed to park in the car park. The exception to this are the Manor House Midwives, who are often on call and need to be mobile.

Page 25  During the summer months in particular, the car park continues to suffer from unwanted parking from those using Manor House Gardens. Signs have been placed at exits and entrances forbidding this practice, but it is difficult to enforce without someone to permanently monitor vehicles and their users.  Parking on grassed areas is strictly forbidden.

Page 26 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 6.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Emma Miller

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Is there anything the council can introduce to lower the speed of vehicles and motorbikes - which will in turn stop motorbikes trying to do their 0-30 trick, so residents living on Brownhill road can sleep?

Brownhill Road is part of the Transport for London Road Network, (TLRN) therefore as a borough we are unable to introduce lower speeds on this road.

However, in the Mayors Transport Strategy, released earlier this year, there is a commitment to “Vision Zero”, the aim to have no one killed or seriously injured on London’s roads by 2041. This gives us as a Borough the opportunity to campaign to TfL on behalf of our residents to introduce lower speeds on their network, and we are actively lobbying for the introduction of 20mph limits on all of TfL’s roads in Lewisham, including Brownhill Road.

In the shorter term it is possible to carry out Community Road Watch events with the Met Police Safer Transport Team. To discuss this with the Police please contact [email protected].

Page 27 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 7.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Gina Raggett

Member to reply: Councillor Slater

Question

Item 10.2 in the Safer Stronger Annual Report 2017-18 dated 12/7/18 refers to a review of collections of books aimed at reversing the steep decline in book issues in Lewisham.

This would imply that a breakdown is available showing how many adult/children's/fiction/non-fiction/ebooks are borrowed from each library. Can the relevant figures be made available to the public?

The table below shows the total book issues for 2017-18 by library. Issues are split into adult, children’s, fiction, non-fiction and eBooks. The figures refer to book issues only and do not include issues of audio and other non-book material, eNewspapers and eMagazines. The total issue figure for Lewisham Libraries for 2017-18 was 566,794.

Page 28

2017-18 issues Total

Pepys

Catford

Deptford

Lewisham Downham

Forest Hill New Cross Sydenham

Blackheath Grove Park

Crofton Park

Manor House

Torridon Road

Adult Fiction 58,007 8,987 13,739 12,511 2,487 2,369 9,168 515 6,304 545 42 1,935 3,543 120,152 Adult Non Fiction 39,671 4,375 12,372 5,836 899 1,399 5,476 105 3,013 374 14 1,405 2,076 77,015 Total Adult book issues 97,678 13,362 26,111 18,347 3,386 3,768 14,644 620 9,317 919 56 3,340 5,619 197,167

Teenage Fiction 5,712 739 2,479 2,318 291 350 1,108 49 590 82 8 150 555 14,431 Teenage Non Fiction 997 66 79 135 32 38 161 8 144 6 - 27 28 1,721

Page 29 Page Children's Fiction 61,433 16,244 31,951 42,286 9,160 14,724 34,136 1,686 20,950 3,688 69 8,789 13,153 258,269 Children's Non Fiction 10,194 1,543 6,908 5,065 828 1,396 3,897 160 2,566 306 2 1,115 1,315 35,295 Total Children’s book issues 78,336 18,592 41,417 49,804 10,311 16,508 39,302 1,903 24,250 4,082 79 10,081 15,051 309,716

eBook issues 12,141

Total book issues 519,024

Non book Issues (including CDs, CDROMS, Talking Books, Computer Games, Language Courses, DVD, eAudio, eNewspapers, eMagazines) 47,770

Total issues 566,794

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 8.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Nadya Phoenix

Member to reply: Councillor De Ryk

Question

Could you advise who the top ten employers are in the borough of Lewisham?

The following table contains the top ten businesses in the borough based upon the highest rateable value (RV). It should be noted that this does not necessarily equate to the top ten employers. As shown here, Virgin Media LTD have the largest RV, but they are not the largest employer. Their cable network is substantial within the borough.

Page 30

Rateable Annual Company Name Property Description Value Charge

£ VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE 15,910,000 4,461,393 NETWORK & PREM SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS £ LTD HYPERMARKET AND PREMISES 3,870,000 2,047,936

£ LEWISHAM AND GREENWICH Hospital and Premises 3,250,000 1,707,575 NHS TRUST

S E LONDON COMBINED WASTE INCINERATOR AND PREMISES 2,600,000 £ POWER LTD 1,406,999 £ RAIL FOR LONDON LTD RAILWAY AND PREMISES 2,550,000 1,308,150

£ GOLDSMITHS UNIVERSITY OF UNIVERSITY AND PREMISES 2,480,000 254,448 LONDON SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS £ LTD SUPERSTORE AND PREMISES 1,760,000 909,416 £ CITIBANK NA COMPUTER CENTRE AND PREMISES 1,640,000 841,320

MAYORS OFFICE FOR POLICE STATION AND PREMISES £ 1,550,000 POLICING CRIME 795,150 SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS £ LTD SUPERSTORE AND PREMISES 1,530,000 784,890

Page 31 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 9.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Richard Hebditch

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

How many households in the borough are now covered by controlled parking zones, and how many applications there have been for the 10 free visitor permits (available to each household) in the last twelve months for which there are records.

1. Our current policy is that upon application, a book of 10 one hour visitor parking permits will be provided free of charge to all households that currently have at least one paid for resident parking permit holder per annum.

2. Between August 2017 and July 2018, there were 460 books of visitor permits issued under the above condition. From August 2018 to date (as of 20 September 2018) there were 940 books of visitor permits issued under the above condition

3. Also, upon application, a book of ten (1 hour) visitor parking permits will be provided free of charge to any residents in CPZs who are over 60, and in receipt of Council Tax support, and do not have another parking permit per annum.

Page 32 4. Between August 2017 and July 2018, there were 30 books of visitor permits issued under the above condition to residents over 60. 5. We do not hold a definitive record of how many households are eligible to purchase permits. However, as of 20 September 2018, there are 9223 active residents’ permits for Lewisham CPZs.

6. There are 23 CPZs within Lewisham, covering approximately 20% of the borough by area. A map showing the extents of these CPZs is available on the Council website.

Page 33 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 10.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Clare Phipps

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

Does the council support a People's Vote on the final terms of the Brexit deal, with an option to stay in?

The Council is due to debate a motion on a People’s Vote on Wednesday 3 October that I fully support.

Before I was elected Mayor of Lewisham, I campaigned strongly for a Remain vote at the Brexit referendum. Lewisham voted 70% to Remain in the EU. I am campaigning to keep the UK as close to the EU as possible in order to protect jobs and opportunities for the people of Lewisham.

Page 34 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 11.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Lucy Salek

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

Please can you outline the services available or supported through local authority funding to support people who are deaf or with hearing impairment? Including the total amount of funding available to support services and how much has been allocated.

The services currently available to those Deaf and Hard of Hearing in the borough, primarily adult residents, are as detailed below.

Customer Services support Monday – Friday 0900-1600 hrs with an officer who has Level 4 British Sign Language (BSL) accreditation. The officer provides advice on all aspects of Council services, helping with access and other practical matters, including translation, letter writing and access to information including welfare benefits. This officer is also available to help people who are hard of hearing. One morning a week Adult Social Care run a surgery in Customer Services with an officer with Lev el 4 BSL to provide advice and information in relation to adult care and support needs, including safeguarding, specialise equipment and access to

Page 35 interpreting and translation services. In addition, there is the availability of a remote interpreting service via a video link with Customer Services situated at Laurence House. There is a Technical Officer within the Linkline Service supporting those people who are housebound and require support with any specialist equipment.

For those people who require the services of a BSL interpreter, there is a contract with Language Line or via the Newham Language Line to access this service as and when required. Officers regularly attend the Deaf Forum to discuss how services can be improved.

Total budget: £117,928 (this is on target)

Made up of: Staff costs: £113,228 Video Interpreting contract: £ 4,200 One to One interpreting in BSL (part of corporate contract) Other equipment: 500

Page 36 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 12.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: Councillor Bonavia

Question

Has there been a recent ‘who reads what survey’ for residents in Lewisham as per LGA guidelines?

The Council ran a readers’ survey in ‘Lewisham Life’ last year, the survey asked questions on two of the five criteria in the ‘who reads what survey’. Over 1,500 people responded to that survey in Lewisham Life, which was also published online. Eighty four per cent of those who responded to the survey, gave the magazine the highest rating of ‘good’. The results of the survey were reported in the subsequent Winter edition of ‘Lewisham Life’.

The broader range of questions from the LGA ‘who reads what’ survey guidance, would normally inform a borough-wide residents survey, rather than a stand-alone survey. The last such borough-wide residents’ survey was conducted in 2015 and plans to conduct the next one, will be announced in due course.

Page 37

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 13.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Andy Tonge

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Noting that the Beckenham Place Park Regeneration project has been running almost two years since the date of the award of a Heritage Lottery Fund grant and that most major tasks have commenced, will the Council please provide the following budget and financial progress information:  What is the approved budget for completion of the BPP regeneration works (HLF funding + Environment Agency + others)? (to the nearest £10,000)  What is the cumulative spend to date? (assume end August 2018 to allow for internal financial reporting)  Is this above or below forecast?  What is the current completion date for the project?  What is the forecast cost at completion?

As the project is approximately two thirds along its time line, an accurate forecast cost at completion should be available.

Please also advise what major risks to budget adherence are on the project risk register. Reply

Page 38 The approved budget for this project is shown below:

Funding Source Amount

HLF £4,729,000

Access Sport £50,000

LBL, including section 106 contributions and insurance monies from fire £1,710,000

GLA grant £493,000

TOTAL £6.982m

Please note this excludes funding from the Environment Agency which has now been withdrawn, as the Ravensbourne flood alleviation scheme has been abandoned.

The EA contribution to the regeneration of the park was to be used on the eastern side of the park exclusively, and the expectation was that it would fund the landscape works planned there. It does not therefore affect the restoration taking place on the western side of the park.

Please note the table above also deals with the delivery stage of the project only. Monies spent on the development phase of the project (up to end of 2016) are not included here. This amounted to £267k, all of which was a grant from the HLF.

Cumulative spend to date is £1,341,092. This includes all project spend to date – capital works, fees and surveys, staff costs, activity costs.

This is slightly below the spend expected to date as the lake works were delayed over the summer, and so a smaller amount of the capital works have been completed, (and therefore billed) at this stage than was originally planned.

The current works are set to be completed in May 2019. Although the lake works were delayed over the summer these works were not on the critical path and so have not delayed the overall completion of the project.

The current cost at completion of the works is forecast to be £6.28m.

The main risks to budget adherence have now been worked through, they were:

Contamination in ground, asbestos in buildings, and the discovery of additional repairs and restoration of the buildings than was anticipated – e.g. a completely new roof was required on the cottages where it was hoped that repairs would be sufficient.

Some financial risks remain:  Utilities issues  Mechanical and electrical issues arising on building works

Page 39 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 14.

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Anthony Crowther

Member to reply: Councillor Dacres

Question

Lewisham’s 20mph speed limits are commendable, but it is clear from speaking to local residents that there’s widespread disregard of the limit. The Council states on their website that they will “work on providing good education, driver information, training and publicity about speed limits”. What work has been done on this, and what work is currently planned?

The Council is committed to making the Borough’s roads safer, and reducing speeds is a key part of the strategy for both the Council and for Transport for London (TfL). The Borough-wide 20mph limit is central to this objective and, to date, the implementation has involved: a Borough-wide audit of the previous speed limit signs; the design and implementation of the Borough-wide speed limit; speed surveys before implementation and annually thereafter; and the formulation of a strategy for prioritising and delivering a programme of works for the 30 priority roads. The Council is now working to design and implement these priority works.

However, throughout the implementation phase, the approach has been supported by a series of measures to publicise the scheme. These include:

Page 40

- High visibility banners being placed on lamp columns to increase awareness of the 20mph speed limit. The banners will continue to be in place for another 12 months at least. - Council's website contains key information and a promotional video which has been aired in libraries, leisure centres and on public transport. https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/transport/road- safety/Pages/20mph-borough-speed-limit.aspx - Various press releases - Featured in Lewisham Life twice to-date. - Working with schools to get the 20mph message out to the wider public through teachers, pupils, parents etc. - Information included in free cycle training courses. - Through Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) for motorcyclists - The promotion of local people working with the police at Community Roadwatch events recording speeds of passing vehicles. These events result in warning letters being sent to the offending vehicles registered keeper. After 2 warning letters repeat offenders may then be considered for targeted enforcement by the Police.

Page 41 Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 15. Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Carole Hope

Member to reply: Councillor Barnham

Question

Following the demise of Wide Horizons in July 2018, can the Council explain why the concerns of members of the public, dating back to 2015, and specifically about a council loan of £700,000, raised by email in January 2018 and acknowledged, were ignored?

Wide Horizons was an organisation, jointly supported by the London Borough of Lewisham and the Royal Borough of Greenwich for many years. They provided valued services to our schools and young people, particularly many facing real disadvantage. We are therefore bitterly disappointed with the outcome that they have had to close.

The Council has supported schools to identify alternative services and all pre-booked courses have been re-provided. The Council owned sites, in Kent and Wales, have been taken back while options for their future use are explored.

Concerns about Wide Horizons finances were not ignored. The organisation’s financial position was reviewed as part of Lewisham’s consideration for providing the £700k loan. The purpose of the loan was to enable the organisation to refinance an

Page 42 interest only debt, the principal of which it could not afford to repay, on a repayment basis. It was intended that this would provide Wide Horizons with financial stability as it sought to reposition its service offering in the face of a challenging environment.

The financial risks, as well as the potential loss of this valuable provision for some of those children most in need in the borough, were considered with reference to Wide Horizons accounts and business plan. The service intent and financial arrangements were assessed at Mayor and Cabinet on the 10 January when the Mayor took the decision to agree the loan.

Page 43

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 16.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Patricia Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Dromey

Question

I would like to raise a question on Adult Learning Lewisham concerning the delivery, by post, of a card advertising ALL for the start of term in September. The use of a prospectus was withdrawn several years ago, partly on the grounds of cost and partly due to changes in the curriculum through the year. Although I am happy more publicity is being given to what I consider a valuable and useful service for the people of Lewisham, what was the cost of the card, how widely across the borough was it delivered, and how were those who received it selected?

In the summer of 2018 Adult Learning Lewisham delivered 18,500 postcards advertising ALL’s courses, aimed at areas of the borough which our post-code analysis had shown we could be more successful in reaching, and also aimed at residents of the new flats in Lewisham. This was a pilot mail-out, and cost £5000 to

Page 44 design, produce and deliver, and took less than a day of ALL staff time. The impact of this mail-out is already being felt with ALL now having 500 additional enrolments compared with the same period last year. The mail-out of postcards did not result in any additional spend to the service, as savings were made elsewhere in the marketing budget. In contrast the prospectus, which was withdrawn seven years ago, cost the service £25,000 (although that figure would now be closer to £40,000) and took several months of staff time to create and produce.

Page 45

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 17.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Emma Miller

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

I love living in Lewisham, but can something be done about the bins?

I come from Scotland and the etiquette is to put bins back into back gardens.

In London particularly on Springbank Road - the bins being left make our streets look dirty, smell terrible and encourage people just to dump their rubbish in the street.

Springbank Road on the other side of Hither Green Station has become appalling.

It certainly not a welcoming site when you first arrive at Hither Green and I would ask if you can make improvements.

Page 46

Unfortunately, many of the properties along this stretch of road have no access to rear gardens or to suitable storage spaces at the front of the properties, so invariably bins are left on the pavement.

We will remind our crews to ensure bins are placed back to the property boundary- line after collection and we will encourage residents, where possible, to make sure that bins are only presented on the day of collection.

We shall write to residents in Springbank Road and ask our managers to monitor the situation.

Page 47

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 18.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Clare Phipps

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

The Council reported in September it will cut £642,000 from the public health budget. How will it ensure the cuts do not fall on disadvantaged groups such as older people disabled people, LGBT+ groups, young people and parents? What impact assessments will be taking place? Has the council explored other areas of raising funds rather than passing on cuts to ordinary people?

The Council is currently consulting the public, professionals and service users on proposals to balance the cut to the Public Health grant. These proposals were developed by Public Health specialists, with the remit to seek efficiencies where possible, to take opportunities for transformation where they were available, and where this was not possible to develop and prioritise proposals to minimise the public health impact on residents.

Page 48

Wherever possible the Council is seeking to balance this cut through service transformation and back office efficiencies. Although ‘back office’ efficiencies get harder to find over time as cuts continue every year, as part of the current proposals £106,400 has been identified. Similarly the ongoing transformation of sexual health services through the London Integrated Sexual Health Tariff and London e-service agreed by Lewisham’s Mayor & Cabinet in 2015 continues to deliver some cost reductions, forming £192,294 of the current proposal.

A key criterion in assessing the public health impact of proposals to balance the remainder of the cut was the impact on health inequalities for disadvantaged groups. These proposals will then inform a full Equalities Impact Analysis, which will then be presented back to elected members for consideration alongside revised proposals in December. The Public consultation is online here, but the Council is keen to hear from as many different potentially disadvantaged groups as possible, and to this end Healthwatch Lewisham are there to support individuals and groups to ensure as wide a range of voices are heard in the consultation process, and that no-one is excluded from the process. If you or someone you know needs support to respond to the consultation, please contact Healthwatch Lewisham on 020 8690 5012 or through the contact form on their website.

As the Council continues to make difficult decisions each year around service reductions, the impact on equalities and on our most vulnerable residents remains a priority. As part of this areas which focus on addressing inequality are protected wherever possible, for example targeted interventions like our Family Nurse Partnership and Young People’s Health and Wellbeing service. Services that have been reduced in recent years have become ever more targeted, for example the Lewisham Stop Smoking Service is now predominantly focussed on at-risk groups including pregnant women, mental health service users and patients with long term conditions

Page 49

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 19.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Roger Lewis

Member to reply: Councillor Barnham

Question

I have since submitted and received a Freedom of Information request in relation to the consultancy spend which for the Ashmead project, bearing in mind not a single brick or ounce of mortar has been laid yet, amounts to £250,000.00 of public money. Does the Council and Department for Education officials agree that this scale of largesse for poor outcomes, in terms of the quality of the planning documentation submitted and the responses the community received at the public meeting, is inappropriate at a time of what we are so often told is ‘’austerity’’.

What audit and value-for-money checks are in place to review the circumstances (failures?) of oversight that have given rise to this, in order to ensure this scale of waste is not repeated. Who has approved this expenditure, and to what extent do they consider it to be in line with their duty to ensure a public authority is distributing public funds with the care and due diligence such spending requires? I have written to the Department for Education to ask the same, given the funding (a basic needs grant) originated with the Department.

Page 50

In early 2017, following public consultation, the Mayor approved the expansion of Ashmead Primary School, along with the budget envelope, outline programme and procurement route for the project. He also delegated authority to the Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration to enter into the first stage of a design and build contract for the scheme. The Council’s internal Capital Programme Delivery team were instructed by the client, the Children and Young People’s Directorate, to manage and deliver the project. This approach allows transparency and accountability.

The project was competitively tendered through the London Construction Programme framework, with an emphasis on price in the evaluation. The distribution of pricing was also assessed in the evaluation, to ensure that no individual element was disproportionate in relation to the overall price. Following the evaluation, the Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration authorised officers to enter into a Pre-Construction Services Agreement with Keepmoat Regeneration, which was duly signed in May 2017.

The project work undertaken by the Council and its delivery partners to date represents the first stage of a two-stage design and build process, and provides a robust and comprehensive RIBA stage 1 to 4 (design and build stage 1) package of information. This two-stage design and build process is a standard approach to delivering construction projects through frameworks within a local authority.

The design costs for the Ashmead Primary School Expansion scheme are comparable with school expansion projects of a similar scale and value delivered within Lewisham over the last few years, and in line with current market rates for such services. The designs have been developed in close liaison with the Local Planning Authority, the School Management Team and other key stakeholders, and comply with the Council’s robust and comprehensive output specification.

Page 51

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 20.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Lucy Salek

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

What was the final cost to Lewisham in rolling out the 20mph speed limit across the borough?

The Council is committed to making the Borough’s roads safer, and reducing speeds is a key part of the strategy for both the Council and for Transport for London (TfL). The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy (MTS) was released earlier this year, and includes a commitment to “Vision Zero”, the aim to have no one killed or seriously injured on London’s roads by 2041.

At the outset of this project a “best estimate” was produced for the likely cost of achieving an effective and enforceable borough wide 20mph speed limit. The total programme cost was estimated at £1.13m.

Page 52 Following implementation of the initial scheme and the first review of post scheme speeds it has been possible to quantify the speed changes that have been achieved and a plan for follow on works has been formulated to encourage compliance with the speed limit. The overall estimated costs of the interventions on the 30 priority roads is £1.148M.

The latest review of the project finances shows that £768,988 remained unspent of the original allocation of £1.13M from Council reserves at the start of the of the 2018/19 financial year. This means that the implementation phase has cost £361,002, which includes: a Borough-wide audit of the previous speed limit signs; the design and implementation of the Borough-wide speed limit; speed surveys before implementation and annually thereafter; and the formulation of a strategy for prioritising and delivering a programme of works for the 30 priority roads.

In addition to the remainder of the original allocation, the Council also intends to allocate funding from Transport for London, through the Local Implementation Plan (LIP), to deliver the programme of works for the 30 priority roads. The LIP includes a confirmed allocation of £200k for Road Safety Measures that will be utilised on this programme. It is also proposed to include sums of £100k for Road Safety Measures (for use on the borough 20mph programme) in the Annual Spending Submissions for LIP funding in each of the years 2019/20 and 2020/21.

Page 53

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 21.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: Councillor Bonavia

Question

Whilst the Council’s social media policy is being updated please can the existing policy be shared? If not please provide information as why it is not available for residents to view.

Please find attached the Council’s existing social media policy for staff.

Social media policy (updated 2017)

This policy covers:  an employee using social media platforms in a professional capacity on behalf of the organisation,

Page 54  posting on social media channels in a personal capacity about their professional life  using social media tools. These are constantly evolving but include Twitter, Facebook, Yammer, Snapchat, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+, other social media mobile apps, wikis, forums, chat and video/photo sharing).

Introduction Social media platforms are an important part of our communications and engagement activities with residents, offering opportunities for both promotion and dialog. Information and comments that are recorded on the Internet are subject to the same laws as paper based material. For example Defamation Act 1996, Data Protection Act 1998 and Obscene Publications Act 1959 (see Acceptable Use Policy 2.1 and Council’s Data Protection Policy) Similarly they are subject to the staff Code of Conduct and other policies. One important difference between traditional communications and internet based communications is that once published on the internet, even when you subsequently delete it, a copy of your post or message could still remain somewhere on the Internet for many years into the future, (for example if it was shared or in a search service archive), potentially causing you and the Council embarrassment or worse. Contact via social media is considered to be a communication in the same way as traditional forms such as letter, phone and email. Therefore this policy sets out the guidelines for publishing on and using social media platforms and apps. Policy Employees can publish on and manage online social media accounts (outside of the main website) in the Council’s name only if approved by the Head of Service and Head of Communications. Occasional posting (usually to social media platforms, forums, or commenting on other posts) on behalf of the council must be approved by your line manager in discussion with the communications team (see Acceptable Use Policy 1.1). When a new social media account is to be created on behalf of the Council the following is required:

 Mini business case  Project plan including documented risk assessment  Clear plan on how site will be moderated  Incident response procedure (For example to ensure appropriate action is taken if the site is compromised in any way).

There are many discussion groups or professional forums that staff can benefit from joining and contributing and are permitted to. Employees are permitted to do so provided that:

Page 55  They have discussed any potential issues with their line manager. Contributions of this nature should be accompanied by a disclaimer, identifying the contributor as a Lewisham employee (see Acceptable Use Policy 1.1).  The forum is a formal group which requires user registration, with special login (or access) requirements.  Nothing confidential, or likely to breach any law or the Council code of conduct is published (see Acceptable Use Policy 2.1).

If an employee is contacted by the press about any of their web publishing that relates to the Council they must refer them to the Communications Team (see disclosure of information section in the Code of Conduct). Employees who are designated to by their manager will respond to customers via social media. Queries need to be answered in a timely manner if possible giving a link to an online source – form or webpage. Any sensitive issues should be flagged up to communications.

PERSONAL WEB PUBLISHING

In the context of the Council, personal web publishing is where an employee uses non-Council computer equipment in their free time to connect to the internet and creates or uses social media sites in a personal or private capacity. As such employees:

 Are personally responsible for everything on their personal pages including any link to any material on other web pages.

 Must not use the Council’s logo on any personal page.

 Must not claim to be representing the Council when using social networking sites in a personal capacity.  Must clearly identify their position if they write anything relation to the Council and be aware they are subject to the code of conduct.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

Advice and guidance is available from the Communications Team.

Further guidance can also be found in the ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

Page 56 Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 22.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Peter Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Slater

Question

The latest figures issued by CIPFA (2017-2018 for Issues and Visits to public libraries (including Community Library branches) in Lewisham appear to show an alarming decline in library media issues. In comparison to library building visits throughout the hub and community branches, Issue figures show an arrestingly low comparison. So, exactly how are these figures monitored?

Issue figures are monitored by loan figures. However, visits to library buildings may be for purposes other than taking out a book. For example, at Manor House, rooms other than those in use for library purposes are more numerous and in constant use. So, exactly how are the statistics logged and by what means are visits to the library spaces in each building containing them achieved?

Furthermore, is there a specific method of monitoring applicable to all library branches in the borough or are the figures derived local to branch?

Page 57

Page 58 Reply

The visits to library buildings are counted daily through electronic instruments – people counters. So, while some library services (e.g. https://data.gov.uk/dataset/39939475-9f7d-4374-998f-b2de11240438/library-visits) use a sample week and multiply the value captured by 50 to arrive at an annual value, Lewisham counts the actual number of people coming through each of its building doors.

The number of issues is captured by the Library Management System, the library catalogue. In relation to issues, the Library Management System counts the number of books and other items that are borrowed by Lewisham card holders.

The Library and Information Service Annual Report was presented to the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee on 12 July 2018 and it is available on the council website. http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s58231/07Libraryandinformation serviceannualreportSSCSC120718.pdf This report expands on the performance of the Service, including Issues and Visits (see paragraph 8, page 5).

In relation to the CIPFA comparative profile (available online https://www.cipfa.org/~/media/files/services/research%20and%20statistics/cipfastats %20library%20profiles%202017/lewisham.pdf), Lewisham maintains the 5th highest number of active borrowers, the 3rd highest number of visits, the 2nd highest number of total book stock per 1,000 population.

However, both the Report and the Profile recognise a decline in Issues. This is mainly due to two factors, namely the faster than average reduction in resources.

While Lewisham appears to be just below the median for Revenue Expenditure within the comparator group, the Total Revenue Expenditure per 1,000 population between 2013-14 (£20,880, above the average £20,166) and 2017-18 (£13,836, below the average £15,580) has decreased by 33.7%. The speed and intensity of this reduction in cost has been reflected mainly in the acquisition and attractiveness of the physical collections. This is why eBooks and eResources (Newspapers, magazines, eAudio) are growing exponentially and physical book borrowing is not.

The second factor relates to the buildings that recorded unplanned closures (i.e. Lewisham and Deptford), some difficulties in accessing the service (i.e. Catford), and some delays in the asset transfer process (i.e. Manor House).

Page 59 Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 23.

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Anthony Crowther

Member to reply: Councillor Bell

Question

What specific actions are the Council taking on poor conditions in HMO’s as a direct result of street surveys in Downham, Whitefoot and Bellingham wards earlier this year?

 There are 403 HMOs (316 Mandatory and 87 Additional) in the borough of Lewisham which are currently licensed, an increase of 74% since 31/03/17.

 During our January Street Survey we visited 1200 properties in Bellingham, Downham and Whitefoot, gaining access to 476 properties. We identified 12 non-licensable HMOs, and 43 possible HMOs which were investigated further.

Page 60 35 of the possible HMOs warranted further visits since the street survey and have been inspected. 17 were found to be two storey HMOs requiring licensing from 1st October 2018. We have also served 20 Housing Act 2004 notices on landlords declaring their properties to be HMOs or requiring them to complete identified repairs or face prosecution.

 The numbers are lower than in other parts of the borough as the current mandatory licensing scheme require properties to be over 3 storeys and this is not the property make up of those wards. The properties here are largely 2 storey family homes with few 3 storey properties or and residential HMOs above commercial units. A significant number of residential properties in these wards are managed by a RSL (Phoenix). There are a significant number of 2 storey HMOs with 5 or 6 residents in all 3 wards, with particular concentrations in Bellingham and Whitefoot. These will be licensable from 1st October 2018. There has been a lot of work already in preparation for this new scheme to roll out, including local publicity and an “Early Bird” licence fee discount scheme for early payment.

 The vast majority of 2 storey HMOs in all 3 areas are converted and managed on a specific business model that involves converting a 3 bedroom family home into 6 bedsits with en suite bathrooms and communal kitchens. This model is operated by a number of companies and individuals and is a London wide phenomenon and has given rise to the establishment of a London-wide borough led project called London Lockdown. This is a group attended by a number of London Boroughs all of which have significant concentrations of these “Lockdown Model” HMOs. Lewisham attend meetings regularly. Information is shared about the identities of the companies and individuals operating this model and keep up to date on strategies used to deal with the companies operating these HMOs and the problems they cause.

 These properties can be the source of increased complaints from local residents. The lack of social space in these properties forces residents into public spaces and can have an unwelcomed effect upon the quality of life for other residents.

 Because these companies describe the bedsit units as flats in an attempt to maximise rental income, they are relatively easy to identify through Council Tax (CT) records (the tenants are made liable for CT) and through searching the names of the landlord company through the CT and HB systems. We are taking an intelligence led approach to identifying properties with a view to inspection and licensing under the new licensing regime.

 Bexley have successfully imposed an Article 4 directive in their borough. This prohibits the conversion of family homes to HMOs without planning consent. Currently, without this A4 directive this conversion is a permitted development and does not require permission. Lewisham planning team are investigating this for possible introduction into this area and are gathering the available

Page 61 evidence to present for consultation and then to the Mayor & Cabinet if the business case is robust. This is a high priority for the Council.

 The PSHA has been reorganised in August 2018, with each ward being given a designated officer or officers to deal with licensing and disrepair. The ward officers have started attending meetings with local councillors and residents, with Prudence Elliott (Whitefoot Ward Allocated Officer) attending a ward meeting on 5th September.

Page 62 Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 24. Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Carole Hope

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

In view of the demise of Wide Horizons, can the Council please advise what is the alternative outdoor learning strategy for Beckenham Place Park? What is the strategy for Lewisham schools to bring groups to the park to use the education centre and outdoor space, in view of tight budgets and marrying up the national curriculum with outdoor facilities of the park?

The Heritage Lottery Fund are funding a substantial part of the restoration work in Beckenham Place Park and their key objectives include increasing understanding of heritage, in particular amongst young people. Part of our response to this aim was the creation of a partnership with Wide Horizons to bring outdoor learning opportunities for children to Beckenham Place Park and the provision of some space in the restored stables to facilitate this work. The recent news that Wide Horizons have had to close is a blow to these plans, but we are currently investigating other ways that we can support schools to use the park for outdoor learning.

Schools in Lewisham are enthusiastic about the development of this provision and wish to work with the Council and other partners to make this a success.

Page 63

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 25.

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Patricia Richardson

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

Do you recall that in January 2013, the Government announced new arrangements for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and its relationship to neighbourhood planning? Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) explained that “Neighbourhoods that take a proactive approach by drawing up a neighbourhood development plan, and securing the consent of local people in a referendum, will receive 25% of the revenues from the Community Infrastructure Levy arising from the development that they choose to accept.” This supplemented the 15% proportion of CIL receipts already passed to Parish and Town Councils under CIL legislation

When Lewisham has adopted Neighbourhood Plans how does it intend to distribute the 25% of CIL allocated to the community? (Lewisham currently has no published documentation on this, and its draft out for consultation does not answer these questions)

If it is to be done through ward Assemblies:

Page 64 i. given that Forum areas are not the same as ward areas, how will this be managed? ii. will Assemblies become formally constituted to ensure decisions relating to public money are made upon consistent criteria throughout the borough and are at arms length and transparent in such ways as to ensure financial propriety? iii. will Assemblies' constitutions be written in such a way as to respect CIL projects included in and voted on in its Neighbourhood Plans, or will these projects be respected in some other way?

Lewisham currently has five designated neighbourhood forums, however, to date, none have formally adopted a neighbourhood plan. As such, the Council has reported in its Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) the total amount of the neighbourhood proportion of CIL receipts retained in each year, at 15%.

The Council is currently finalising its Strategy for Neighbourhood CIL. It is anticipated that the Strategy will be subject to approval by Mayor and Cabinet in the near future.

Details concerning the allocation and distribution of Neighbourhood CIL will be set out within the strategy.

Page 65

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 26.

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Clare Phipps

Member to reply: Councillor Dacres

Question

Little Nan's has become a much loved and valued part of Catford Broadway, invited into the area and welcomed by Lewisham council. The council has recently given notice it wishes to enact a break clause in their tenancy. Does the council commit to: a) working with Little Nan's to find a solution to any issues, with the preferred aim of the business staying in its current location if this is what it desires b) refrain from advertising or speaking to other parties about renting the space until a) has been resolved c) apologise for any remarks made by officers or members of the council if it is found they were incorrect? d) resolve to fully support local businesses like Little Nan's forthwith?

The council continues to be in discussion with Little Nan's. We underestimated the impact that having Little Nans in the Broadway Bar and cafe would have on the

Page 66 operation of the theatre which is why the break clause was enacted. It was not intended in anyway to be a reflection on the management or success of Little Nans.

The Council apologies for any misleading remarks it may have made. We recognise how popular Little Nans is as a resource for Catford and we very much want Little Nans to remain in Catford.

The Council is not seeking any alternative providers for the space

Page 67

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 27.

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: Councillor Dacres

Question

How does the Council ensure Service Level Agreements with its leisure centre operators are complied with? What measures are in place for non-compliance?

The leisure facilities are managed on behalf of the Council by two contractors, Fusion Lifestyle and 1Life as detailed below.

On 1 June 2011, Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) approved the award of the Leisure Services Contract to Fusion Lifestyle for a period of fifteen years. The contract commenced on 15 October 2011 with immediate transfer of The Bridge Leisure Centre, Ladywell Arena, Ladywell Leisure Centre and Wavelengths Leisure Centre.

Page 68 In addition to these leisure centres the contract has since included the new centre on Loampit Vale (Glass Mill), Forest Hill Pools, Forest Hill School Sports Centre and the Warren Avenue playing fields. Bellingham Leisure and Lifestyles Centre transferred to Fusion 1st February 2014.

Downham Health & Leisure Centre opened in March 2007, and is managed by 1Life operating through an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS) or trust, Downham Lifestyles Limited.

1Life have a 32 year contract through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The centre includes health care facilities, library, community hall, and leisure services (including a 25m swimming pool, teaching pool, gym, studios, floodlit Astroturf and multi-use games area, and playing fields).

On a regular basis the Authorised Officer makes a formal inspection of the facilities and measures performance against the Zone Data Sheets which set the standards for each area of the building. Any service issues are promptly reported to the operator and if not remedied within the prescribed period a financial penalty may be applied.

Technical inspections are made on a quarterly basis. A suitably qualified surveyor checks for compliance on health and safety matters and to reassure the Council that the leisure operator is undertaking the necessary repairs and maintenance regimes in order to protect the Council assets. The council is now in its fourth year of these inspections which have improved standards. Recent monitoring has shown some gaps which are being addressed.

Officers also undertake more informal monitoring by way of site visits alongside other business.

As part of their own feedback system, Fusion operates a comments card system and online feedback portal.

1Life also regularly conducts customer surveys to improve their services. These include users, non-users, staff satisfaction and green travel.

All the leisure facilities undergo rigorous assessments by Quest, a respected authority on leisure standards and are required to achieve an IFI (Inclusive Fitness Initiative) rating indicating accessible and welcoming environments for disabled people.

The council has recently started tracking the number of formal complaints received by the leisure operators and is reporting this through the internal performance management reporting system.

Both of the contracts have penalty systems in place and these are detailed in the respective contracts with the operators.

Page 69

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 28.

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Peter Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Would you accept car parking in the borough of Lewisham is little short of a nightmare for car owner/drivers?

Although some areas allow free parking for car users for perhaps 30 minutes near Public Transport hubs and some retail centres (other than those owned by retailers) many of these spaces are taken by shop or retail owners and used by their own vehicles, precluding the average car driver a space in which to park within the confines of the stated times.

Is this not an unfair practice for general car using public, or is it just another method by Lewisham planners aiming to reduce car use/ownership within the London Borough of Lewisham?

Page 70 Reply

Lewisham Council have provided a range of on-street parking facilities across the borough. This includes the provision of short-stay parking facilities in some areas outside shops and near transport facilities.

Short stay bays (normally 30 minutes) are considered in small shopping areas where a quick turn-around of parking will assist the business of local traders. They are particularly useful in areas that would otherwise suffer from all-day intrusive parking such as those close to train stations, and are therefore often included near local shops within Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).

We accept that these bays can also be occupied by shop staff or business owners. However, the 30 min duration of stay may be enforced against. Any instance where this may not be the case can be reported to the Council for investigation by enforcement staff.

Page 71

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 29.

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Anthony Crowther

Member to reply: Councillor Dacres

Question

TFL and the Mayor of London are proposing to cut several longer bus routes that run from and through Lewisham into Central London. These are routes 53, 171, and 172. Do Lewisham Council support these plans? If not, what action will the Council be taking to lobby against the changes?

The potential changes to routes 53, 171 and 172 have been proposed by TfL as part of a wider review of bus services in central London.

Page 72 This news is very disconcerting for many Lewisham residents as travel by bus is the only affordable means by which they can get to work, their place of study, to visit family and generally get around London.

Increasing the number of interchanges and shortening the route could increase journey times, particularly early morning and late at night. This may particularly affect those in jobs such as cleaning, catering, security, hotels, restaurants and cafes, adversely affecting those working in the night time economy, as well as their service users.

This is relevant for Routes 171 and 172, which connect the Borough to central London and are very popular and important routes for residents who rely on bus travel as the only affordable way for travel, especially in the early hours of the morning and at night.

This is also relevant for Route 53, which is used by Lewisham residents to access St Thomas’ Hospital. The Council is concerned about any difficulties arising from reduced access particularly for those with mobility issues, for example bus stops being relocated further away, as well as the additional bus service interchange.

According to TfL’s data, fewer people are travelling by bus in central London and more people are cycling, walking, and using upgraded tube and rail networks. With passenger numbers falling, TfL claim there are now too many buses in some central locations, and too many buses with empty seats. We understand that TfL are therefore planning to redistribute some of these services from central to inner and outer London.

The Council is supportive of reviewing bus services on a London-wide basis, to reallocate provision where it is most needed, including the south east where demand for bus services remains high, where cycling and walking is less attractive for long journeys, and where people do not have access to the tube.

The Council, together with local MPs and Councillors, has met with TfL to raise these concerns directly and is actively seeking further dialogue to ensure that opportunities for enhancing the existing bus network in Lewisham are fully explored.

The Council has also requested information and assurances on a range of issues including how these changes will affect Lewisham residents, and the ability of the Hopper fare to mitigate the impact of any service cuts.

Page 73

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 30. Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Carole Hope

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Page 10 of the 2014 application form to Heritage Lottery Fund for the regeneration of Beckenham Place Park refers to public toilets and a kiosk adjacent to Old Bromley Road (i.e. the entrance nearest to Downham), please advise when the works for these facilities will commence.

These facilities were to be provided as part of the restoration of the east side of Beckenham Place Park linked with the Environment Agency’s plans for creating flood storage for the river Ravensbourne. Unfortunately we learnt over the summer that the Environment Agency’s costs for this scheme had increased drastically, to the

Page 74 point where the project no longer represented value for money. The Environment Agency’s scheme is now on indefinite hold and we are investigating alternative ways to carry out some much needed improvements to this area. This will require new designs, further fundraising and statutory consents prior to works and it is envisaged that works will not take place until at least 2020.

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 31.

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: Councillor Bell

Question

Please can you detail which new social housing provisions form part of the 2014 manifesto promise to build 500 homes by May 2018; and which form part of the 1000 promised in the 2018 manifesto? Please can you clarify for provision, which forms part of the 1000 and involves demolition of existing housing stock and rebuilding and the situation with regards to ballots for residents.

Page 75 The Council launched the New Homes Better Places Programme in 2014, with a target to deliver 500 new council homes by 2018. At March of this year, 501 homes had either been completed, were under construction or had been submitted for planning consideration. The latest update on progress was considered by the Housing Select Committee on 18 September, and showed that all 500 homes would start on site this financial year. The sites contained within this programme are listed in Table 1.

Work is underway to develop a pipeline of sites that will deliver 1,000 new social homes by 2022. It is envisaged that it consist of sites to be delivered directly by Lewisham Council as well as other sites where the council is enabling the construction of new social homes in strategic partnerships. To this end, the Planning Permission granted on two sites in Deptford, on the former Tidemill School and at Amersham Vale earlier this year, will mark the first 128 new social homes of the 1,000 home commitment.

As with the 500 homes programme beforehand, the pipeline of directly delivered sites is likely to include a variety of sites; making use of unused garages, hard standings and gap sites on existing landholdings amongst others.

Where appropriate, estate regeneration will also be considered but this will be in consultation with local residents and where demolition of units is required, a ballot will take place in line with Mayor’s manifesto commitment.

A new residents’ charter will be launched in the coming months which will enshrine the high-level principles of what our residents can expect from any estate regeneration taking place in the Borough and will be our guiding principles.

Page 76

Table 1: New Homes Better Places Programme

Page 77

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 32.

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Anthony Crowther

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

What actions are the Council taking in response to the recent internal audit of the Catford Regeneration Partnership that raised numerous issues of concern?

Page 78

The internal audit report on the Catford Regeneration Partnership was considered at the last Audit Panel meeting on 20th September. A follow-up internal audit of the company is due in November 2018 to ascertain progress in implementing the May 2018 audit recommendations. A further update will be provided to the Audit Panel at their next available meeting when the November Audit is completed.

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 33.

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Patricia Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Slater

Question

Which of Lewisham's libraries took part in the Summer Reading Challenge 2018 and are the figures ready for publication of enrolment and completion? May we have them? The Library and Information Service report was presented to the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee in July 2018. It showed another downturn in visits from 2016/17 of 6.4% for 2017/18 and a reduction in issues from 2016/17 of 15.2% for 2017/18. For how much longer do councillors and officers think the library service can sustain this decline? What reasons are thought to underpin this

Page 79 decline? Is it a combination of delivery by volunteers, quality and numbers of stock, lack of interest in reading? Are you aware various reports have indicated the importance of reading fiction as it enables good achievement in other areas of education, particularly for children and young people, so needs strong support elsewhere?

All libraries in Lewisham took part in the Summer Reading Challenge. The figures are not yet available because, while the initiative has formally ended, we allow Lewisham children to complete their Challenge until the end of September.

We are happy to publish the figures on the libraries’ web page in October.

The reply to Public Question 22 addresses the questions in relation to visits and issues.

We are certainly aware of the importance of reading and are increasingly working with schools to support children’s reading both at school and at home. Our Library Service is very much at the heart of this work.

Page 80

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 34. Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Carole Hope

Member to reply: Councillor McGeevor

Question

Page 12 of the 2014 application form to Heritage Lottery Fund for the regeneration of Beckenham Place Park refers to a unified plan for the park maximising community benefit and page 13 refers to an holistic vision; please advise the progress of plans for the mansion house, Foxgrove building, infrastructure improvements in the east of the park and flood alleviation scheme to achieve this unified, holistic vision to maximise community benefit.

Page 81 Reply

The plans for the eastern side of Beckenham Place Park were linked to the delivery of the Environment Agency’s plans for creating flood storage for the river Ravensbourne in the park. Unfortunately we learnt over the summer that the Environment Agency’s costs for this scheme had increased drastically, to the point where the project no longer represented value for money. The Environment Agency’s scheme is now on indefinite hold and we are investigating alternative ways to carry out some much needed improvements to this area. This will require new designs, further fundraising and statutory consents prior to works and it is envisaged that works will not take place until at least 2020.

Our work to restore those buildings in the park in the worst condition is currently progressing and the listed stable, gate houses and four cottages will all be complete by summer 2019. We will look at marketing these new spaces as well as inviting proposals for the Foxgrove Club and mansion later this year. We aim to find appropriate uses for all of the buildings that will attract more people to use south east London’s biggest park and generate revenues for its upkeep.

Page 82

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 35

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: Councillor Barnham

Question

Please can you provide details regarding autism awareness training in Lewisham schools for teachers and staff - who provides it, is it voluntary or mandatory, and if provision is measured.

Page 83

There is a high incidence of diagnosed autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) in Lewisham. We are committed to ensuring a full range of services to support children with autism in Lewisham. Schools are required to make suitable provision for children with autism but they can choose from whom they source their training and support.

The main body that provides training in respect of autism awareness is the Lewisham ASD Outreach Service which is based at Drumbeat School. The service provides Autism Education Training (AET) Tier 1 (suitable for all school staff) free to schools. A rolling programme of bespoke workshops is also available, in addition to more advanced AET training, which schools can purchase under a service level agreement. At present, most schools buy this service (53 primary, 12 secondary). The additional training, which has national accreditation, includes:

 AET Tier 2 Good Autism Practice (1 day)  Extending and Enhancing Good Autism Practice (.5 day)  Progression Framework, (.5 day)  AET Complex Needs and Participation (1 day)  Leading Good Autism Practice (1 day)  AET Post 16 (1.5 hours and 1 day)  Plus training and advice as well as policy documents developed in conjunction with autistic young people and adults. (participation in workshops, feedback in questionnaires, resources development)  Also website source of support and advice with resources available for schools, Early Years settings and parents and carers.

The Outreach Service gained a Commendation from the National Autistic Society in 2017/18 for the quality of its work.

In addition Lewisham LA in partnership with Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust has produced a document called ‘Banding Descriptors Guidance’ this is guidance to help settings respond effectively and supportively to children and young people with SEND and this includes those with ASD. The document has been issued to all schools, heads, SENCOs and other professionals and outlines the local authority’s expectation for a ‘graduated approach’ to provision for children with young people with SEN. The guidance is designed to meet the requirements in the SEND Code of Practice and national legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and Children and Families Act 2014.

Page 84

Question Q

Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 36.

Priority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

3 OCTOBER 2018

Question asked by: Rosalind Huish

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

Some of the retail units in the new builds in Lewisham Gateway have been unoccupied since building completion. Advertising promised artist studios and cafes. Does the council know why businesses are reluctant to occupy prime town centre premises?

Page 85 Reply

In general, businesses may be reluctant to occupy prime town centre premises for a number of reasons. These could include the following:

 their business space needs,  affordability,  appropriateness of the floor space and facilities for their specific requirements,  fit out conditions,  length of contract,  location to transport links and their key customer base.

The first phase of Lewisham Gateway comprises two development blocks (Block A and Block B, see plan below), each of which comprise two tower elements.

Block A is now complete. There are two commercial units at ground floor level within this block. In relation to one of these units, the developer is currently in advanced stages of agreeing the terms of a lease agreement to an independent restaurant. The other unit is currently occupied as the marketing suite for the development, and the developer is holding discussions with potential operators for this space for when the marketing suite vacates the space (anticipated mid 2019).

Block B is currently under construction.

In relation to all of the units, there is strong demand from a range of occupiers, however the developer is keen to secure high quality independent end users where possible who will contribute to the diversity of the town centre offer.

Page 86

Page 87 Agenda Item 7

COUNCIL

Report Title Members Allowances

Key Decision Item No.

Ward n/a

Contributors Head of Law

Class Part 1 Date: 3 October 2018

Members Allowances

1. Summary and Purpose

The purpose of this report is to make proposals in relation to members’ allowances based on the recommendations of London Councils’ remuneration panel and the specific recommendations of Sir Rodney Brooke as to its fit with the local circumstances in Lewisham.

2. Background

2.1 Under Section 18 Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Secretary of State may make regulations authorising or requiring Councils to make a scheme providing for the payment of allowances to members. The relevant regulations are the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 as amended. The Council must publish its Scheme of Members’ Allowances, dealing with basic allowances and special responsibility allowances and payments to members of the Council may only be made in accordance with this scheme.

2.2 In 2010 and 2014, the Council agreed to have regard to the recommendations of the independent remuneration panel established by London Councils in deciding on the level of members’ remuneration in Lewisham for the new administration elected in those years. On both occasions, it was also agreed that the Council engage the services of Sir Rodney Brooke, the Chair of the London Councils remuneration panel to advise about the extent to which the recommendations in the London wide report would be appropriate in the local Lewisham circumstances.

2.3 Though in 2014 the recommendations of Sir Rodney Brooke were to increase the basic and special responsibility allowances then paid to members, the Council resolved not to do so because of the financial climate at the time. There has also been no increase in those members’ allowances since 2014, and no inflation increase since 2010. Though the Council’s Scheme of

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 88 Members’ Allowances has not been upgraded for inflation since 2010, by contrast in the last 8 years NJC officers’ salaries have increased by 1%, 2.2%, 1%,1% and 2%. A copy of the current Scheme of Members’ allowances appears at Appendix 1.

2.4 Prior to the election in May 2014, regulations provided the potential for all members to be eligible to join the Local Government Pension Scheme and many members of the Council opted to do so. However, further regulations abolished the right to join the LGPS with effect from the May 2014 elections.

2.5 Given the election of a new Mayor and a new administration at the May 2018 elections, the question of members’ allowances is now being reviewed in the light of changed circumstances.

2.6 In considering the question of members’ allowances, the Council is under a statutory duty to have regard to the advice of the Independent Remuneration Panel. A copy of the Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel of London Councils now appears at Appendix 2.

2.7 The report of Sir Rodney Brooke now appears at Appendix 3. His recommendations may be summarised as follows:-

(a) The allowances for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members and co-optees (other than the allowances mentioned in recommendations (c) and (f) below) should be increased by the headline National Joint Council (NJC) 2018 local government pay settlement of 2% with effect from the beginning of the 2018- 19 municipal year.

(b) The freeze on members’ allowances should be ended and allowances increased during the next four municipal years by the headline figure in the NJC local government pay settlements.

(c) Cabinet Members should receive a special responsibility allowance of £20,000 (including the 2018 pay award referred to in recommendation (a) above).

(d) Where Cabinet portfolios are shared between members, both should receive half the remuneration of a Cabinet member.

(e) The Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee should receive the same special responsibility allowance as the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

(f) The Chair and Whip of the Majority Group (and Leaders of political groups with 15 or more members) should receive special responsibility allowances of £9,000.

(g) Councillors serving on the Board of Lewisham Homes should receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of £3,500.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 89 (h) The Scheme should continue to make provision for payment of a dependants’ carer’s allowance and that in special circumstances (eg for care of a severely disabled person) the Council should reimburse a higher cost where this can be justified.

(i) The Mayor and councillors should be entitled to claim for travel outside the borough and subsistence allowances outside Greater London at the same rates as those prescribed for staff of the authority.

(j) The date of implementation of these recommendations should be the commencement of the 2018-2019 municipal year.

(k) Other than my recommendations above, the members’ allowances scheme should continue unchanged.

3. Recommendations

3.1 Having regard to the advice of the London Councils remuneration panel and the advice of Sir Rodney Brooke, and to the guidance issued under the Local Government Act 2000, to consider the recommendations contained in the reports at Appendix 2 and 3, and to decide whether to approve a scheme of members’ allowances in accordance with Sir Rodney Brooke’s recommendations as summarised above at paragraph 2.7 to include the following remuneration levels.

(a) Basic allowance be set at £10,008 for all councillors

(b) Special responsibility allowances to be paid as follows:-

Mayor (no basic allowance payable) £79,276 Deputy Mayor £41,412 Other Cabinet members £20,000* Chair of Council £ 6,252 Chair , Overview and Scrutiny £12,505 Chair Overview and Scrutiny Select Committees £ 6,252 Chair Strategic Planning Committee £12,505 Chair other Planning Committees £ 6,252 Chair Licensing Committee £ 6,252 Leaders of political groups with 15 or more members £ 9,000 Chair of the majority group and Leaders of political groups with more than three but fewer than fifteen members £ 3,228 Majority party whip £ 9,000 Chair Standards Committee £ 1,010

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 90 Co-optees who sit on the Council’s Standards Committee, Audit Panel and parent governors and diocesan representatives who sit on the Overview and Scrutiny Education Business Panel and the Children and Young People Select Committee £ 612 Councillor Directors on Lewisham Homes Ltd £ 3500

*Where Cabinet portfolios are shared between two members, both should receive half the remuneration of a Cabinet member.

(c) The basic and special responsibility allowances should cover travel in the borough and subsistence within the Greater London area.

(d) Subject to the provisions in paragraph 4 below, members should be entitled to claim the same allowances for travel outside London as officers.

(e) In special circumstances (e.g. for the care of a severely disabled person) the Council should reimburse a higher rate of dependants’ carers’ allowance where this can be justified.

(f) With the exception of the allowances for Cabinet members and the Chair and Whip of the Majority Group and Leaders of political groups with more than 15 members) updating of the Scheme should continue for four years in accordance with the headline rate for NJC awards

(g) Except as recommended for amendment by Sir Rodney Brooke, the current Members’ Allowances scheme remain in place.

(h) That any changes to the Members Allowances Scheme be backdated to the beginning of the 2018/19 municipal year.

3.2 To ask officers to publish details of the new scheme as required by law in a newspaper circulating in the area.

3.3 To note that travel and subsistence allowances are tied to those agreed for officers from time to time.

3.4 That Carers’ Allowance will also increase automatically in line with the London Living Wage and that National Insurance will automatically be amended in line with any changes in the contribution rate.

4. Provisions in the existing scheme relating to travel

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 91 4.1 Members should not be entitled to claim more than the standard fare for any rail journey outside the borough

4.2 For other travel allowances (including a bicycle allowance) members should be entitled to the same allowances as those authorised for officers. They should be entitled to claim for taxi fares only when returning from late night meetings where public transport is not available, and where appropriate by members with a relevant disability. In the case of dispute, the Standards Committee should be asked to arbitrate.

4.3 When undertaking civic duties, the Chair of Council and the Deputy Chair of Council should be entitled to use taxis when the Council car is not available.

4.4 Mobile telephones or similar devices be allotted to all councillors with a requirement that they identify all non Council usage and reimburse the cost of such usage. In cases of dispute, the Standards Committee should be asked to arbitrate.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Council is under a duty to adopt a scheme of members’ allowances by virtue of section 18 Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and relevant regulations. It may only pay allowances in accordance with such a scheme. – The Council must comply with publication requirements.

5.2 Members are reminded of the need to have regard to the guidance issued under the Local Government Act 2000 in relation to Members’ Allowances which is referred to in the report of the London Councils Remuneration Panel attached as Appendix 2.

5.3 There is a general rule that members may not usually vote on matters in which they have a personal pecuniary interest. However decisions relating to the Scheme of Members’ Allowances are an exception to this general principle, and members may vote on this issue, having regard to the recommendations of the Panel, and the recommendations of Sir Rodney Brooke which in accordance with the law are being published in a newspaper circulating in the area. The Scheme once agreed will also be published.

5.4 The Equality Act 2010

(a) This Act introduced a new public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty). It covers the following nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

(b) In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 92  eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.  advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.  foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

(c) The duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the Council, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations.

(d) The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty and statutory guidance entitled “Equality Act 2010 Services, Public Functions & Associations Statutory Code of Practice”. The Council must have regard to the statutory code in so far as it relates to the duty and attention is drawn to Chapter 11 which deals particularly with the equality duty. The Technical Guidance also covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty. This includes steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance does not have statutory force but nonetheless regard should be had to it, as failure to do so without compelling reason would be of evidential value. The statutory code and the technical guidance can be found at:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication- download/technical-guidance-public-sector-equality-duty-england

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/public- sector-equality-duty-guidance

(e) The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously issued five guides for public authorities in England giving advice on the equality duty:

o The essential guide to the public sector equality duty o Meeting the equality duty in policy and decision-making o Engagement and the equality duty o Equality objectives and the equality duty o Equality information and the equality duty

(f) The essential guide provides an overview of the equality duty requirements including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who they apply to. It covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The other four documents provide more

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 93 detailed guidance on key areas and advice on good practice. Further information and resources are available at:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-equality- duty-guidance

6. Financial Implications

The overall budget for members' allowances for 2017/18 was £867,000, with actual cost at £876,000. This excludes associated costs for members, e.g. mobile phones, IT equipment and member training. The additional costs of increasing all the allowances in line with the recommendations of Sir Rodney Brooke is likely to add approximately £63,000 to the cost of members' allowances overall in 2018/19. This ongoing cost will be funded from existing budgets currently held corporately.

7. Crime and Disorder and Environmental Implications

There are no specific implications

8. Equalities Implications

Basic allowance is payable to councillors and special responsibility in relation to specified responsibilities. Payment of dependent carers’ allowance as proposed should go some way to encouraging those with children or caring responsibilities to be able to participate in the democratic process as far as possible.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 94 APPENDIX 1

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES

Scheme for Basic and Special

Responsibility Allowances

(2014)

Chief Executive September 2014

Produced by GOVERNANCE SUPPORT

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 95

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

SCHEME FOR BASIC AND SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWANCES

1. General

Allowances may only be paid for duties specified in the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances)(England) Regulations 2003, which have been made in part under Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

Provision is made for the following allowances:-

(a) allowances which are both to meet expenses and to provide remuneration

(i) basic allowance

(ii) special responsibility allowance

(b) allowances solely to meet expenses incurred

- travelling and subsistence allowances

- telephone provision

MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT FROM MAY 2010 THE COUNCIL’S STANDARDS COMMITTEE HAS REQUIRED FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL PAYMENTS MADE AND EXPENSES CLAIMED ON THE COUNCIL’S WEBSITE.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 96

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES SCHEME

1. This scheme may be cited as the London Borough of Lewisham Members’ Allowances Scheme, and shall have effect from 18 September 2014 and subsequent financial years.

2. In this scheme

“councillor” means a member of the London Borough of Lewisham who is a councillor;

“total estimated allowances” means the aggregate of the amounts estimated by the Executive Director for Resources, at the time when a payment of basic allowance or special responsibility allowance is made, to be payable under this scheme in relation to the relevant year, and for this purpose any election under paragraph 6 shall be disregarded;

“year” means the 12 months ending with 31 March.

3. Basic Allowance

Subject to paragraph 7, for each year a basic allowance shall be paid to each councillor. For the period commencing 18 September 2014 to 31 March 2015 this allowance is £9,812 per annum.

4. Special Responsibility Allowances

(1) A special responsibility allowance shall be paid to those councillors who hold the special responsibilities in relation to the authority that are specified in Schedule 1 to this Scheme.

(2) Subject to paragraph 7, the amount of each such allowance shall be the amount specified against that special responsibility in that schedule.

(3) Only one special responsibility allowance is payable to a member.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 97

5. Financial Limits

Any payment(s) under this scheme is subject to the amounts in respect of basic allowances and special responsibility allowances not exceeding that amount included in the revenue estimates for the relevant year.

6. Renunciation

A councillor may by notice in writing given to the Chief Executive elect to forego any part of his/her entitlement to an allowance under this Scheme.

7. Part-year Entitlements

(1) The provisions of this paragraph regulate the entitlements of a councillor to basic and special responsibility allowances where, in the course of a year, this Scheme is amended or that councillor becomes, or ceases to be, a councillor, or accepts or relinquishes a special responsibility in respect of which a special responsibility allowance is payable.

(2) For councillors who join or leave the authority part way through a financial year, or who take-up or relinquish special responsibilities in the course of the year, their entitlements are to be the appropriate proportion of the full-year entitlement. Likewise, if the Scheme is amended in the course of the financial year, the entitlements for basic and special responsibility allowances are to be the appropriate proportions of the full-year entitlements for the periods before and after the amendment comes into effect.

8. Subsistence Allowances

These allowances may be paid only in respect of an ‘approved duty’ if it involves an absence from home exceeding four hours and expenses on subsistence is necessarily incurred in connection with that duty. It follows that a member must have incurred expense before a claim can be made and a receipt should accompany the claim. All claim forms will be published on the website.

8.1 Day Subsistence

Where members are required to travel on Council business outside the Greater London area, and meals are not provided, then subsistence allowances may be claimed as follows:

Lunch maximum £7 Evening Meal maximum £10

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 98 Reimbursement of the cost of an evening meal will be made only where the business meeting extends beyond 8.30 p.m.

Where members are required to stay overnight and meals are not provided with the accommodation, up to £30 may be claimed to cover the cost of all meals.

Where employees are required to visit abroad on Council business and meals are not provided with the accommodation, up to £50 may be claimed per day to cover the cost of all meals and taxi fares etc.

When claiming subsistence allowances receipts for expenditure must be presented.

8.2 Overnight Subsistence

The costs of Meetings or Conferences requiring members to be absent overnight from home will either be met directly by the authority or reimbursed upon submission of a valid claim and actual receipts. The costs to the authority of all Conferences or overnight stays will be published on the website and attributed to the Members concerned.

9. Travel Allowance

The Council has agreed that a flat rate mileage equivalent to the casual user rate paid to officers, will be paid when members use their private car for those ‘approved duties’ set out in Schedule 2 if the duty takes place outside the Borough of Lewisham.

It is expected that members will always use public transport if possible. The conditions and rates of travelling allowance for the use of private vehicles, hire cars and taxis are set out in detail in Appendix A. Receipts should be provided to support claims. All claim forms received may be reproduced on the Council’s website.

Members are advised to ensure that their personal car insurance covers them for Council business use if they use their vehicle to travel to approved duties.

The Council cannot provide official transport for members unless they are on civic business authorised by the Head of Business and Committee or the Business and Civic Manager, or where it is considered reasonable and economic to do so for a group of members travelling together.

10. Carer’s Allowance

A carer’s allowance is payable to elected members and voting and non-voting co-opted members for the duties specified in the list of approved duties as follows:-

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 99 (i) care arranged by members on an ‘ad-hoc’ basis at the prevailing hourly rate of the London Living Wage £9.15 per hour, plus travelling expenses.

Claims should be made on the appropriate forms which are available from the Head of Committee Business at the appropriate meeting, or the Members’ Room.

11. Telephone and I.T Charges

The Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration has the delegated authority to approve the supply of telephony and I.T. to members to use for Council business.

Where mobile telephones or similar devices are allotted to Members, any non Council usage must be identified and the Council reimbursed.

12. National Insurance Contributions/Statutory Record and Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)

The lower earnings limit in 2014/15 is £111 per week. National insurance contributions will be payable if the allowances due to a member in respect of any one month reaches this figure.

13. Tax and Benefits

A guide to the latest rules on Social Security Benefits and Tax Credits as they relate to Councillors, which has been produced by the Local Government Information Unit, is held by the Head of Business & Committee in the Civic Suite, extension 49327. It explains which allowances are taxable and how being a councillor can affect the benefits which you or your partner claim.

14. Claims for Allowances

A claim for travel and subsistence allowances under this scheme shall be made in writing within six months of the date of the meeting in respect of which the entitlement to the allowance arises. Therefore any claims which relate to an attendance at a meeting which is not held within the preceding six months will not be paid. Any claim shall be made monthly in arrears and on the official forms. A simple form for claims for travel and subsistence is used and a supply is available in the Members’ Room.

Responsibility for inserting details of any ‘approved duty’ during the period in question rests with individual members. Every claim shall include a statement that the member is not entitled to receive remuneration in respect of the matter to which the claim relates otherwise than under the Scheme.

Any claims received shall be subject to a check to ensure they fall within the list of Approved Duties. Any regarded as not admissible will be deleted and members will be informed.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 100

Completed forms should be submitted to the Head of Committee Business, Governance Support, who will deal with any queries a member may wish to raise.

15. Payments in respect of Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances

Payments in respect of basic and special responsibility allowances shall be made in instalments of one-twelfth of the amount specified in this Scheme on the 18th day of each month.

Members should retain this document and the accompanying lists so that reference may be made to them when preparing claims.

16. Register of Allowances

Particulars of all allowances paid to, or on behalf of, a member have by law to be entered in a Register which is open to inspection by any elector for the Borough. This register is maintained by the Head of Business and Committee, Governance Support. Furthermore, the Council is required to publish details of the allowances scheme and to publish after the year end the total sum paid under the scheme to each member in respect of each of the allowances paid i.e. basic and special responsibility allowances.

Additionally all expenses claim forms submitted by Members as well as details of costs incurred directly by the authority on behalf of Members, will be published on the Council’s website.

Lewisham Town Hall Catford SE6 4RU Barry Quirk September 2014 Chief Executive

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 101

SCHEDULE 1

SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWANCES

1. The following are specified as the special responsibilities in respect of which special responsibility allowances are payable, and the amounts of those allowances:

£ Mayor 77,722 Deputy Mayor 40,600 All other Executive members 15,298 Chair of Council 6,130 Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee 12,260 Chairs of Overview & Scrutiny Select Committees 6,130 Chairs of Planning Committees (3) 6,130 Chair of Strategic Planning Committee 9,195 Chair of Licensing Committees 6,130 Leaders of Political Groups or Chair of the Labour 5,275 Group if 15 or more members Leaders of Political Groups with more than 3 but 3,165 fewer than 15 members Majority Party Whip 5,275 Chair of the Standards Committee 1,000 Co-optees on the Council's Standards 600 Committee, Audit Panel and parent governors and diocesan representatives who sit on the Overview & Scrutiny Education Business Panel and the Children and Young People Select Committee

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 102

SCHEDULE 2

APPROVED DUTIES

The activities set out are ‘approved duty’ for the purposes of payment of travel and subsistence allowances when meetings take place outside the Borough of Lewisham.

Ackroyd Community Centre Management Committee

Adoption and Permanency Panel

Age Concern Lewisham

Age Exchange Reminiscence Theatre

Albany 2001 Council of Management

Appointments Committee

Audit Panel

Beckenham Place Park Working Party

Blackheath Concert Halls - Board of Management

Blackheath Joint Working Party

Catford Regeneration Partnership Board

Children & Young People Select Committee

Children and Young People Stakeholders Forum

Community Operations Service for Mental Health

Constitution Working Party

Corporate Parenting Group

Council Meeting

Council Urgency Committee

Deptford Challenge Trust

Dressington Day Centre

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 103

Elections Committee

EqualiTeam Lewisham

Forest Hill and Sydenham Voluntary Service Association

Greater London Enterprise

Greater London Provincial Council

Green Chain Joint Committee

Groundwork London

Groundwork Local Authority Strategic Input Board

Healthier Communities Select Committee

Health and Safety Committee

Housing Joint Partnership Board

Housing Select Committee (time limited)

Investment Sub-Committee

Lewisham Citizen’s Advice Bureau Management Committee

Lewisham Disability Coalition

Lewisham Education Partnership Board

Lewisham Environment Trust

Lewisham Health Partnership

Lewisham Homes Board

Lewisham Local History Council/Society

Lewisham Pensioner’s Forum Management Committee

Lewisham Community/Police Consultative Group

Lewisham Schools for the Future Holdings Ltd. (HOLDCO)

Lewisham Schools for the Future SPV Ltd.

Licensing Committee

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 104

Licensing (Supplementary) Committee

Local Assemblies

Local Authorities Action for South Africa - National Steering Committee

Local Government Association - General Assembly

Local Government Association - High Ethnicity Authorities Special Interest Group

Local Strategic Partnership

London Accident Prevention Council

London Councils

(i) Leader's Committee (ii) Culture & Tourism and 2012 Forum (iii) Children Young People and Families (iv) Transport & Environment Committee (v) Economic Development Forum (vi) Housing Panel (vii) Health & Social Care Forum (viii) Community Safety & Policing Forum (ix) Grants Committee

London Youth Games

Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust

Mayor and Cabinet

Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts)

New Deal for Communities Board

Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel

Overview & Scrutiny (Education) Business Panel

Overview & Scrutiny Sub-Committee(s)

Pensions Investment Committee

Phoenix Community Housing Association

Planning Committee (A)

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 105

Planning Committee (B)

Planning Committee (C)

Public Accounts Select Committee

Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

SACRE

Safer & Stronger Communities Select Committee

Shadow Health and Well Being Board

Silwood SRB Management Board

Social Services (Access to Personal Files) Panel

Social Services Complaints and Representations Panel

South East Enterprise Ltd.

South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) Board

South East London Transport Strategy Group

South East London Waste Disposal Group

Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education

St Mary’s Centre Management Committee

Strategic Planning Committee

Standards Committee

Sustainable Development Select Committee

Thames Gateway London Partnership

Urban Renaissance in Lewisham SEB Board

Voluntary Action Lewisham

Wide Horizons Education Trust

Works Council

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 106 TRAVEL ALLOWANCE - CONDITIONS AND RATES

1. Mileage

1.1 The mileage to be paid for is from home (i.e. the normal place of residence) to the place where the approved duty takes places; and the return journey home.

1.2 If a member travels to the approved duty from another place (e.g. their place of work), this mileage can be paid for, provided it is less than it would be from home.

1.3 Exceptionally, if the member travels to the place of the duty from a place other than home and necessarily returns to the same place after the duty, the actual mileage for both journeys can be paid.

1.4 Again exceptionally, if the cost of the fare by public transport between the other place of the duty is greater than the cost to the member would have been in travelling to and from home, the cost can be paid.

2. Taxis

2.1 Members may claim for taxi fares only when returning from late night meetings where public transport is not available, and where appropriate by members with a relevant disability. In the case of dispute, the Standards Committee should be asked to arbitrate.

2.2 If a taxi is used the fare will have to be paid at the time and a claim submitted to the Head of Business & Committee giving details of the journey and the approved duty involved. Members are reminded that waiting time is charged for and should consider whether it will be cheaper to pay on arrival and re-hire for the return journey.

3. Self-Drive Hire Cars

The rate payable is the same as that payable for the use of a member’s private car.

4. Rates

The rates per mile payable for travel by private car, motor cycle and bicycle are:-

4.1 Motor Cycles

31p per mile

(Note: the cc is shown in the Vehicle Licensing Document)

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 107 4.2 Motor Cars

Up to 999cc 46.9p per mile 1000cc and above 52.2p per mile

4.3 Bicycles

14p per mile

4.4 Passengers

An additional 1.0p per mile may be paid for each passenger to whom travel allowance would otherwise be payable, up to 4 passengers.

4.5 Tolls, Ferries or Parking Fees

The actual cost may be paid.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\6\6\ai00020664\$wnlay2ry.doc Page 108 APPENDIX 2 The Remuneration of Councillors in London 2018

Report of the Independent Panel

Page 109 1 Contents

Introduction p3

The role of elected members p3

Recruitment of councillors p4

The current financial and political climate p4

Level of Basic Allowance p4

Special Responsibility Allowances p5

Interpretation of the scheme p5

Training and support p6

Barriers to being a councillor p6

Travel and Subsistence Allowances p6

Allowances for Mayor or Civic Head p6

Update for Inflation p6

Appendix A p7 Special responsibilities – beyond the basic allowance

Appendix B p10 On behalf of the community – a job profile for councillors

Appendix C p11 The independent panel members

Page 110 2 Introduction

The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (‘the Regulations’) authorise the establishment by the Association of London Government (now London Councils) of an independent remuneration panel to make recommendations in respect of the members’ allowances payable by London boroughs. Such a panel (‘the Panel’) was established and reported in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2014. It now comprises Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL (Chair), Steve Bundred and Anne Watts CBE.

The Regulations require a review of the scheme every four years as a minimum. The current Panel has therefore completed a review of remuneration for councillors in London. We present our findings and recommendations in this report.

As a preparation for our work, we invited all London boroughs to give their views on the operation of the existing scheme. We are grateful for the feedback, which confirms that the existing London scheme of members’ allowances is still fit for purpose. We make recommendations accordingly (recommendations throughout the report are in bold type). However, where issues have arisen from the comments we received, we have addressed them in this report.

The role of elected members

In our previous reports we reflected on the importance of the role of elected members. We repeat at Appendix B the job profile for councillors which we originally included in our 2010 report. The feedback we have received is that it continues to be appropriate.

The Local Governance Research Unit, based at Leicester Business School, recently launched a Councillor Commission as an independent review of the role and work of the councillor. The Commission’s report points out that councillors oversee million-pound budgets, balancing complex financial pressures at a time of severe cutbacks in local authority spending, making decisions which will affect their areas for decades to come. In London each Borough Council is responsible for services crucial to its residents. Each has a revenue budget of up to £1.4bn as well as a substantial capital programme. The scale of their turnover and other financial activities are in many instances comparable with those of large publicly quoted companies.

Councillors are faced with unenviable choices. Demand for local authority services continues to grow. In particular, there is rapid growth in the number of old people with a corresponding increase in demand for social care. London itself faces acute housing problems. Councillors have an increased responsibility for health. Thus the strain on and competition for resources increase the demands made on elected members. The responsibilities and accountabilities are made clear after a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire.

The evidence we received confirms that the workload and responsibilities of councillors continue to increase and that their role has become more complex, and not only in the areas of social care, housing and health. There has been growth in the number of sub-regional meetings, partnerships and joint bodies (such as Boards for Health & Wellbeing and Safer Neighbourhoods) which require the commitment and time of leaders, cabinet members and front- line councillors. Partnership engagement makes great demands on councillors. There has been a marked increase in informal meetings, such as working groups, forums and community gatherings as well as formal meetings like local authority companies. The expectations of the public continue to rise.

While valuable to democracy, the use of social media adds to the pressure on councillors by increasing demands from their constituents in several different ways. Communication with councillors is not only easier but immediate. The public expects a speedy response, so that it is now more difficult for councillors in employment to deal with concerns as quickly as voters expect. Not only do social media make it easier for their constituents to get hold of councillors, but they also enable an isolated concern to become an organised campaign.

Page 111 3 Recruitment of councillors

We received evidence that it is increasingly difficult to recruit people of quality who are prepared to stand for office as councillors. Though the low level of allowances was mentioned as a reason for this, a major disincentive is the time commitment required of a councillor. That time commitment (as well as finance) can make it difficult to combine the role with a job and a family life. As one councillor commented to the Leicester Business School Commission, ‘Serving on outside bodies means that I am working every day of the week, weekends too’. As was pointed out in responses we received, the problem is exacerbated in London, where councillors are on the whole younger than in other parts of the country and often in employment. They also face substantially higher costs of living.

Though the time commitment may be the main disincentive to service as a councillor, it is important that, as far as reasonably possible, financial loss does not prevent people from becoming councillors. Allowances are not shown by polls to be something which influences councillors to take on the role, though they are instrumental in making it possible for some people to do so. Allowances should be set at a level that enables people to undertake the role of councillor, while not acting as an incentive to do so. If it is important that there are no financial incentives to being a councillor, it is equally important that there should not be a financial disincentive. It is clearly desirable that service as a councillor is not confined to those with independent means.

Since our last report the Government has removed the possibility of councillors joining the local government pension scheme. We believe that access to the pension scheme can be an important factor in making service as a councillor financially possible for a wider range of people. It is particularly significant for those who, like elected mayors, leaders and portfolio holders, give most or all of their time to service in local government and lose the opportunity to contribute to a pension scheme elsewhere. Loss of access to a pension scheme imposes a further financial penalty on councillors.

We do not repeat the arguments for appropriate remuneration for councillors which we have set out in our previous reports. We believe them to be self-evident. But we do repeat our belief in the importance of local democracy and the role of councillors within it.

The current financial and political climate

Because of the current financial climate, the local government pay settlement in recent years has been severely limited. Since our last report there have been three awards of 1%. Acutely sensitive to the current financial austerity, some boroughs have frozen members’ allowances and failed to apply the pay awards to them. Indeed some boroughs have even reduced members’ allowances.

Our recent reports have made no recommendations for increasing the levels of members’ allowances other than continuing provision for annual adjustments in accordance with the annual local government pay settlement. As the Government-appointed Councillors’ Commission pointed out in their 2007 report, the recommendations of the London Panel has led to some convergence of members’ allowances across London. Indeed, the Councillors’ Commission recommended a similar system for the country as a whole. Following our recommendations, there is now considerable congruity in the basic allowance made by London boroughs.

However, most London boroughs have not adopted our recommendations in their entirety and there remain substantial differences in the amount of special responsibility allowances. We fully recognise that now is not the time to contemplate a general increase in councillors’ allowances. Nevertheless we hope that in the longer term the financial situation will permit further convergence of members’ allowances around our recommendations.

Level of Basic Allowance

In our last report we recommended that there should be a Basic Allowance paid to every councillor of £10,703. Updated for the local government staff pay awards since then, the figure is now £11,045. Given the loss of pension rights; growth in the volume and complexity of the work of councillors; and the limited increase in the Basic Allowance since our last report, we believe that there is a strong case for considering a larger increase. The basic allowance is now less than the allowances paid by many similar authorities outside London. In Wales, for example, the government- Page 112 4 appointed commission sets the basic allowance at £13,400 for members of local authorities with populations which are generally substantially lower than those of London boroughs.

However we reluctantly accept that, in the current financial climate, it would be inappropriate to recommend a general increase in members’ allowances (beyond the annual updating). Pegging an annual increase to staff pay awards will ensure that councillors can receive annual increases which are in line with those received by staff. We therefore recommend that the Basic Allowance be set at £11,045. We believe that it remains sensible to frame recommendations which are common across London.

Special Responsibility Allowances

Given the extent of the responsibilities of leaders of London boroughs, the Panel’s first report in 2001 recommended that their remuneration should equate to that of a Member of Parliament. [Our recommendations for other special responsibility allowances are related to that recommended for leaders.]

Since then the increase in the remuneration of Members of Parliament has substantially exceeded the annual local government pay increase to which we tied the special responsibility allowance for the leader of a London borough. At the time of our last report an MP received a salary of £67,060 while our recommendation for a borough leader (increases having been restricted to the local government staff pay increases) was for total remuneration of £65,472, a difference of £1,588. Updated for the local government pay awards, our recommendation for the current total remuneration of a London borough leader would be £68,130. Meanwhile the salary of MPs has increased to £76,011, a difference of £7,881. Moreover MPs continue to be entitled to a pension as well as to sundry other benefits (such as termination payments) which are not available to leaders.

In our current consultation we enquired whether the remuneration of an MP remains a sound comparator to fix the remuneration of a borough leader. In general the responses agreed that the comparator was appropriate and, if anything, that the Leaders of London boroughs warranted a higher remuneration than an MP, because they had greater financial responsibility and legal burdens, and especially given the differential pension arrangements. Indeed one respondent authority suggested that the direct responsibilities of a Leader should command the salary of a Junior Minister.

We sympathise with the responses. Certainly the way in which MPs’ remuneration has outpaced that of leaders would prompt a review of the Leaders’ allowances had the Panel not had regard to the current stringent economic circumstances. For the same reasons which prompt us to peg the Basic Allowance, we recommend that the special responsibility allowance for a Leader should be in accordance with our former recommendation, plus the subsequent local government staff pay awards, ie £57,085. We recommend the maintenance of its relation to other special responsibility allowances, as set out in the Appendix to this report. Nevertheless we hope that parity of the remuneration of the Borough leaders with the remuneration of Members of Parliament will be restored when the economic situation eases and that the other Special Responsibility Allowances will then be adjusted accordingly.

Interpretation of the Scheme

The responses from the boroughs generally indicated no problems with interpretation of our recommendations, though many had adopted lower figures, especially for special responsibility allowances. We continue to believe that the scheme we propose is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the varying political management arrangements of different London boroughs. Specifically, we were asked for guidance on what percentage of councillors should receive a special responsibility allowance. We reiterate our view that no more than 50% of councillors should receive a special responsibility allowance. We also continue to believe that no member should receive more than one special responsibility allowance though we accept that there might exceptionally be special circumstances where allocation of more than one Special Responsibility Allowance might be justified, eg where members undertake a number of different time-consuming roles such as sitting on licensing hearings.

We were asked to give more detailed guidance on the roles allocated to different bands and whether these could be tied to the time commitment required of a role, expressed as a percentage of the time commitment of the Leader. However, we believe that the percentages we identify should be tied not only to time commitment but also to levels of responsibility. Page 113 5 Training and Support

The responsibilities of councillors are substantial, extensive and complex. We have mentioned the Grenfell Tower tragedy as a chilling instance of those responsibilities. We believe that every borough should have an ongoing programme of member training and development and that members should be expected to participate. We believe that members should be provided with logistical and clerical support to help them deal with their workload.

Barriers to being a councillor

It is important that obstacles to becoming a councillor should be removed wherever possible. Child care costs can be a significant deterrent to service as a councillor. We repeat our strong view that in appropriate cases when they undertake their council duties, councillors should be entitled to claim an allowance for care of dependents. The dependents’ carers’ allowance should be set at the London living wage but (on presentation of proof of expense) payment should be made at a higher rate when specialist nursing skills are required.

We also repeat our belief that members’ allowances schemes should allow the continuance of Special Responsibility Allowances in the case of sickness, maternity and paternity leave in the same terms that the council’s employees enjoy such benefits (that is to say, they follow the same policies).

Travel and Subsistence allowances

We continue to believe that the Basic Allowance should cover basic out-of-pocket expenses incurred by councillors, including intra-borough travel costs and expenses. The members’ allowances scheme should, however, provide for special circumstances, such as travel after late meetings or travel by councillors with disabilities. The scheme should enable councillors to claim travel expenses when their duties take them out of their home borough, including a bicycle allowance.

Allowances for Mayor or Civic Head

Many councils include the allowances for the mayor (or civic head) and deputy in their members’ allowance scheme. However these allowances do serve a rather different purpose from the ‘ordinary’ members’ allowances, since they are intended to enable the civic heads to perform a ceremonial role. There are separate statutory provisions (ss 3 and 5 of the Local Government Act 1972) for such allowances and councils may find it convenient to use those provisions rather than to include the allowances in the members’ allowance scheme.

Update for inflation

We continue to recommend that for a period of four years the allowances we recommend should be updated annually in accordance with the headline figure in the annual local government pay settlement.

We have been asked whether it is necessary for the annual updating to be formally authorised by the council each year. The Regulations do seem to make this obligatory.

Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL Steve Bundred Anne Watts CBE

London, January 2018

Page 114 6 Appendix A

Basic allowance £11,045

Special responsibilities – beyond the basic allowance

The case for special allowances The reasons for payment of additional special responsibility allowances should be clearly set out in local allowances schemes. Special allowances should come into play only in positions where there are significant differences in the time requirements and levels of responsibility from those generally expected of a councillor.

Calculation of special allowances The proposed amounts for each band are a percentage of the figure suggested for a council leader depending upon levels of responsibility of the roles undertaken and are explained below. We believe that the SRA, which the previous panel recommended for the leader of a London council (updated), continues to be appropriate.

Categories of special allowances

The regulations specify the following categories of responsibility for which special responsibility allowances may be paid:

• Members of the executive where the authority is operating executive arrangements • Acting as leader or deputy leader of a political group within the authority • Presiding at meetings of a committee or sub-committee of the authority, or a joint committee of the authority and one or more other authorities, or a sub-committee of such a joint committee • Representing the authority at meetings of, or arranged by, any other body • Membership of a committee or sub-committee of the authority which meets with exceptional frequency or for exceptionally long periods • Acting as spokesperson of a political group on a committee or sub-committee of the authority • Membership of an adoption panel • Membership of a licensing or regulatory committee • Such other activities in relation to the discharge of the authority’s functions as require of the member an amount of time and effort equal to or greater than would be required of him by any one of the activities mentioned above, whether or not that activity is specified in the scheme.

Local discretion

It is for the councils locally to decide how to allocate their councillors between the different bands, having regard to our recommendations and how to set the specific remuneration within the band. They must have regard to our recommendations. We believe these should have the merits of being easy to apply, easy to adapt, easy to explain and understand, and easy to administer.

Page 115 7 BAND ONE

The posts we envisage falling within band one include:

• Vice chair of a service, regulatory or scrutiny committee • Chair of sub-committee • Leader of second or smaller opposition group • Service spokesperson for first opposition group • Group secretary (or equivalent) of majority group • First opposition group whip (in respect of council business) • Vice chair of council business • Chairs, vice chairs, area committees and forums or community leaders • Cabinet assistant • Leadership of a strategic major topic • Acting as a member of a committee or sub-committee which meets with exceptional frequency or for exceptionally long periods • Acting as a member of an adoption panel where membership requires attendance with exceptional frequency or for exceptionally long periods • Leadership of a specific major project. Remuneration

We propose that band one special responsibility allowances should be on a sliding scale of between 20 – 30 per cent of the remuneration package for a council leader.

This would be made up as follows:

Basic allowance: £11,045 Band One allowance: £2,582 to £9,397

Total: £13,627 to £20,442 BAND TWO

The types of office we contemplate being within band two are:

• Lead member in scrutiny arrangements, such as chair of a scrutiny panel • Representative on key outside body • Chair of major regulatory committee e.g. planning • Chair of council business (civic mayor) • Leader of principal opposition group • Majority party chief whip (in respect of council business). Remuneration:

We propose that band two allowances should be on a sliding scale between 40 – 60 per cent, pro rata of the remuneration package for a council leader.

This is made up as follows: Basic allowance £11,045 Band two allowances: £16,207 to £29,797

Total: £27,252 to £40,842

Page 116 8 BAND THREE

We see this band as appropriate to the following posts:

• Cabinet member • Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board • Chair of the main overview or scrutiny committee • Deputy leader of the council Remuneration:

We propose that band three allowances should be between 70 – 80 per cent pro rata of the remuneration package for a council leader.

This is made up as follows: Basic allowance: £11,045 Band three allowance: £36,917 to £43,460

Total: £47,962 to £54,505 BAND FOUR

Leader of cabinet This is a full-time job, involving a high level of responsibility and includes the exercise of executive responsibilities. It is right that it should be remunerated on a basis which compares with similar positions in the public sector, while still retaining a reflection of the voluntary character of public service. Remuneration:

We propose that the remuneration package for a council leader under band four of our scheme should be £68,130. This is made up as follows:

Basic allowance: £11,045 Band four allowance: £57,085.

Total: £68,130 BAND FIVE

Directly elected mayor A directly elected mayor has a full-time job with a high level of responsibility and exercises executive responsibilities over a fixed electoral cycle. It is right that it should be remunerated on a basis which compares with similar positions in the public sector, while still retaining a reflection of the voluntary character of public service. However we believe this post remains different to that of the strong leader with cabinet model. The directly elected mayor is directly elected by the electorate as a whole. The strong leader holds office at the pleasure of the council and can be removed by the council. We believe that the distinction is paramount and this should be reflected in the salary level. Remuneration:

We propose that a directly elected mayor should receive a remuneration package of 25 per cent higher than that recommended for a council leader and that it should be a salary set at £85,162.

Page 117 9 Appendix B

On behalf of the community – a job profile for councillors

Purposes:

1. To participate constructively in the good governance of the area. 2. To contribute actively to the formation and scrutiny of the authority’s policies, budget, strategies and service delivery. 3. To represent effectively the interests of the ward for which the councillor was elected, and deal with constituents’ enquiries and representations. 4. To champion the causes which best relate to the interests and sustainability of the community and campaign for the improvement of the quality of life of the community in terms of equity, economy and environment. 5. To represent the council on an outside body, such as a charitable trust or neighbourhood association.

Key Tasks:

1. To fulfil the statutory and local determined requirements of an elected member of a local authority and the authority itself, including compliance with all relevant codes of conduct, and participation in those decisions and activities reserved to the full council (for example, setting budgets, overall priorities, strategy). 2. To participate effectively as a member of any committee or panel to which the councillor is appointed, including related responsibilities for the services falling within the committee’s (or panel’s) terms of reference, human resource issues, staff appointments, fees and charges, and liaison with other public bodies to promote better understanding and partnership working. 3. To participate in the activities of an outside body to which the councillor is appointed, providing two-way communication between the organisations. Also, for the same purpose, to develop and maintain a working knowledge of the authority’s policies and practices in relation to that body and of the community’s needs and aspirations in respect of that body’s role and functions. 4. To participate in the scrutiny or performance review of the services of the authority, including where the authority so decides, the scrutiny of policies and budget, and their effectiveness in achieving the strategic objectives of the authority. 5. To participate, as appointed, in the area and in service-based consultative processes with the community and with other organisations. 6. To represent the authority to the community, and the community to the authority, through the various forums available. 7. To develop and maintain a working knowledge of the authority’s services, management arrangements, powers/ duties, and constraints, and to develop good working relationships with relevant officers of the authority. 8. To develop and maintain a working knowledge of the organisations, services, activities and other factors which impact upon the community’s well-being and identity. 9. To contribute constructively to open government and democratic renewal through active encouragement of the community to participate generally in the government of the area. 10. To participate in the activities of any political group of which the councillor is a member. 11. To undertake necessary training and development programmes as agreed by the authority. 12. To be accountable for his/her actions and to report regularly on them in accessible and transparent ways.

Page 118 10 Appendix C

The independent panel members

Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL had a long career in local government, including as chief executive of West Yorkshire County Council, Westminster City Council and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He was knighted in 2007 for his contribution to public service.

Steve Bundred was chairman of Monitor, chief executive of the Audit Commission and chief executive of the London Borough of Camden.

Anne Watts CBE has an extensive career in equality and diversity and governance that spans the private, voluntary and public sectors with organisations including the Open University, the University of Surrey, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and Business in the Community. She chaired the Appointments Commission.

Page 119 11 Published: January 2018 Page 120 12 Appendix 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

Scheme for Basic, Special Responsibility and other Allowances

Report of Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL

1. Introduction. The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (‘the Regulations’) provide for the making of allowances to councillors. They require each local authority to make a scheme for the payment of a basic allowance and, if the Authority intends to make such payments, to make provision also for the payment of special responsibility (SRA), travelling and subsistence and co-optees’ allowances. Before a local authority makes or amends a scheme it must have regard to the recommendations of an independent remuneration panel. The Regulations authorise the establishment by the Association of London Government (now London Councils) of an Independent Remuneration Panel (‘the London Panel’) to make recommendations in respect of the members’ allowances payable by London boroughs. Such a Panel was established and now comprises myself (Chair), Steve Bundred and Anne Watts CBE. In January 2018 the Panel updated its previous recommendations. As was the case in 2010 and 2014, I have been asked by the Council to advise on how the London Panel’s recommendations (which allow considerable flexibility in special responsibility allowances having regard to different managerial systems in each London borough) can be adapted for the Council’s scheme on members’ allowances.

2. The quality of local democracy depends on the ability of councils to attract able people to serve as councillors. The Government-appointed Councillors’ Commission took the view (which the London Panel quotes in its 2014 report) that ‘Allowances should be set at a level that enables people to undertake the role of councillor while not acting as an incentive to do so. Allowances are not shown by polls to be something which influences councillors to take on the role, though they are instrumental in making it possible for some people to do so. If it is important that there are no financial incentives to being a councillor, it is equally important that there should not be a financial disincentive.’ The London Panel points out that ‘it is clearly desirable that service as a councillor is not confined to those with independent means.’ I share the belief of the Councillors’ Commission and the London Panel that, in the public interest, councillors should receive reasonable remuneration – both to enable people of

Page 121 ability to serve; and to enable them to devote sufficient time to the role of councillor. Councillor Sir Merrick Cockell, when chairman of the Local Government Association (and a former chair of London Councils) agreed, asserting that ‘fair remuneration is important so that people from all walks of life can afford to stand for office. Otherwise we risk local government becoming the exclusive preserve of a privileged few who have the luxury of time and money to spare’.

3. Despite my recommendations and those of the London Panel, Lewisham Council has not increased the quantum of members’ allowances since 2008. Councillors are now further financially disadvantaged by the removal of their right to contribute to the Local Government Pension Scheme (with a consequential saving to the Council of over £111,000). I well understand the reluctance to increase councillors’ allowance: during that period Lewisham councillors have been constrained to cut £160m from the Council’s spending. They face the necessity to make a further £44m of cuts over the next three years. The Council must make these cuts at a time when the demand for public services is increasing, most notably from the growing number of old people and the consequential increase in demand for social care. The strain on and competition for resources increase the demands made on elected members. It is vital that able people are enabled to serve as councillors in Lewisham. I believe that the long-term interest of local democracy in Lewisham will be damaged if the Council continues to freeze members’ allowances.

4. The Regulations allow annual updating of members’ allowances by reference to a specific indicator for up to four years. The London Panel recommends annual updating in accordance with the rate by which local government pay settlement salaries are increased. During the last eight years, local authority employees have received successive pay increases of 1%, 2.2%, 1%, 1% and 2% negotiated with the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC). Had those increases been applied to Lewisham members’ allowances (as the London Panel and I recommended), the Basic Allowance would now be £10,538 (not £9,812); the Mayor’s Special Responsibility Allowance £83,475 (not £77,722); the Deputy Mayor £54,413 (not £50,412; Cabinet members £16,430 (not £15,298); Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee £13,167 (not £12,260); Chair of Council, Chairs of Overview & Scrutiny Select Committee, Chairs of Planning and Licensing Committees £6,583 (not £6,130); Chair of Labour Group £5,665 (not £5,275). During that period Lewisham councillors have not only received no increase in their allowances but have suffered further financial loss by losing access to the local government pension scheme.

5. Over the years of its existence, the recommendations of the London Panel have led to a considerable (and desirable) convergence of the quantum of allowances across London, particularly in respect of the Basic Allowance.

Page 122 Partly as a result of the failure to implement NJC negotiated increases, the members’ allowances in Lewisham are consistently below the minima recommended by the London Panel and allowances paid by comparable authorities: Basic Allowance £9,812 (London £11,045); Chairs of Council, Overview & Scrutiny Select Committees and Planning and Licensing Committees £6,130 (London £16,207); Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee £12,260 (London £36,917); Cabinet member £15,298 (London £36,917); Mayor £77,722 (London £85,162).

6. Freeze on allowances. In 2010 I recommended an increase in the Basic Allowance to the then Greater London recommended level of £10,597, provided that the Council agreed that it should cover travel and subsistence within the Borough, The Council did agree that the Lewisham Basic Allowance (and the Mayor’s Allowance) should include travel within the Borough and subsistence within the Greater London area, but did not increase the Basic Allowance (or the Mayor’s Allowance). Since then the Lewisham Mayor and councillors, unlike employees, have had no increase in their allowances, as well as losing their entitlement to enter the local government pension scheme. I am acutely conscious of the severe financial strain on the Council’s finances but, bearing in mind the financial loss suffered by the withdrawal of the right to pensions and the consequential saving to the Council, I believe that the freeze on members’ and co-optees’ allowances should now end. I would like to recommend that allowances catch up with the increases in staff pay since 2008, but I recognise that the implementation of such an increase would be difficult in the present financial climate. In the circumstances I recommend that the allowances for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members and co-optees (other than the allowances mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 9 of this report) be increased by the headline National Joint Council (NJC) 2018 local government pay settlement of 2% with effect from the beginning of the 2018-19 municipal year; that the freeze on allowances be ended; and that allowances be increased during the next four municipal years by the headline figure in the NJC local government pay settlements. My recommendation will not allow allowances to catch up with the pay increases enjoyed by employees over the last ten years, but it will move the allowances marginally towards the London-wide recommendations and the amounts paid by comparable London boroughs. It will do something to mitigate the loss of pension rights suffered by councillors. It will signal the importance of councillors both to local democracy and the future of Lewisham. I hope that in future Lewisham members’ allowances can catch up with the recommended London levels.

7. Cabinet Members. Though Lewisham allowances are generally below the London recommendations, one or two seem disproportionately out-of-line, given their importance in Lewisham. Cabinet Members currently receive £15,298, where the London Panel recommends a minimum special responsibility allowance of £36,917. There was hitherto some justification for

Page 123 this, in that the Mayor retained decision-taking powers. The new Mayor has decided to entrust collective decision-taking to the Cabinet rather than retaining decison-taking powers himself. Unlike cabinet members elsewhere, they will not have individual decision-taking powers. However, their special responsibility allowance is clearly unrealistic in relation to their responsibilities. I recommend that Cabinet Members should receive a special responsibility allowance of £20,000 (including the NJC pay award). Within the Cabinet the Mayor proposes that two portfolios (Finance, Skills and Jobs; and Parks, Neighbourhoods and Transport) should be shared between two Cabinet members. Given the statutory maximum number of cabinet members, each will serve as a member of the Cabinet for six months in any calendar year. At the Mayor’s invitation the councillor not serving as a member of the Cabinet may attend Cabinet but not vote. With this in mind, I recommend that where Cabinet portfolios are shared between members both should receive half the remuneration of a Cabinet member.

8. Chair of Strategic Planning Committee. The Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee currently receives a special responsibility allowance of £9,195. In my 2014 report I expressed the belief that the responsibilities of the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee justified a higher level of allowance than that then granted. Given the continued importance and complexity of strategic planning in the borough, I continue to believe that the role has greater importance than that recognised by the special responsibility allowance currently attaching to it. In my view the role has the same importance as that of the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. I therefore recommend that the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee receive the same special responsibility allowance as the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (currently £12,260).

9. Other Special Responsibility Allowances. The present Scheme provides for a special responsibility allowance of £5,275 for Leaders of political groups with 15 or more members (or for the Chair of the Labour Group) and for the Majority Party Whip. There are currently no members of the Council from opposition parties. This brings greater challenges and responsibilities for the Chair of the Majority Group and the Whip of the ‘Majority’ Party, including training and development of councillors. I therefore recommend that the Chair and Whip of the Majority Group (and Leaders of political groups with 15 or more members) should receive special responsibility allowances of £9,000.

10. Lewisham Homes. Management of Lewisham Council’s housing is entrusted to an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (an ‘ALMO’), Lewisham Homes. On behalf of the Council, Lewisham Homes manages 12,500 homes, operating its own maintenance function. The ALMO clearly has a major responsibility and proposes to remunerate its directors (who are required to attend something of the order of twenty meetings annually) by paying them £3,500 pa. The ALMO Board includes three Lewisham councillors. Under the Local

Page 124 Authorities Companies Order 1995, the ALMO cannot remunerate councillors in excess of an amount paid to a councillor for comparable duties under the Lewisham Members’ Allowances Scheme. The current Members’ Allowances Scheme does not include any comparable duties. It is clearly reasonable that Lewisham councillors should receive the same amount as non-councillors for their services on Lewisham Homes. Regulation 5 (1) of the Regulations provide for payment of allowances where councillors represent the Council at meetings of another body or where carrying out activities in relation to the discharge of the Council’s functions which require of the member an amount of time and effort equal to or greater than would be required of him by any of the activities for which a Special Responsibility Allowance could be paid. In these circumstances, I recommend that councillors serving on the Board of Lewisham Homes should receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of £3,500.

11. Dependants’ Carer’s Allowance. The scheme currently provides for payment of a dependants’ carer’s allowance equivalent to the London living wage, plus travelling expenses. This is entirely appropriate: it is important that service on the Council should be made possible for those with caring responsibilities. I recommend that the Scheme continues to make provision for payment of a dependants’ carer’s allowance and that in special circumstances (eg for care of a severely disabled person) the Council should reimburse a higher cost where this can be justified.

12. Travel and subsistence allowances. The scheme currently specifies the rates of travel and assistence allowances entitled to be claimed by the mayor and councillors. In the interests of consistency and ease of implementation, I recommend that the Mayor and councillors be entitled to claim for travel outside the borough and subsistence allowances outside Greater London at the same rates as those prescribed for staff of the authority.

13. Date of implementation. I recommend that the date of implementation of my recommendations be the commencement of the 2018-2019 municipal year.

14. Other. The current Scheme of Allowances for the Borough is well-designed and I recommend that it continue unchanged except for the recommendations in this report.

15. Summary of Recommendations

Page 125 (b) The freeze on members’ allowances should be ended and allowances increased during the next four municipal years by the headline figure in the NJC local government pay settlements. (c) Cabinet Members should receive a special responsibility allowance of £20,000 (including the 2018 pay award referred to in recommendation (a) above). (d) Where Cabinet portfolios are shared between members, both should receive half the remuneration of a Cabinet member. (e) The Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee should receive the same special responsibility allowance as the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. (f) The Chair and Whip of the Majority Group (and Leaders of political groups with 15 or more members) should receive special responsibility allowances of £9,000. (g) Councillors serving on the Board of Lewisham Homes should receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of £3,500. (h) The Scheme should continue to make provision for payment of a dependants’ carer’s allowance and that in special circumstances (eg for care of a severely disabled person) the Council should reimburse a higher cost where this can be justified. (i) The Mayor and councillors should be entitled to claim for travel outside the borough and subsistence allowances outside Greater London at the same rates as those prescribed for staff of the authority. (j) The date of implementation of my recommendations should be the commencement of the 2018-2019 municipal year. (k) Other than the recommendations above, the members’ allowances scheme should continue unchanged.

Rodney Brooke 8 July 2018

Page 126 Agenda Item 8

COUNCIL

Report Title Appointment of Council Representative to the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust Key Decision No Item No.

Ward Perry Vale , Bellingham

Contributors Executive Director for Children & Young People, Head of Law. Class Part 1 Date: 3 10 18

1. Purpose

1.1 To obtain the agreement of Council to the reappointment of Cllr Jacqueline Paschoud as representative to the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust.

2. Policy Context

2.1 One of the primary functions of the Council is to promote the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the borough and its people. In discharging this important role the Council has a specific duty to safeguard the most vulnerable from harm and to regulate access to public services and to provide social protection for those that might otherwise be put at risk.

2.2 The overarching policy and decision making framework for the discharge of the Council’s many functions and duties is Lewisham’s Sustainable Community Strategy. One of the Strategy’s overarching principles is “reducing inequality – narrowing the gap in outcomes”.

2.3 The Lewisham children and Young People’s Plan 2015-18 sets out the Partnership vision and priorities for all children and young people. The vision is underpinned by three shared values:

 we will put children and young people first every time  we will have the highest aspirations and ambitions for all our children and young people  we will make a positive difference to the lives of children and young people

2.4 The Lewisham Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) partnership strategy 2016-19 sets out the vision and priorities for improving life outcomes for children and young people with SEND. This strategy forms an integral part of the Lewisham Children and Young People’s Plan for 2015–18.

Page 127

3. Recommendation

3.1 That the Council reappoint Cllr Jacqueline Paschoud as its representative on the Trust Board of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co- operative Trust for a further 5 year term of office.

4. Background

4.1 On 15 December 2011, following consultation which resulted in 80% approval for the proposal, the governing bodies of Brent Knoll School and Watergate School agreed formally to a change of status to become foundation schools and to proceed together to form a co - operative trust. Subsequently, following the end of the statutory notice period on 6 March 2012, the governing bodies approved the change, and agreed the composition of their governing bodies.

4.2 At the Mayor and Cabinet meeting of 11th April 2012, the Mayor noted the formal agreement of the governing bodies of Brent Knoll and Watergate Schools to become foundation schools (Trust schools) with an implementation date of 2 April 2012. On the same agenda, the Mayor also agreed to the reconstitution of the governing bodies of Brent Knoll and Watergate Schools as foundation school governing bodies.

4.3 On the 28 June 2012, Council appointed Cllr Jacqueline Paschoud as the Council representative to the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust. The term of office of 5 years, expires at the Brent Knoll Annual General Meeting on 10 October 2018. Cllr Jacqueline Paschoud has served one term of office and has consented to be considered for a second term of 5 years.

4.4 The 1986 Education Act allows Local Authority maintained schools to change their category to become a foundation school. On becoming a foundation school the governing body takes on extra responsibilities: - building and land are transferred to the governing body; - the governing body replaces the local authority as the employer; - the governing body becomes responsible for its admissions arrangements.

4.5 A foundation school may be allied to a foundation, in which instance it is also referred to as a Trust school. Trust schools establish long term relationships with external partners and involve them in the school’s governance and leadership, and the Trust holds the school’s land and buildings ‘in trust’ for the school.

4.6 The partners of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust are, Wide Horizons Trust, Greenwich University, Phoenix Housing Trust, The Ravensbourne Project, Lewisham Local Authority and the Co-operative Movement.

4.7 The Articles of Association of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust are attached to this report at Appendix 1.

4.8 The objectives of the Trust are to advance the education of the pupils at the schools, to advance the education of other members of the community, and otherwise to benefit the community,Page 128 having regard to its obligation to promote community cohesion under the relevant Education Acts.

4.9 The two schools continue to be run and managed by their individual governing bodies as before, with the additional benefits of Trust partners and 3 Trust nominated Governors to assist them in their future developments.

5. Trustees

5.1 Council is asked to agree the nomination of a Lewisham Local Authority representative to the Trust.

5.2 The Articles of Association of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co- operative Trust state that its trustee membership is as follows.

5.2.1 Trustees appointed by partnership organisations as decided by the majority of Trustees from time to time;

5.2.2 3 Trustees appointed by the Forum from amongst their number;

5.2.3 1 Trustee appointed by the Co-operative movement.

5.2.4 2 Trustees appointed by Brent Knoll School;

5.2.5 2 Trustees appointed by Watergate School;

5.2.6 1 Trustee appointed by Lewisham Local Authority

5.3 In relation to terms of office for Trustees:

5.3.1 Subject to Article 20.3, the normal term of office for a Trustee is five years, at the end of which a Trustee shall retire and may stand for reappointment, if otherwise eligible;

5.3.2 Terms of office shall begin (or be deemed to begin) and end at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) each year.

5.3.3 No Trustee may serve for more than two consecutive terms of office (whether or not any such term was less than five full years), after which they must stand down for a year. Any time served by a Trustee before the Trust’s first AGM shall not be counted as a term of office or part of a term of office.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 As Trust / Foundation Schools, Brent Knoll and Watergate governing bodies take on additional responsibilities as employers and as custodians of the land which transfers to them on change of status, however, funding arrangements remain unchanged. The schools will continue to be funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant and will be subject to the funding decisions of the Schools’ Forum

Page 129

7. Legal Implications

7.1 The power to make appointments to outside bodies is, save where that power lies with the Mayor, a decision reserved and only to be taken by the Council.

7.2 The Articles of Association of Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust provides for inclusion of 1 trustee appointed by the Council. The normal term of office for a trustee is five years at the end of which a Trustee shall retire and may stand for reappointment. No Trustee may serve more than two consecutive terms of office after which they must stand down for a year.

7.3 The proposed Council trustee appointee has previously served a term of office as a trustee of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust and is willing to serve a further 5 year term in accordance with the Trust’s Articles of Association.

Equalities Legislation

7.4 The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) introduced a public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty). It covers the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation

7.5 In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

 eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.  advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.  foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

7.6 It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation or other prohibited conduct, or to promote equality of opportunity or foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. It is a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve the goals listed at 7.5 above.

7.7 The weight to be attached to the duty will be dependent on the nature of the decision and the circumstances in which it is made. This is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality. The Mayor must understand the impact or likely impact of the decision on those with protected characteristics who are potentially affected by the decision. The extent of the duty will necessarily vary from case to case and due regard is such regard as is appropriate in all the circumstances.

7.8 The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty and statutory guidance entitled “Equality Act 2010 Services, Public Functions & Associations Statutory Code of Practice”. The Council must have regard to the statutory code in so far as it relates to the duty and attentionPage is 130drawn to Chapter 11 which deals particularly with the equality duty. The Technical Guidance also covers what public

authorities should do to meet the duty. This includes steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance does not have statutory force but nonetheless regard should be had to it, as failure to do so without compelling reason would be of evidential value. The statutory code and the technical guidance can be found at:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and- guidance/equality-act-codes-practice

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and- guidance/equality-act-technical-guidance

7.9 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously issued five guides for public authorities in England giving advice on the equality duty:

 The essential guide to the public sector equality duty  Meeting the equality duty in policy and decision-making  Engagement and the equality duty: A guide for public authorities  Objectives and the equality duty. A guide for public authorities  Equality Information and the Equality Duty: A Guide for Public Authorities

7.10 The essential guide provides an overview of the equality duty requirements including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who they apply to. It covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The other four documents provide more detailed guidance on key areas and advice on good practice. Further information and resources are available at:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and- guidance/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance#h1

8. Crime and Disorder Implications

8.1 There are no specific crime and disorder implications arising from this report.

Page 131

9. Equalities Implications

9.1 The formation of the Trust is seen by the schools as providing the following benefits:

 Partnerships with external organisations will help the schools to develop more creative teaching and learning experiences at all levels and give access to wider learning opportunities for pupils.

 The schools will work with post-16 providers to offer a diverse post- 16 education programme with strong transition links to adult services.

 The development of extended schools and schools services throughout the year will provide support to the families of children with learning difficulties.

10 Environmental Implications

10.1 There are no specific environmental implications arising from this report.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is recommended that the Council appoints Cllr Jacqueline Paschoud as the Council representative to the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust.

Background Documents

Articles of Association, Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust

If there are any queries arising from this report, please contact Suhaib Saeed, Service Manager –Services to Schools, 3rd Floor, Laurence House, telephone 020 8314 7670

Page 132

Appendix 1

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

BRENT KNOLL AND WATERGATE CO-OPERATIVE TRUST

Page 133

COMPANIES ACT 2006

COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

BRENT KNOLL AND WATERGATE CO-OPERATIVE TRUST

1 Name

The name of the Trust is Brent Knoll and Watergate Cooperative Trust (“the Trust”).

2 Registered Office

The registered office of the Trust is to be in England and Wales.

3 Objects

The Objects of the Trust are to advance the education of the pupils at the Schools, to advance the education of other members of the community, and otherwise to benefit the community, it being acknowledged that in carrying out the Objects the Trust must (where applicable) have regard to its obligation to promote community cohesion under the Education Acts.

4 It is intended that the curriculum and ethos of the Schools will place an emphasis on, and include a commitment to students learning about, the Co-operative values of self- help, self responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, solidarity, honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others with the aim of encouraging all students to become better citizens, not only while they are students but during the rest of their lives.

5 Powers

The Trust has the following powers, which may be exercised only in promoting the Objects:

To act as the foundation of the Schools for the purpose of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;

to acquire or hire and hold property of any kind, including the acquisition of freehold or leasehold property to be held by the Trust (either alone or jointly with any other person) in trust for the purpose of Schools;

to develop, improve, let or dispose of property of any kind (but only in accordance with the

restrictions imposed by the Charities Act and any restrictions imposed by the Education Acts);

in relation to the Schools, to appoint and remove foundation governors in compliance with the provisions of the Education Acts;

to act as the trustee of any trust relating any of the Schools;

Page 134

to nominate one or more governors for appointment to the governing body of any other school;

to exercise its rights as the foundation of any of the Schools under the Education Acts;

to raise funds (but not by means of taxable trading);

to borrow money and give security for loans (but only in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the Charities Act and any restrictions imposed by the Education Acts);

to employ staff;

to pay remuneration and allowances to any person, and to make arrangements for providing, or securing the provision of pensions or gratuities (including those payable by way of compensation for loss of employment or loss or reduction of pay);

to promote or carry out research;

to provide advice;

to publish or distribute information;

to co-operate with other bodies;

to support, administer or set up other charities;

to make grants or loans of money and to give guarantees;

to set aside funds for special purposes or as reserves against future expenditure;

to pay for indemnity insurance for the Trustees;

subject to Article 6, to employ paid or unpaid agents, staff or advisers;

to enter into contracts to provide services to or on behalf of other bodies;

to establish or acquire subsidiary companies to assist or act as agents for the Trust;

to pay the costs of forming the Trust; and

to do anything else within the law which promotes or helps to promote the Objects.

6 Benefits to Members and Trustees

The property and funds of the Trust must be used only for promoting the Objects and cannot be distributed to the members but:

members who are not Trustees may be employed by or enter into contracts with the Trust and receive reasonable payment for goods or services supplied;

members (including Trustees) may be paid interest at a reasonable rate on money lent to the Trust; and

Page 135

members (including Trustees) may be paid a reasonable rent or hiring fee for property or equipment let or hired to the Trust.

A Trustee must not receive any payment of money or other material benefit (whether directly or indirectly) from the Trust except:

as mentioned in Articles 5.19 (indemnity insurance), 6.1.2 (interest), 6.1.3 (rent) or 6.3 (contractual payments);

reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (including hotel and travel costs) actually incurred in the administration of the Trust;

an indemnity permitted by sections 232 to 234 inclusive of the Companies Act;

the benefit of any payment to any Trust in which a Trustee has no more than a 1 per cent shareholding; and

in exceptional cases, other payments or benefits (but only with the written approval of the Commission in advance).

A Trustee, other than the head teacher of any of the schools, may not be an employee of the Trust, but a Trustee or a connected person may enter into a contract with the Trust to supply goods or services in return for a payment or other material benefit if:

the goods or services are actually required by the Trust;

the nature and level of the benefit is no more than reasonable in relation to the value of the goods or services and is set at a meeting of the Trustees in accordance with the procedure in Article 6.4; and

provided that the Trust may not enter into such a contract at any time when the effect of such contract would be that more than one third of the Trustees are or have been interested in such a contract in that financial year.

Whenever a Trustee has a personal interest in a matter to be discussed at a meeting of the Trustees or a committee, they must:

declare an interest before the meeting or at the meeting before discussion begins on the matter;

be absent from the meeting for that item unless expressly invited to remain in order to provide information;

not be counted in the quorum for that part of the meeting; and

be absent during the vote and have no vote on the matter.

7 Limited Liability

The liability of members is limited.

Page 136

8 Guarantee

Every member promises, if the Trust is wound up while they remain a member, or within 12 months afterwards, to pay up to £1 towards the costs of winding up, towards adjusting the rights of the contributories amongst themselves and towards discharging the liabilities incurred by the Trust while they were a member.

9 Dissolution

If the Trust is dissolved and subject always to the provisions of the Education Acts (insofar as those provisions do not require the application of the assets of the Trust for purposes which are not charitable), the assets (if any) remaining after provision has been made for all its liabilities must be applied in one or more of the following ways:

by transfer to one or more other bodies established for exclusively charitable purposes within, the same as or similar to the Objects;

directly for the Objects or for charitable purposes which are within or similar to the Objects;

in such other manner consistent with charitable status as the Commission approve in writing in advance.

A final report and statement of account must be sent to the Commission.

10 Interpretation

References to an Act of Parliament are references to that Act as amended or re- enacted from time to time and to any subordinate legislation made under it.

11 Membership

The Trust must maintain a register of members.

The subscribers to the Memorandum are the first members of the Trust.

Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Education Acts, membership of the Trust is open to any other individuals or organisations interested in promoting the Objects who:

qualify for membership of one of the constituencies specified below;

are approved by the Trustees; and

consent in writing to become a member and to be bound by the provisions of these Articles of Association, either personally or (in the case of an organisation) through an authorised representative, by completing an application to become a member in a form to be specified by the Trustees.

The Trust will have the following constituencies of members:

a learners constituency, open to pupils currently registered at any of the schools, or to any other person currently registered for the purposes of learning at any of the Schools;

Page 137

a parents and carers constituency, open to any parent or carer of a pupil currently registered at any of the Schools;

a staff constituency, open to any person employed by or whose normal place of work is at any of the Schools;

a local community constituency, open to any person who, in the absolute discretion of the Trustees, has a legitimate interest in any of the Schools;

a community organisations constituency, open to any organisation , whether statutory, charitable, voluntary, or trading for social or commercial purposes, which in the absolute discretion of the Trustees has a legitimate interest in any of the Schools.

In relation to constituencies: no person may be a member of more than one constituency;

a person eligible to be a member of the staff constituency may not be a member o any other constituency;

the decision about the constituency of which a person is to be a member shall be decided by the Trustees, who may issue guidelines about constituency membership;

the Trustees may sub-divide any of the constituencies into two or more constituencies, on such basis as they consider to be appropriate.

Membership is terminated if the member concerned:

gives written notice of resignation to the Trust;

dies or (in the case of an organisation) ceases to exist;

ceases to be entitled to be a member under these Articles of Association; or is removed from membership by resolution of the Trustees on the ground that in their reasonable opinion the member’s continued membership is harmful to the Trust. The Trustees may only pass such a resolution after notifying the member in writing and considering the matter in the light of any written representations which the member concerned puts forward within 14 clear days after receiving notice.

Membership of the Trust is not transferable.

12 General Meetings

Members are entitled to attend general meetings either personally or (in the case of a member organisation) by an authorised representative. General meetings are called on at least 21 clear days’ written notice specifying the business to be discussed.

There is a quorum at a general meeting if the number of members or authorised representatives present is at least 11 representing not less than two-thirds of the constituencies.

Page 138

The Chair or (if the Chair is unable or unwilling to do so) some other member elected by those present presides at a general meeting.

Except where otherwise provided by the Companies Act or the Education Acts, every issue is decided by a majority of the votes cast.

Every member present in person or through an authorised representative has one vote on each issue. A written resolution signed by all those entitled to vote at a general meeting is as valid as a resolution actually passed at a general meeting. For this purpose the written resolution may be set out in more than one document and will be treated as passed on the date of the last signature.

Except at first, the Trust must hold an AGM in every year. The first AGM must be held within 18 months after the Trust’s incorporation.

At an AGM the members:

receive the accounts of the Trust for the previous financial year; receive the Trustees’ report on the Trust’s activities since the previous AGM; accept the retirement of those Trustees who wish to retire; elect Trustees to fill the vacancies arising; appoint auditors for the Trust (if the Trust’s accounts are required to be audited); and may discuss and determine any issues of policy or deal with any other business put before them by the Trustees.

Any general meeting which is not an AGM is a GM.

A GM may be called at any time by the Trustees and must be called within 14 clear days on a written request from at least two members.

13 The Forum

The Trust shall have a Forum, the composition of which shall be determined from time to time by the Trustees in consultation with the Forum, subject to the following;

the members of each constituency shall elect one or more of their number to the Forum;

a majority of the members of the Forum shall comprise elected representatives of the membership constituencies;

no constituency’s representatives shall comprise more than one third of the members of the Forum, and the staff constituency shall not comprise more than one quarter of the members of the Forum;

the Trustees may designate one or more other organisations, which are members of the community organisations constituency, to be partner organisations, and any such partner organisation shall be entitled to appoint a member of the Forum. The Trustees shall also be entitled to terminate the designation as a partner organisation

Page 139

. A person shall cease to be a member of the Forum (or shall not be eligible to be a member of the Forum, as appropriate) if: they resign from office; they fail to attend three consecutive meetings of the Forum; they cease to be a member of the constituency which elected them; they are removed from office by a resolution of two-thirds of the remaining members of the Forum for serious breach of any code of conduct which the Forum has adopted. No such resolution may be passed unless the Forum has invited the views of the person concerned and considered the matter in the light of any such views. they are convicted of an imprisonable offence.

In relation to members of the Forum: their term of office shall be three years, following which they shall be eligible to be re elected or re-appointed (as appropriate). After serving three consecutive terms of office (whether or not any such term was less than three full years), a person shall not be eligible to be re-elected or re-appointed for a period of one calendar year; elections shall be held in accordance with rules to be determined by the Trustees; subject to article 20.4 one third of the elected members of the Forum shall retire at the end of each year. Not less than one third of the members of the Forum elected at the first AGM, to be chosen by lot, shall retire at the end of the second AGM; not less than one third of the members of the Forum elected at the first AGM, to be chosen by lot, shall retire at the end of the third AGM; the remaining members of the Forum elected at the first AGM shall retire at the end of the fourth AGM. casual vacancies arising amongst elected members of the Forum shall remain vacan unless the Trustees decide: that an election shall be held; or that the next highest polling candidate at the most recent election, who is willing to take office, shall do so.

The role of the Forum is: to appoint and remove those Trustees who are appointed and removed by the Forum; to make recommendations to the Trustees; to perform such other functions as the Forum may be requested from time to time by the Trustees.

Page 140

The procedures for the Forum shall be as follows.

The Forum shall meet at least three times each year.

A quorum shall be half of the members of the Forum, and representatives from not less than half of the constituencies.

Each year, the Forum shall elect one of its number to be its chair of the Forum. The chair of the Forum, or in their absence another member of the Forum chosen by those present shall chair a meeting.

Each member of the Forum shall have one vote on any matter to be decided by the Forum, and in the event of an equality of votes, the chair of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.

If any member of the Forum has a material involvement in a matter being considered by the Forum (other than by virtue of being a member of a constituency), they shall declare it, and may take part in the discussion of the matter unless the remaining members of the Forum decide otherwise, but they may not vote on the matter.

The Forum may establish its own standing orders for meetings, and a code of conduct to be followed by all members of the Forum.

14 The Trustees

The Trustees as charity trustees have control of the Trust and its property and funds.

The number of Trustees shall not be less than two, but (unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution) shall not be subject to any maximum.

The appointment and removal of Trustees shall be subject to any restrictions imposed by the Education Acts.

There shall be the following Trustees:

Trustees appointed by partnership organisations as decided by the majority of Trustees from time to time;

3 Trustees appointed by the Forum from amongst their number;

1 Trustee appointed by the Co-operative movement.

2 Trustees appointed by Brent Knoll School;

2 Trustees appointed by Watergate School;

1 Trustee appointed by Lewisham Local Authority

Page 141

Every Trustee must sign: a declaration of willingness to act as a Trustee of the Trust; and a declaration confirming that they are not disqualified from acting as a charity trustee under the Education Acts; before they may vote at any meeting of the Trustees.

Each body entitled to appoint a Trustee may at any time remove its appointed Trustee from office. If a Trustee shall die or be removed from or vacate office for any cause, then the body which appointed or removed that Trustee shall be entitled to appoint another person as a Trustee.

Any removal or appointment of a Trustee pursuant to Article 14.6 shall be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the relevant body and sent to the Trust at its registered office, marked for the attention of the secretary or delivered to a duly constituted meeting of the Trustees of the Trust. Any such appointment or removal shall take effect as at the time of such lodgement or delivery or at such later time as shall be specified in such notice.

The Trust may by ordinary resolution appoint any person who is willing to act as an additional Trustee provided: he or she is recommended by not less than two thirds of the Trustees; and if appointed they would not be disqualified from acting under Article 14.10.

A decision exercising the power of appointment or removal will be communicated by notice in writing to the Trustee concerned signed by or on behalf of the Trustees.

In relation to terms of office for Trustees, subject to Article 20.3, the normal term of office for a Trustee shall be five years, at the end of which a Trustee shall retire and may stand for reappointment, if otherwise eligible; terms of office shall begin (or be deemed to begin) and end at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting each year. no Trustee may serve for more than two consecutive terms of office (whether or not any such term was less than five full years), after which they must stand down for a year. Any time served by a Trustee before the Trust’s first AGM shall not be counted as a term of office or part of a term of office.

A Trustee’s term of office automatically terminates if they: are disqualified under the Charities Act from acting as a charity trustee; are removed as, or disqualified from acting as, a charity trustee under the Education Acts or are otherwise prohibited by law from being a charity trustee or a Trustee; are convicted of an imprisonable offence are incapable, whether mentally or physically, of managing their own affairs;

Page 142

are absent from three consecutive meetings of the Trustees and are asked by a majority of the other Trustees to resign; are a member appointed as a Trustee by the Forum and cease to be a member or, in the case of a Trustee appointed by a partnership organisation, that organisation ceases to be a partnership organisation; resign by written notice to the Trustees (but only if at least two Trustees will remain in office); are removed by resolution of the members present and voting at a general meeting after the meeting has invited the views of the Trustee concerned and considered the matter in the light of any such views; are a governor of any of the Schools and are removed from that office.

The Trustees may at any time co-opt any individual who is qualified to be appointed as a Trustee to fill a vacancy in their number or as an additional Trustee, but a co-opted Trustee holds office only until the next AGM.

A technical defect in the appointment of a Trustee of which the Trustees are unaware at the time does not invalidate decisions taken at a meeting.

15 Trustees’ proceedings

The Trustees must hold at least two meetings each year.

A quorum at a meeting of the Trustees is not less than half of the total number of Trustees, subject to a minimum of three Trustees.

A meeting of the Trustees may be held either in person or by suitable electronic means agreed by the Trustees in which all participants may communicate with all the other participants.

The Chair or (if the Chair is unable or unwilling to do so) some other Trustee chosen by the Trustees present presides at each meeting.

Every issue may be determined by a simple majority of the votes cast at a meeting, but a written resolution signed by all the Trustees is as valid as a resolution passed at a meeting. For this purpose the resolution may be contained in more than one document and will be treated as passed on the date of the last signature.

Except for the chair of the meeting, who has a casting vote, every Trustee has one vote on each issue.

The chair of the Forum, if not themselves a Trustee, may attend meetings of the Trustees as an observer.

A procedural defect of which the Trustees are unaware at the time does not invalidate decisions taken at a meeting.

16 Trustees’ powers

In exercising their powers, subject to their duties, the Trustees shall have regard to the views of the Forum, and ensure that the affairs of the Trust are conducted to deliver the object of the Trust in accordance with the spirit and intention of Articles 3 and 4 of these Articles and the Trust's obligations to promote community cohesion under the Education Acts (where applicable). The Trustees have the following powers in the administration of the Trust:

Page 143

To appoint (and remove) any person (who may be a Trustee) to act as Secretary in accordance with the Companies Act.

Each year at the first meeting after the Annual General Meeting to appoint a Chair from among their number.

To make rules consistent with the Articles and the Companies Act to govern their proceedings, the proceedings of the Forum and proceedings at general meetings.

To make regulations consistent with the Articles and the Companies Act to govern the administration of the Trust and the use of its seal (if any).

To establish procedures to assist the resolution of disputes or differences within the Trust.

To exercise any powers of the Trust which are not reserved to a general meeting.

17 Records and Accounts

The Trustees must comply with the requirements of the Companies Act and of the Charities Act as to keeping financial records, the audit or other scrutiny of accounts and the preparation and transmission to the Registrar of Companies and the Commission of:

annual returns;

annual reports; and

annual statements of account.

The Trustees must keep proper records of:

all proceedings at general meetings;

all proceedings at meetings of the Trustees;

all reports of committees; and

all professional advice obtained.

Accounting records relating to the Trust must be made available for inspection by any Trustee at any time during normal office hours and may be made available for inspection by members who are not Trustees if the Trustees so decide.

A copy of the Trust’s latest available statement of account must be supplied on request to any Trustee or member. A copy must also be supplied, within two months, to any other person who makes a written request and pays the Trust’s reasonable costs.

Page 144

18 Notices

Notices under the Articles may be sent by hand, by post or by suitable electronic means.

The only address at which a member is entitled to receive notices sent by post is an address shown in the register of members.

Any notice given in accordance with these Articles is to be treated for all purposes as having been received:

24 hours after being sent by electronic means or delivered by hand to the relevant address; two clear days after being sent by first class post to that address; three clear days after being sent by second class or overseas post to that address; on the date of publication of a newspaper containing the notice; on being handed to the member (or, in the case of a member organisation, its authorised representative) personally; or, if earlier, as soon as the member acknowledges actual receipt.

A technical defect in the giving of notice of which the Trustees are unaware at the time does not invalidate decisions taken at a meeting.

19 Indemnity

Subject to the provisions of the Education Acts, the Trust may indemnify any Trustee, Auditor, Reporting Accountant, Independent Examiner or other officer of the Charity against liability incurred by them in that capacity, in the case of a Trustee, to the extent permitted by section 232 of the Companies Act or, in the case of an Auditor, to the extent permitted by sections 532 and 533 of the Companies Act.

Page 145

20 Start-up arrangements

The provisions of the Articles shall apply, except where they are varied by the start-up arrangements below.

The first Trustees shall be those persons notified to Companies House as the first Trustees of the Trust.

The first Trustees and any Trustees appointed before the first Annual General Meeting shall all retire at the conclusion of the first Annual General Meeting, and Trustees shall be appointed in the way provided in the Articles. Not less than a third of these Trustees (to be determined by drawing lots at the first Annual General Meeting) shall retire after three years; not less than a third of them (to be determined likewise) shall retire after four years, and the remaining Trustees shall retire after five years.

The first Trustees shall decide who shall comprise the first members of the Forum.

The first members of the Forum shall all retire at the conclusion of the first Annual General Meeting, and thereafter members of the Forum shall be elected or appointed as provided in the Articles.

21 Interpretation

In the Articles, unless the context indicates another meaning: ‘AGM’ means an annual general meeting of the Trust;

‘the Articles’ means the Trust’s articles of association;

‘authorised representative’ means an individual who is authorised by a member organisation to act on its behalf at meetings of the Trust and whose name is given to the Secretary;

‘Chair’ means the chair of the Trustees;

‘the Charities Act’ means the Charities Act 1993;

‘charity trustee’ has the meaning prescribed by section 97(1) of the Charities Act;

‘clear day’ means 24 hours from midnight following the relevant event;

‘the Commission’ means the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales;

‘the Companies Act’ means the Companies Act 2006;

‘connected person’ means any spouse, partner, parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild of a Trustee, any firm of which a Trustee is a member or employee, and any Trust of which a Trustee is a Trustee, employee or shareholder having a beneficial interest in more than 1 per cent of the share capital;

‘Education Acts’ means the Education Acts as defined in Section 578 of the Education Act 1996 and includes any regulations made under the Education Acts;

‘financial year’ means the Trust’s financial year; ‘firm’ includes a

limited liability partnership; ‘GM’ means a general meeting of

the Trust;

‘indemnity insurance’ means insurance against personal liability incurred by any Trustee for an act or omission which is or is alleged to be a breach of trust or breach of duty, but subject to the limitations specified in section 73F(2) Charities Act; Page 146

‘material benefit’ means a benefit which may not be financial but has a monetary value;

‘member’ and ‘membership’ refer to Trust membership of the Trust; ‘Memorandum’

means the Trust’s Memorandum of Association; ‘month’ means calendar month;

‘the Objects’ means the Objects of the Trust as defined in Article 3 of the Articles;

‘ordinary resolution’ means a resolution which is passed by a majority of the members;

‘Qualifying School’ means a foundation school within the meaning of Section 21(1)(a) Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998;

‘Schools’ means any school in respect of which the Trust acts as a foundation for the purposes of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;

‘Secretary’ means the secretary of the Trust;

‘taxable trading’ means carrying on a trade or business for the principal purpose of raising funds and not for the purpose of actually carrying out the Object, the profits of which are subject to corporation tax and do not qualify for charity exemption;

‘the Trust’ means the Trust governed by the Articles;

‘Trustee’ means a Trustee of the Trust and ‘Trustees’ means the Trustees;

‘written’ or ‘in writing’ refers to a legible document on paper including a fax message;

‘year’ means calendar year.

Expressions defined in the Companies Act have the same meaning.

References to an Act of Parliament are to that Act as amended or re-enacted from time to time and to any subordinate legislation made under it.

Page 147 Agenda Item 9

Council

Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman published report on Report Title CWCN and AWLD

Ward All Item No.

Contributors Executive Director for Children & Young People Executive Director for Community Services

Class Open Date 3 October 2018

1. Purpose

1.1. This report brings to the Council’s attention the outcome of a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigation following a complaint from a Lewisham resident regarding services provided by the Children with Complex Needs Service and Adults with Learning Disabilities team. The complaint was upheld. The report was recommended to the Council for acceptance at a Mayor & Cabinet meeting held on September 20 2018.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 The LGSCO final report explains that a resident, who is a mother and carer for a young person with learning disabilities, complained about the way the Council assessed her son’s eligibility for special educational provision, social care and transport when he transferred from school to college aged 19. She also complained about the Council’s failure to offer a personal education budget or to mediate disagreements.

2.2 The resident claimed that she had been caused injustice by the actions/inactions of the Council as she could not look for paid employment because the Council expected her to be available to drive her adult son to and from his college and activities. She also claimed that she had been put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing a complaint; and her son had no support workers to take him to his weekly activities, so he had to attend with his mother, which compromised his previous independence.

2.3 There followed a protracted period where the LGSCO asked for updated information and gave expectations for when that information should be provided, only for there to be repeated delays in the Council’s response.

2.4 The LGSCO report attached at Appendix 1 gives the Ombudsman’s finding of fault leading to injustice in several areas covered by the complaint

Page 148 1

3. Recommendation

3.1 It is recommended that Council receives the contents of the report and endorses the action which has been taken.

4. Policy & Legislative context

4.1 Lewisham Council’s Corporate Priorities are:

4.1.1 Community leadership and empowerment – developing opportunities for the active participation and engagement of people in the life of the community

4.1.2 young people’s achievement and involvement – raising educational attainment and improving facilities for young people through partnership working

4.1.3 clean, green and liveable – improving environmental management, the cleanliness and care for roads and pavements and promoting a sustainable environment

4.1.4 safety, security and a visible presence – partnership working with the police and others and using the Council’s powers to combat anti-social behaviour

4.1.5 strengthening the local economy – gaining resources to regenerate key localities strengthen employment skills and promote public transport

4.1.6 decent homes for all – investment in social and affordable housing to achieve the decent homes standard, tackle homelessness and supply key worker housing

4.1.7 protection of children – better safeguarding and joined up services for children at risk

4.1.8 caring for adults and older people - working with health services to support older people and adults in need of care

4.1.9 active, healthy citizens – leisure, sporting, learning and creative activities for everyone

4.1.10 inspiring efficiency effectiveness and equity – ensuring efficiency, effectiveness and equity in the delivery of excellent services to meet the needs of the community

Page 149 2 4.2 Lewisham’s Sustainable Communities Strategy 2008 – 2020 includes the priority: “Ambitious and Achieving”, where people are inspired and supported to achieve their potential. The strategy sets out commitments to support all our young people by removing barriers to learning, and more broadly to tackle inequality and narrow the gaps in outcomes for our citizens, including children and young people with complex needs.

4.3 Lewisham’s Children and Young People’s Plan 2015 – 2018 sets out the vision of Lewisham’s Children and Young People’s Partnership for improving outcomes for all children. It articulates the need to improve outcomes for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities by ensuring that their needs are identified and met

4.4 Lewisham’s SEND Strategy 2016-19 sets out the vision for children and young people with Special Education Needs and Disability and their families and sets out the three key areas for change for Lewisham:- ,

1. Children and young people (0-25yrs) with SEND and their families are informed and empowered to be more resilient and independent within their communities. 2. Children and young people with SEND who have been identified as requiring additional support across Health, Social Care and Education receive the right support at the right time in order to enable them to become as independent as possible 3. Children and young people with SEND have the opportunity to be educated within Lewisham’s education provision and are provided with the right support to enable them to achieve their full potential.

4.5 Under the Children and Families Act 2014, the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) reforms emphasize the importance of improving the life chances and well-being for young people with complex needs.

4.6 Under the Care Act 2014 and Care Act Guidance, councils have a duty to carry out an assessment where ‘an adult may have needs for care and support’ and also consider carrying out a carer’s assessment if it appears a career may have need for support.

5. Background and detail of the findings

5.1 The LGSCO is the final stage for complaints about councils and some other organisations providing local public services. Once the LGSCO concludes his investigation, if he finds there has been fault or injustice, he is required under Section 30(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 to provide a report without naming or identifying the complainant or other individuals

5.2 The LGSCO is also able to require the Council to take certain actions, in this case the Council has been required to release a public notice in more than one newspaper within two weeks of the LGSCO report being published, and to

Page 150 3 make the report available at one or more of the Council’s offices for three weeks.

5.3 Fault was found because:

5.3.1 the Council delayed in completing the transfer from a Statement of Special Educational Needs to an Education Health & Care Plan (EHCP), missing the statutory timescale

5.3.2 the Council took too long to complete a Care Act assessment and failed to assess, as part of that assessment, Mental Capacity, transport needs to college and leisure activities, and carer’s needs;

5.3.3 the Council did not provide information about transport at an appropriate time and has not recognised its duties under s.508f of The Education Act; and

5.3.4 the Council misinterpreted the terms of the Mobility Care Scheme.

5.4 The LGSCO criticised the Council for not having in place a post-19 transport policy, noting the absence of such means that young people and their families in the Council’s area cannot make informed decisions about post-19 placements and thus cannot easily challenge the Council’s decisions about transport.

6. The LGSCO’s recommendations

6.1 The LGSCO has made 28 recommendations in total. A comprehensive list is included in the final report and has been included as a separate action plan at Appendix 2.

6.2 In the main, the Council must consider the report and its recommendations and within three months confirm the action it has taken or proposes to take as a result.

6.3 Some of the recommendations made place an expectation on the Council to provide its resident with a financial remedy.

6.4 Additionally, the report must be tabled for discussion at full Council, cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members, at which the Council must evidence within three months the action it has taken.

7. Management Response

7.1 The CWCN Service, and Adults with Learning Disabilities team, accept the findings and are implementing the recommendations. While some aspects of the findings flow from an interpretation of the obligations on councils that was not expected by Lewisham or many other local authorities, the report has also

Page 151 4 highlighted shortcomings our in handling of complaints which are being addressed urgently.

7.2 The Executive Director for Children and Young People has written to the resident to apologise formally for the shortcomings highlighted. The letter is attached as Appendix 3.

7.3 The financial compensation recommended will be made available imminently as soon as the council has the information from the resident required to complete the payment.

7.4 The CWCN service has undertaken a retrospective review of Mr Y’s eligibility for travel assistance in relation to section 508f of the Education Act and judged Mr Y to be eligible. Mr Y is currently living out of borough with Ms X. The family have been contacted and it has been agreed with the family that a fresh application will be submitted when the resident returns to the borough. It is very likely that Mr Y will be eligible for travel assistance under Section 508F and will be provided with travel assistance free of charge.

7.5 The CWCN service and AWLD team are in the process of collating information about other young people who may have been affected in the same way as Mr Y. It has been identified that there are 230 young people over 18yrs with an EHCP and 70 of those young people already receive travel assistance.

7.6 The AWLD team has been in contact with the resident regarding the Care Act assessment and the other issues in the Ombudsman recommendations. He has however temporarily moved outside the borough of Lewisham.

7.7 The Council did have a post 16 transport statement in addition to the home to School 5-16 Transport Policy in 2016. This statement is updated yearly but did not specifically detail Section 508F of the Education Act. Last year (2017) the Council developed a post 16 transport policy. The LGSCO found fault as this policy did not reflect section 508F of the Education Act. The Council’s policy has been updated to reflect section 508F and is available on the Council web site and as part of the SEND Local Offer.

7.8 The CWCN Service has provided all relevant staff within the Service with information on the updated sections in the Education Act and provided them with the updated post 16 Transport Policy. The CWCN Service will develop a new 0-25 transport policy over the next year.

8. Financial implications

8.1 The total remedy to be paid to the resident is £9,700. The resident has been asked to provide banking details so that a payment can be made.

8.2 Work is underway to assess how many other residents are affected by these recommendations and the resulting costs. Page 152 5

9. Legal implications

9.1 The Commission for Local Administration, now known as the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (“LGSCO”) was established by the Local Government Act 1974. The Local Government Ombudsman covers local authorities and other specific public bodies.

9.2 The 1974 Act sets out that “injustice” suffered, must arise from the fault by the authority. Injustice may include any one or more of the following: hurt feelings, distress, worry, or inconvenience, loss of right or amenity, not receiving a service, financial loss or unnecessary expense, time and trouble in pursuing a justified complaint.

9.3 Where the Ombudsman reports that there has been a finding of fault leading to injustice a report is sent to the parties involved. Section 92 of the Local Government Act 2000 gives Local Authorities the power to pay compensation or provide some other benefit to a person adversely affected by the actions of the Council or its Officers. The Ombudsman makes recommendations but cannot compel the Council to implement its recommendations.

9.4 There is no right of appeal against a decision by the Local Government Ombudsman. It may be possible to apply for a judicial review of that decision, subject to obtaining leave from the Court. Such a challenge is not however on the merits of the decision itself, but upon the legal basis of the decision.

9.5 The Council when carrying out its functions, must always seek to comply with the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It introduced a new public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty). It covers the following nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

9.6 In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

- Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.

- advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

- Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

9.7 The duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations. Page 153 6

9.8 The Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently issued Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty and statutory guidance entitled “Equality Act 2010 Services, Public Functions & Associations Statutory Code of Practice”. The Council must have regard to the statutory code in so far as it relates to the duty and attention is drawn to Chapter 11 which deals particularly with the equality duty. The Technical Guidance also covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty. This includes steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance does not have statutory force but nonetheless regard should be had to it, as failure to do so without compelling reason would be of evidential value. The statutory code and the technical guidance can be found at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/equality-act/equality-act- codes-of-practice-and-technical-guidance/

9.9 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously issued five guides for public authorities in England giving advice on the equality duty:

1. The essential guide to the public sector equality duty 2. Meeting the equality duty in policy and decision-making 3. Engagement and the equality duty 4. Equality objectives and the equality duty 5. Equality information and the equality duty

9.10 The essential guide provides an overview of the equality duty requirements including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who they apply to. It covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The other four documents provide more detailed guidance on key areas and advice on good practice. Further information and resources are available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public-sector- equality-duty/guidance-on-the-equality-duty/

10. Crime and disorder implications

10.1 There are no direct crime and disorder implications arising from this report.

11. Equalities implications

11.1 The council has many decision making processes where it is gatekeeping and assessing users’ eligibility for services. It is vital that the council is fair and seen to be fair, especially for services users who are vulnerable by reason of disability or other issues.

12. Environmental implications

12.1 There are no environmental implications arising from this report. Page 154 7

13. Background papers and report author

If you require further information about this report, please contact Sara Williams, Executive Director for Children & Young People on 020 8314 8527.

The full report produced by the LGO is included at Appendix 1.

Page 155 8 Report by the Local Government Ombudsman and Social Care Ombudsman

Investigation into a complaint against London Borough of Lewisham (reference number: 16 012 609)

<4 July 2018>

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman I PO Box 4771 I Coventry I CV4 0EH www.lgo.org.uk

Page 156 The Ombudsman’s role

For 40 years the Ombudsman has independently and impartially investigated complaints. We effectively resolve disputes about councils and other bodies in our jurisdiction by recommending redress which is proportionate, appropriate and reasonable based on all the facts of the complaint. Our service is free of charge.

Each case which comes to the Ombudsman is different and we take the individual needs and circumstances of the person complaining to us into account when we make recommendations to remedy injustice caused by fault.

We have no legal power to force councils to follow our recommendations, but they almost always do. Some of the things we might ask a council to do are:

 apologise

 pay a financial remedy

 improve its procedures so similar problems don’t happen again.

Page 157 Investigation into complaint number 16 012 609 against London Borough of Lewisham Contents

Report summary...... 1 The complaint...... 2 Legal and administrative background...... 2 How we considered this complaint ...... 7 What we found ...... 7 Analysis and Conclusions ...... 13 Decision...... 20 Recommendations ...... 20

Section 30 of the 1974 Local Government Act says that a report should not normally name or identify any person. The people involved in this complaint are referred to by a letter or job role.

Key to names used

Ms X – the complainant

Mr Y – the complainant’s son

Page 158 Report summary

Special Educational Needs / Adult Care Services:

A mother and carer complains about the way the Council assessed her son’s eligibility for special educational provision, social care and transport when he transferred from school to college. She also complains about the Council’s failure to offer a personal education budget or to mediate disagreements. Finding

Fault found causing injustice and recommendations made.

Recommendations

The Council has accepted our recommendations. The Council will consider the report at its full Council or Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. We will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

In addition to the requirements set out above the Council has agreed to take the following action to remedy the injustice identified in this report. The Council will:

 apologise to Ms X and Mr Y;

 retake its decision about Mr Y’s eligibility for transport;

 review Mr Y’s care assessment and care plan to ensure it fully reflects his needs;

 provide a financial remedy to Ms X and Mr Y;

 develop and publish a transport policy for post-19 learners;

 review its policies, guidance and training in areas where we have identified fault; and

 carry out a review of other cases where young people may have been similarly affected.

Page 159 1 The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council assessed her son’s (Mr Y’s) eligibility for special educational provision, social care and transport when he transferred from school to college. She also complains about the Council’s failure to offer a personal education budget or to mediate disagreements.

2. Ms X says the Council has caused injustice as:

 she cannot look for paid employment because the Council expects her to be available to drive her adult son to and from his college and activities;

 she has been put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing a complaint; and

 Mr Y had no support workers to take him to his weekly activities, so had to attend with his mother, which compromised his previous independence.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

4. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

6. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (‘SEND’))

7. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Decision making

8. The Ombudsman’s guidance ‘Good Administrative Practice’ (2001) sets out principles of good administration in decision making. These include:

 ensuring adequate consideration is given to all relevant and material factors in making a decision, including any special circumstances of the case;

Page 160 2  ensuring irrelevant considerations are not taken into account in making a decision;

 having regard to relevant codes of practice and government guidance.

Transfers to Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans

9. The Children and Families Act 2014 established a new system where EHC Plans would (by April 2018) replace statements of special educational needs (SEN). When a statement of SEN is transferred to an EHC plan the council needs to carry out an assessment of a young person’s education, health and care needs. (Section 36 (2) Children and Families Act 2014)

10. The council must gather advice and information to inform the EHC assessment from various sources, including social care. It is the council’s duty to lead the process and collect the advices. Government guidance says any social care assessment required should be combined with the EHC needs assessment. (‘Social care: guide to the 0 to 25 SEND Code of Practice. Advice for social care practitioners and commissioners’)

11. Where, in the light of an EHC needs assessment, the council considers it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a young person in accordance with an EHC plan, the council must ensure that a plan is prepared. The plan must specify:

 the special educational provision the young person needs (in Part F of the plan);

 any health care provision required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the young person having special educational needs (in Part G of the plan);

 in the case of a young person over 18 any social care provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the young person having special educational needs (in Part H of the plan). (S.37 The Children and Families Act 2014)

12. Social care or health provision which ‘educates or trains’ a young person may be ‘deemed educational provision’ (s. 21(5) Children and Families Act / East Sussex County Council v TW [2016]) and included in Part F of the EHC plan, rather than in Part G or H. Councils have a legal duty to secure the special educational provision specified in Part F of an EHC plan (s.42(2) The Children and Families Act 2014). Provision specified in Part F can be appealed to SEND.

13. The Children and Families Act 2014 (Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2014 details the procedure for transferring statements to EHC plans.

 Where a council maintains a Statement of SEN for a young person who is expected to transfer to a post-16 institution the council must conclude the EHC needs assessment before 31 March in the calendar year in which the transfer takes place.

 A local authority must give notice to the young person or parent two weeks before the EHC needs assessment begins.

Page 161 3  A local authority must invite the young person / parent to a meeting with a relevant council officer to discuss the education, health and care needs.

 Where a local authority decides it is necessary for special educational provision to be made in accordance with an EHC plan it must send the finalised plan to the parent or young person as soon as practicable and in any event within 14 weeks of the day notice was given.

Mediation

14. Where there is disagreement with the contents of an EHC plan, the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out two pathways for mediation, depending whether the parent wants to mediate about education matters which can be appealed to SEND, or other parts of the plan. (The Children and Families Act 2014 (sections 51-56) and Section 11 of the SEN Code of Practice 2014)

15. The notice sent to the parent with the final EHC plan must tell the parent they can go to mediation about health and care aspects of the plan and give the details of the person at the local authority to contact if the parent wishes to mediate. The local authority must arrange mediation if the parent disagrees with the education or social care elements of the plan. Mediation about matters which can be appealed to SEND must take place within 30 days.

Preparation for adulthood

16. Transition planning for learners with SEN who have a Statement or EHC plan should start in Year 9 (SEN Code of Practice 2001 and 2015). Preparation for adulthood involves not only assessing how the needs of the young person change, but also how carers needs might change.

17. For young people transitioning to adulthood, the Care Act introduced a specific duty to carry out a ‘Child Needs Assessment’ where there is ‘likely to be a need for care and support’ after they reach 18. Councils must also assess the needs of an adult carer where there is a likely need for support after the child turns 18 and it is of significant benefit to the carer to do so. This includes considering whether additional support is required to support a carer’s employment. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance issued under the Care Act 2014 (‘the Care Act Guidance’), paragraph 16.21)

18. The SEN Code of Practice 2015 (‘The Code’) sets out the importance of providing a full package of provision and support across education, health and care for young people with an EHC plan that covers five days a week, where that is appropriate to meet the young person’s needs. (paragraph 8.39) The Care Act guidance (paragraph 16.22) states the importance of full-time programmes for young people aged 16 and over to ‘allow parents to remain in employment full time’.

19. Parents and carers are responsible for ensuring children of compulsory school age attend school (S.7 Education Act 1996). There is no similar duty for dependent adult children with an EHC plan. Parental responsibility ends when a young person reaches age 18.

Page 162 4 Mental capacity

20. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to young people from age 16 onwards. It is essential the capacity of disabled young people to make each individual decision is properly assessed and decisions taken on their behalf are made in their ‘best interests’.

21. Where a young person lacks mental capacity (and does not have an appointed representative) then decisions relating to EHC assessments and plans can be taken by the young person’s parent. (SEN Code of Practice 2014, Annex 1)

Social care assessments

22. Under the Care Act 2014 and Care Act Guidance councils have a duty to carry out an assessment where ‘an adult may have needs for care and support’ and, also consider carrying out a carer’s assessment if it appears a carer may have need for support.

23. Under the Care Act 2014 councils must support a person’s involvement in assessments and support planning, which may include identifying an ‘appropriate individual’ to enable their involvement or arranging independent advocacy.

24. The Care Act Guidance says an assessment ‘should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs and a consideration of any fluctuation in those needs. Local authorities should inform the individual of an indicative timescale over which their assessment will be conducted and keep the person informed throughout the assessment process’.

25. The care assessment must identify the total extent of needs before a council considers the person’s eligibility for care and support. Any eligible needs met by a carer are not required to be met by the local authority, for as long as the carer continues to do so. The council must consider whether the carer is, and will continue to be, ‘able and willing’ to care for the adult needing care. This must include consideration of the carer’s activities beyond their caring responsibilities, for example employment or a desire to work.

26. Where a council has determined a person has eligible needs that are not being met by a carer, it must meet those needs (subject to the applicant meeting the financial criteria).

27. Where an individual lacks capacity the local authority must carry out a mental capacity assessment and take decisions in their ‘best interests’.

28. Individuals should be able to make a complaint and challenge decisions made under the Care Act.

Personal budgets

29. Parents and young people can request a local authority provide a personal budget for special educational provision in an EHC plan and request direct payments. The request must be made when the draft EHC plan is being prepared, reviewed or re-assessed. (The Special Educational Needs (Personal Budget) Regulations 2014 Section 4(1))

Page 163 5 30. The Care Act 2014 required local authorities to give all eligible social care users a personal budget from April 2015.

Transport to education setting

31. Section 508F of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make transport arrangements they consider ‘necessary’ (or that the Secretary of State directs) to facilitate the attendance of relevant young adults at institutions where the local authority has secured the provision of education for the adult concerned. Relevant young adult means an adult who is under 25 for whom an EHC plan is maintained. (The Children and Families Act 2014, s.82)

32. When a council finds it is ‘necessary’ to provide transport for the young adult under s.508F then the transport must be free of charge (s.508F(4)).

33. If a local authority does not consider it ‘necessary’ to provide transport under 508F it may still choose to pay some or all of the reasonable travel costs under s.508F(8) or as social care provision under the Care Act.

34. Under s.508G of the Education Act 1996 local authorities are required to set out information about the travel provision they have in place for relevant young learners so they and their families can make informed choices between institutions. The SEN Code of Practice 2014 requires councils to have clear policies about transport in their Local Offer.

35. Councils can make payments to parents and carers of pupils with SEN to act as an escort or use the family car to transport them. Government guidance ‘Home to School Travel for Pupils Requiring Special Arrangements’ (2004) says councils should set out in their policy when they will do this and the amounts parents or carers are entitled to.

36. The application of a transport policy in relation to a disabled young person engages the Equality Act 2010. Councils are required to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity to access education between persons with a disability and those without.

37. The Secretary of State for Education can consider complaints about how a local authority had carried out its transport function (s.508 Education Act 1996). The Secretary of State can direct a local authority to make transport arrangements or provide financial assistance for individuals or groups of learners (s.509A(9)) but expects the local authority to have been notified of the issue and had an opportunity to investigate and respond to the matter first. This means councils should provide information about how to complain about a transport decision under the Education Act.

38. The Department of Education’s Statutory Guidance for Post-16 Transport (2014/ 2017) says any complaint or appeal procedure about a transport decision should be published alongside the local authority travel policy statement.

39. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) has considered transport for post-19 learners with an EHC plan (s.508F). The Tribunal commented that: ‘the local authority has a duty to make transport arrangements for [a post 19 learner] if they consider that to be ‘necessary’ having regard to all the relevant circumstances. This is not Page 164 6 a pure discretion. Although the question of what is necessary is a matter for them, in deciding that question they must exercise their judgment judiciously and in good faith. If they come to the conclusion that it is necessary, they must make the necessary arrangement and the transportation must be free of charge’. (Staffordshire County Council v JM 2016)

Disability living allowance, mobility cars and transport eligibility

40. In March 2017 we issued a Focus Report ‘All on board? Navigating school transport issues – learning lessons from complaints’. We advised councils that:

 it is the conditions set out in the Education Act 1996 that are relevant to transport eligibility not whether a person receives disability living allowance (DLA). (The same principle would apply to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) which has replaced DLA for adults);

 Motability is the body that runs the mobility car scheme for those in receipt of DLA and PIP. Unless the council in question is the legal appointee for the disabled person, it is not in charge of the Motability agreement and cannot specify how a mobility vehicle can be used.

How we considered this complaint

41. We have produced this report after examining relevant files and documents, speaking to Ms X by telephone and considering information on the Council’s website.

42. We gave Ms X and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited them to comment. We took their comments into account before finalising the report.

What we found

Key facts - education

43. Ms X brings the complaint on her own behalf and on behalf of her son, Mr Y. Mr Y is a young adult with Down’s Syndrome who has had a Statement of SEN since 2009. From 2011 to July 2016 Mr Y attended a local authority special school to which the Council provided free transport.

44. In September 2016, at age 19, Mr Y transferred to a specialist college. The college is four and a half miles from his home across London.

45. Under the Government’s transition timetable and the Council’s own transfer plan, Mr Y’s Statement should have been transferred to an EHC plan by 31 March 2016. (The Children and Families Act 2014 (Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2014)

46. On 13 April 2015, the Council asked Mr Y’s school to hold an EHC meeting in May or June. It asked the School to complete a ‘This is My World’ form with Ms X and Mr Y and provide it with recent therapy reports. The Council told the School it would use the form to provide a pre-populated EHC plan for the conversion meeting. Page 165 7 47. Ms X’s understanding is the 13 April letter was the start of the EHC transfer. In April 2015, the statutory timescale was 14 weeks and the final EHC plan was due by July 2015.

48. The School collected evidence from the occupational therapist (OT) speech and language therapist (SLT) and the educational psychologist and arranged a meeting for 15 July 2015. Ms X understood this to be both the EHC conversion and annual review meeting.

49. Ms X completed and returned the ‘This is My World’ form in October 2015 and asked for a specialist college placement for Mr Y to attend from September 2016.

50. Ms X received a draft EHC plan from the Council on 10 November 2015 ahead of a meeting with the SEN officer on 11 November.

51. On 26 November, the SEN officer asked the Council’s conversion panel to consider the placement request, social care involvement and physiotherapy funding.

52. On 27 November, the SEN Officer told Ms X she would be seeking further OT and physiotherapy advice. Once these reports were received the Council would issue ‘a draft plan’. The Officer said the EHC plan would be finalised naming the current school placement and then updated later naming Mr Y’s next provision. Ms X was advised to look at local colleges. The Officer did not mention a social care assessment, although this possibility had been discussed on 11 November.

53. Mr Y was assessed by therapists on 25 February 2016. Ms X had to postpone one appointment due to a hospital admission, but she told us there was no other delay on her part.

54. The Council issued a draft EHC plan on 29 March 2016. Ms X again asked for the specialist college to be named. On 22 April Ms X complained the Council had not returned her telephone messages about Mr Y’s next placement.

55. The Council responded on 25 May that delay in issuing the EHC plan was because Ms X had asked for OT and physiotherapy assessments to be put on hold. Ms X denies this and says the delay was due to the Council still consulting local colleges. The Council recognised delay in issuing the EHC plan meant Ms X could not appeal, but said it was continuing to negotiate with Ms X to agree the Plan and avoid an appeal.

56. On 25 June 2016 Ms X complained to us about delay issuing the final EHC plan. The Council then issued the final EHC plan on 30 June 2016 naming Ms X’s preferred college from September 2016.

57. On 9 August 2016 Ms X wrote to the Council expressing her disagreement with the Plan due to:

 lack of transport;

 lack of social care provision; and

 level of OT and physiotherapy input (as deemed educational provision). Page 166 8 Ms X requested a personal budget for the provision and for the Council to mediate.

58. On 15 September Ms X complained the Council had failed to respond to her mediation request within 30 days.

59. The SEN team replied on 16 September that it could not mediate therapy provision and transport and social care was not its remit.

60. Mr Y’s representative appealed Part F of the EHC plan to the SEND Tribunal about OT and physiotherapy provision only. The appeal was heard in January 2017. SEND ordered therapy input be added to Part F of the EHC plan.

 OT input was increased from half termly to two hours a fortnight.

 Physiotherapy advice was increased from termly to one hour a fortnight.

61. Ms X made a costs application against the Council. This was not successful. The Judge found no duty on the Council to take part in mediation once an appeal had been made and the refusal by the Council to mediate therapy provision was reasonable.

Key facts – social care and transport

62. Ms X did not complete the part of the ‘This is My World’ form that dealt with social care needs other than to state Mr Y did not have a social worker. Social care involvement was supposed to be discussed at the November 2015 panel but the Council did not carry out an assessment.

63. Ms X then requested a social care assessment for Mr Y in February 2016 and a social worker met Ms X and Mr Y on 8 June 2016. Ms X said this was a brief meeting which did not include discussion of her needs as a carer or Mr Y’s transport to college. Ms X told us she had assumed Mr Y would continue to receive free transport. At the time of this meeting Ms X did not know which college Mr Y would attend as she says the Council was still consulting placements.

64. Mr Y’s EHC Plan of 30 June 2016 said only that Mr Y was having a social care assessment. No care provision was identified or advice attached. In August 2016, Ms X asked the Council to attend mediation about the lack of social care and transport provision in the EHC plan.

65. On 15 September Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide transport and to arrange the mediation. Ms X told the Council her son was now 19, it was no longer her responsibility to transport him and she was not prepared to continue to do this as it had a detrimental effect on her ability to return to work. Ms X complained the Council had breached its statutory duty in issuing an EHC plan without a social care assessment.

66. On 18 October 2016 the Council’s Adult Social Care team replied to Ms X’s complaint. It did not uphold the complaint because it said Mr Y’s travel needs were met in the following ways:

Page 167 9  Mr Y attends a local college and has a mobility car.

 While Mr Y could not drive the car himself, it was not unreasonable for the Council to expect his vehicle be used to travel to college.

 A significant amount of Mr Y’s mobility benefit was used to pay for the car.

 Ms X did not currently work and had support from her partner to care for Mr Y.

 The social worker had explained in June that Mr Y’s travel to and from college would need to be met by use of his mobility car.

 With regard to affecting Ms X’s ability to work, the car is chiefly for Mr Y’s use and six other drivers can be added to the insurance, Ms X could consider adding another driver or contacting other parents to journey share if she could not drive her son herself.

67. The Council said the SEN team could not mediate because, as Mr Y was an adult, his transport was not a consideration for that team. The Council agreed to send Ms X a copy of the social care assessment and advised her to complain to us.

68. Ms X received the social care assessment on 30 November 2016. It said:

 ‘Special factors: Transition with EHCP – Transition 2016’;

 Mr Y could not manage his own care and daily living needs and these had to be undertaken by another person;

 Mr Y needed someone to be constantly present day and night;

 Mr Y had received no support from children’s services, only a travel assistant (since 3 February 2016);

 morning, daytime and evening support would be provided by ‘family, friends, volunteers’;

 Mr Y would attend college daily from 9.30am to 3pm except on Fridays: ‘On Friday afternoons...A carer will collect [Mr Y] from [College] at 11.30a.m.and return home with him having had lunch and taken him to an agreed activity’;

 under ‘Summary of Needs’ the social worker has written ‘Day to day activities – Mr Y need support to participate in various community activities...Eligible – Yes’.

69. There was no provision for college holidays. The assessment makes no reference to a discussion about future transport to college or to Mr Y having a mobility car.

70. The assessment has one paragraph about Ms X’s own needs which said she was not currently working, her partner supported her caring role and Mr Y attended college. The social worker concluded caring had a ‘minor restriction’ on Ms X’s activities.

Page 168 10 71. On 9 December 2016 Ms X disagreed with the assessment because:

 Mr Y’s care needs were not met;

 support identified as required for Friday afternoons was not being provided;

 the assessment document was not dated or signed;

 the document referred to travel support starting on 3 February 2016 when Mr Y had received travel support from October 2011 to July 2016, but this had stopped since his move to college;

 Ms X was no longer with her partner;

 ‘Family, friends and volunteers’ had not agreed to provide support seven mornings and evenings;

 Mr Y needed round the clock care and had no-one other than Ms X to support him; this was not a ‘minor restriction’ on Ms X’s activities;

 there were no contingency care arrangements in place if Ms X became ill.

72. The social worker agreed to amend the assessment to remove reference to Ms X’s partner. The amended version (shared in February 2017) included the following changes:

 The social worker added that college transport had been discussed at the meeting at Mr Y’s school in June 2016.

 Ms X’s comments that she no longer had a partner were noted.

 Ms X’s comments about the level of care she provided and restrictions on her working were added. The social worker changed the assessment of impact to the main carer from ‘minor restriction’ on activities to ‘significant restriction’.

73. Ms X told us the Council’s funding panel met in December 2016 and approved twelve and a half hours a week of one to one support for Mr Y’s social / leisure activities, but she did not find out about this decision until February 2017. Support was then put in place from March, but payment for the carer was not made until July 2017. Ms X told us the Council accepted fault in setting up direct payments and agreed not to charge Mr Y his financial contribution for the period March to July 2017 as a remedy.

74. Ms X told us she did not work when Mr Y was at school because Mr Y had many medical problems and needed several operations. When Mr Y left school Ms X says she wanted to have a choice about how she spent her time and intended to go back to work but was not able to do so when Mr Y was not awarded transport support.

75. On Fridays Mr Y finishes college at 11.30am. As no support worker was provided to collect him, Ms X had to do so. As it was not worth Ms X returning home for a short period she would wait near college to collect him. Page 169 11 76. Ms X also told us she was recently diagnosed with a serious medical condition and had to find friends to drive Mr Y to college while she received treatment or was too ill to do so.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

EHC transfer 77. The Council told us:

 the November 2015 document was a pre-populated plan to aid discussion not a draft plan to conclude the EHC transfer;

 it sent Ms X a copy of the notice of EHC transfer and conversion meeting but, as the officer in post at the time has left the Council, copies are not now available;

 the delay in the EHC process was because Ms X asked to delay therapy assessments between November 2015 and February 2016;

 the Council did miss the transfer deadline of 31 March 2016, but this was partly at Ms X’s request and many councils struggled to meet the new statutory timescales;

 the Council does not agree the EHC assessment and Care Act assessment must be combined (although acknowledges this would have been good practice).

Social care provision 78. The Council accepts there was delay in completing Mr Y’s care assessment before he turned 18 but maintains a conversion to an EHC plan did not require a full Care Act assessment. The social worker kept no separate notes of the June 2016 meeting; the assessment document is the record of the social worker’s involvement.

79. The Council says for most young people four days at college is considered full-time and providing leisure activities outside college is not an automatic entitlement. The Council was not clear why Ms X was ‘insisting’ on activities for the half day Mr Y was not in college.

80. Mr Y’s social care assessment produced an indicative budget but the Council told us Ms X did not engage with this budget. It also said the twelve and a half hours was Ms X’s ‘suggestion’, not the Council’s decision, and the indicative budget would not cover twelve and a half hours of support.

81. The Council does not accept it failed to consider what needs may arise during college holidays. It says it was for Ms X to plan her son’s indicative budget to achieve holiday provision and leisure activities outside the four and a half days of college.

82. The Council says Ms X declined a carer’s assessment due to her dissatisfaction with the first assessment, although later completed one in March 2017. The Council accepts Ms X has needs as a carer.

Page 170 12 Transport 83. The Council agrees transport should be assessed under s.508F of the Education Act and that it has discretion to provide free transport should it be ‘necessary’ in line with that Act.

84. The Council told us it provided transport support to Mr Y for many years and there is no evidence Ms X looked for employment opportunities during that time. Further, Mr Y has a mobility car and the Council considers it is reasonable to expect this to be used to meet his travel / mobility needs, which it says is a condition of funding mobility cars. As several named drivers are allowed to drive the car, the Council ‘feels it is unreasonable of Ms X not to make arrangements for the car to be available for her son’s regular need to travel to college. If the car cannot fulfil Mr Y’s needs in this way it should be relinquished and other more appropriate uses of Mr Y’s higher rate Disability Living Allowance should be explored...to ensure he can attend college’.

85. The Council has no transport policy for post-19 learners but is currently consulting to develop one and will consider whether to include a right of appeal.

Mediation 86. The Council says it expected Ms X to plan the indicative budget to meet Mr Y’s care needs, rather than mediate the EHC plan. As transport provision is not usually included in EHC plans, the Council says it did not mediate it.

87. The Council says it will discuss with its commissioned service mediating transport and social care disputes in future.

Analysis and Conclusions

The EHC transfer

88. There is disagreement between the Council and Ms X about delay in the EHC transfer. The Council says the only delay was from November 2015 until February 2016 and this was at Ms X’s request. This implies the Council considers the EHC conversion started in November 2015.

89. Ms X says the EHC assessment started in April 2015 when the Council asked the School to collect EHC advices and hold a meeting to discuss the EHC plan.

90. There should be no such confusion about the timetable because councils are required to serve notice two weeks before the assessment starts. The Council says it did serve a notice but cannot tell us when or provide a copy.

91. That evidence was collected from the professionals (except social care) in June and July 2015 supports Ms X’s position that the assessment process was triggered by the Council’s letter to the School in April. This meant Mr Y’s EHC plan was due in July 2015.

92. The Council should not have asked the School to collect EHC advices. It should have requested the evidence itself and led the process. Failure to do so is fault.

Page 171 13 93. Ms X / Mr Y did not complete their contribution to the EHC plan (via the ‘This is My World’ form) until October 2015. This may have been because Ms X was looking at suitable colleges. There is no legal requirement for parents or young people to complete a particular form before an EHC needs assessment can take place. This delay did not stop the Council considering whether further professional advice was required.

94. The SEN Officer met Ms X on 11 November 2015, having sent her a pre-populated plan the previous day. We accept the Council intended this to be a document to inform the discussion rather than a draft plan to conclude the conversion process. It told the School this, but does not appear to have informed Ms X.

95. The first draft plan issued under s.13 SEN and Disability Regulations 2014 was in March 2016.

96. The Council took far too long to complete the EHC transfer. It took fourteen months rather than the expected fourteen weeks. While this was a new process, this was excessive delay and is fault. The Council had the annual review report and expert opinions in July 2015. The Panel did not meet to discuss the case until November and only then decided more evidence was needed. While Ms X may then have postponed therapy appointments this doesn’t explain why, when the Council received this extra evidence in February 2016, and issued a draft plan in March, it did not issue the final plan until the end of June 2016. We find this delay is likely to be because the Council was still consulting colleges.

97. The Council failed to meet the statutory deadline for naming Mr Y’s placement by 31 March 2016. This is fault. The Council had ample time from receiving the advices in July 2015 to obtain further evidence, consult colleges and issue Mr Y’s plan on time.

98. By missing the deadline, Mr Y’s right of appeal was delayed. It follows that, but for the Council’s fault, Mr Y’s appeal would have been heard sooner and he would have received the additional therapy awarded by SEND from September 2016, not January 2017.

The social care assessment

99. The Council has accepted fault in not assessing Mr Y’s care needs before he reached 18. If it had done so then, on the balance of probability, Mr Y’s care provision would have been in place in time for him to start college in September 2016 at age 19 (if not sooner).

100. The Council failed to consider care needs during the EHC needs assessment. This is fault. Every EHC assessment requires consideration of social care needs. Young people must be invited to attend a meeting with a relevant officer to discuss education, health ‘and social care’ needs (Article 20(3) of the 2014 Order). Councils must also identify whether care provision is to be treated as ‘deemed educational provision’ and within a council’s statutory obligation to provide under s.42(2) Children and Families Act (with a right of appeal to SEND). The statutory scheme therefore does require councils to assess social care needs in conjunction with the EHC assessment, if only to identify any social care provision which should be treated as special educational provision. Given Mr Y’s age, the only appropriate social care assessment was under the Care Act.

Page 172 14 101. The SEN Officer and Council’s panel failed to make a social care referral in June and November 2015. This is fault and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the EHC process.

102. EHC and Care Act assessments should be combined where possible to reduce the administrative burden on families. The social worker recognised this by stating the EHC transition was a ‘Special Factor’. By the time the social worker met Ms X and Mr Y on 8 June 2016, the Council was already late in issuing the EHC plan. It was too late then to combine the two assessments. As a result, Mr Y’s EHC plan was issued without specifying the social care provision he was entitled to.

103. The social care assessment took too long. Ms X made the request in February 2016, but the social worker did not visit until 8 June 2016. The Council did not share the assessment with the family until November 2016 (after our involvement). The case went to the Council’s funding panel in December 2016 but agreed provision was not in place until March 2017, and not funded until July 2017. This was a period of 17 months from referral. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says an assessment should be carried out over an ‘appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs’. The Council should have set a timescale that recognised the need to inform the EHC plan and complete Mr Y’s transition to adult services by the start of term in September 2016.

104. We have identified several faults in the social care assessment.

 The social worker failed to carry out a mental capacity assessment.

 The social worker failed to consider transport needs to college.

 The social worker failed to offer a separate carer’s assessment or adequately consider Ms X’s needs within Mr Y’s assessment. Ms X’s views about returning to work and driving Mr Y to college are not recorded in the first assessment document.

 The social worker failed to consider transport to leisure activities.

 The social worker failed to consider needs in college holidays. We are not persuaded it was for Ms X to address this via the indicative budget. A personal budget must be sufficient to purchase the services required by the applicant and is needs led. As the social worker did not include needs during breaks from college in the assessment, the budget allocated was based on an incomplete picture. If the assessment had correctly included the total extent of needs:

o Mr Y’s allocated budget may have been higher; or

o Ms X may have been eligible for support as a carer during holidays.

These faults cast doubt on the decision the Council reached.

105. It was the Council, not Ms X, who identified the need for support on Friday afternoons in its assessment of Mr Y in June 2016. This made provision up to five full days, as is Page 173 15 considered good practice in the SEN Code of Practice and Care Act guidance. Ms X should not be criticised for ‘insisting’ Mr Y’s identified eligible needs be met.

106. We are not persuaded Ms X was responsible for the delay in the social care assessment between February 2016 and July 2017 because:

 There is no evidence the social worker took any action after completing the assessment in June 2016.The care assessment was not shared with Mr Y and Ms X until November 2016, after Ms X complained. Steps to agree a budget did not start until December.

 There is no evidence Ms X suggested twelve and a half hours. The Council’s response to us implied twelve and a half hours of support was unrealistic, yet this was the figure approved by the Council’s funding panel in December.

 Ms X clearly wanted the matter resolved as shown by her making a complaint and requesting mediation.

 Even if Ms X did not engage with support planning, Mr Y was an adult (who may lack capacity). The Council’s duty to provide care and support was owed directly to Mr Y. It was not Ms X’s responsibility to plan and organise Mr Y’s support. If the Council genuinely believed Ms X was obstructing the process it should have considered whether she remained an ‘appropriate individual’ to facilitate Mr Y’s involvement and considered arranging independent advocacy. Councils should seek to act in the best interests of the young person and should move quickly to resolve difficulties and minimise delay in provision.

 The social worker has not kept any records to support that Ms X did not ‘engage’. We would expect a social worker to record such concerns on the file.

 The Council has already accepted responsibility for the delay between March and July 2017 and provided a remedy for this period.

107. Mr Y received social care funding backdated to March 2017. If proper transition planning had taken place, we find the funding would have been in place by September 2016 at the latest.

Transport decision

108. There is a dispute about when Ms X was first informed the Council expected her to drive Mr Y to college in his mobility car. The Council says this was June 2016, but Ms X says she only found out in September.

109. For the following reasons we find Ms X’s account more convincing and find a decision on transport was only made by the Council, and communicated to Ms X, in September / October 2016.

Page 174 16  The June social care assessment referred to Mr Y’s (free) transport to school, it does not mention future arrangements. Information about transport to college was added to the assessment document in February 2017, following our involvement.

 The social worker did not know which college Mr Y would attend in June 2016.

 The social worker’s June assessment did not note Mr Y had a Motability car, this was first mentioned in the Council’s complaint response of October 2016.

 If Ms X had been informed in June we believe she would have raised a complaint or requested mediation at that time, not waited until Mr Y had started college.

110. We find the Council did not provide information on transport to Ms X at the time college options were considered, at the social care assessment in June or when the EHC plan was finalised. This is fault. The Council had no policy and failed to provide sufficient information so Ms X could make an informed decision between colleges. It created a legitimate expectation transport would continue to be provided to Mr Y free of charge.

111. The social worker’s assessment and Council’s complaint response did not mention the Council’s transport duties under s.508F Education Act. We have not seen any evidence the Council was aware of its duties under s.508F or assessed Mr Y under this Act until we raised it. We consider it likely the Council decided Mr Y’s eligibility in October 2016 only under its discretionary powers under the Care Act, not under s.508F.

112. During our investigation, the Council reconsidered whether Mr Y is eligible for transport support, including under s.508F. The Council maintains that Mr Y is not eligible under either the Education Act or Care Act because he has a mobility car and it is reasonable to expect Ms X to drive it as she does not work, or for her to find someone else to do so. If this is not possible the Council says the car should be relinquished so the DLA can be used for transport to college.

113. We find the way the Council has made this decision is flawed. We are not satisfied the Council has considered all the relevant factors of this case, and find it has taken into account irrelevant considerations.

 It was a relevant consideration that Mr Y is over 19 and above statutory school age. Ms X has no parental responsibility for Mr Y or legal obligation to ensure he attends college.

 It was a relevant consideration that Ms X clearly indicated she was not ‘able and willing’ to drive Mr Y to college each day. Ms X did not need to justify this or give reasons. The care assessment had to set out the total extent of Mr Y’s needs (including transport) and could only take into account support a carer was willing to provide. The Council was wrong to require Ms X to take on the role of driver without her consent. Once Ms X explained she was not prepared to drive Mr Y the Council should have accepted this and assessed Mr Y’s transport needs without further reference to the availability of a carer.

Page 175 17  There was also no obligation on Ms X to find volunteers to drive Mr Y to college. This was not an appropriate request and an irrelevant consideration.

 It was relevant to the Care Act assessments that Ms X wanted to work. Councils must take into account a carer’s activities beyond their caring responsibilities, including future plans. Ms X did not need to justify why she had not worked previously (although she has provided good reasons). Government guidance emphasises the importance of full-time programmes for post-16 learners so parent carers can work. Where a college placement is less than five days councils must look at training or volunteering opportunities, or additional care support, so carers can work full-time. The Council should have considered how it could support Ms X’s return to work alongside her caring responsibilities.

 It is the Council that has the legal duty to ensure Mr Y receives the special educational provision set out in his EHC Plan. It must consider how to discharge this duty when the named placement is four and a half miles from Mr Y’s home.

 The Council can take into account that Mr Y has a mobility car but also has to take into account that he cannot drive it himself and no-one else has volunteered to do so. It must also take into account costs involved in travelling to college.

 The Council has misinterpreted the conditions of the Motability Scheme.

o The Council is not the legal appointee for the car. It may suggest ways the car could be used for college, but it cannot direct how the car is used.

o In suggesting the car should be relinquished the Council has implied Ms X is preventing access to the car and it is being misused. Misuse of a Motability car includes ‘not giving the disabled person the benefit of the car’, but this means nominated drivers using the car for their own benefit so it is not available to the disabled person to use. It does not mean nominated drivers must be continuously available to drive the car. Motability cars do not have to be relinquished if there are times when the nominated drivers are not available. The car is available for Mr Y to use for college, Ms X is not.

 The Council cannot assume that all or most of Mr Y’s DLA mobility component is available to be used towards college transport. Mr Y may have other transport needs which the Council would need to take into account.

114. The faults we have identified in the Council’s decision-making casts doubt on the conclusion reached. The Council needs to reassess Mr Y under both Acts correctly.

115. The Council was wrong to have included the availability of an unwilling carer in its assessment. This is fault and has caused Ms X a significant injustice.

116. We are very concerned by the Council’s negative comments about Ms X’s lack of previous employment and its suggestion the mobility car and DLA are not being used

Page 176 18 correctly. Such comments would be likely to dissuade someone from challenging a decision and put inappropriate pressure on parents to provide unpaid care.

117. The Council has no current post-19 transport policy. This is fault. The absence of a policy means:

 young people and their families in the Council’s area cannot make informed decisions about post-19 placements;

 there is no transparency about how the Council decides transport eligibility; and

 post-19 learners cannot easily challenge transport decisions.

118. The Council is currently developing a policy for post-19 transport. This should include details of the right to complain about transport decisions.

Personal budget

119. In August 2016 Ms X complained the Council had not considered a personal budget for deemed educational provision (therapies), transport and social care.

120. Requests for personal budgets for special educational provision must be made at the time of the draft EHC plan. We have not seen any evidence Ms X requested a personal budget for therapies at that time. It was not fault for the Council to decline a request made after the EHC plan was finalised, but it should have explained the law to Ms X at the time.

121. The Council was not in a position to consider a personal budget for social care or transport in August 2016 as it had not yet assessed Mr Y’s eligibility. The Council did provide direct payments for social care later.

122. Transport costs can be provided as part of a personal budget (within or alongside an EHC plan). The Council should consider the use of personal budgets and direct payments when drafting its new post 19 transport policy and when it reviews Mr Y’s transport eligibility.

Failure to mediate

123. The Council was wrong to tell Ms X it could not mediate education aspects of the EHC plan. Councils are required to have mediation arrangements in place for all three sections of the Plan.

124. We cannot consider the Council’s decision not to mediate therapy in this specific case, as SEND has already decided this matter at the costs hearing. As Ms X has exercised an alternative remedy we will not consider this part of the complaint again. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

125. The Council was wrong to say it expected Ms X to plan the indicative budget, not mediate. At the time Ms X requested mediation the social worker had not yet assessed social care or transport and no budget had been calculated.

Page 177 19 126. There was fault by the Council in telling Ms X it could not mediate social care provision in an EHC plan. The new law and Code of Practice provide a pathway for mediation of health and social care elements that councils must comply with. The Council says it will raise this with its mediation service.

127. While the Council gave incorrect advice about mediation, it is difficult to see how mediation in August 2016 would have been helpful given the Council had not at that stage carried out the necessary assessments. At most mediation might have highlighted at an earlier stage the faults we have identified.

Injustice

128. By taking on the role of driver, Ms X has mitigated injustice caused to Mr Y (who has been able to attend college and activities), but suffered significant restriction of her own activities, inconvenience and incurred expense.

129. Mr Y’s transition to adulthood was poorly handled by the Council with late decisions causing uncertainty and distress about his post 19 provision.

130. Mr Y’s right of appeal to SEND was delayed so he missed one term of the additional therapy provision SEND ordered.

131. The reliance on Ms X to meet Mr Y’s needs compromised the independence he previously enjoyed to travel and attend leisure activities without his parent.

132. A carer for the Friday afternoon programme of activities was not in place until the end of March 2017, a delay of seven months.

133. The Council needs to reconsider whether Mr Y (or Ms X as his carer) has additional needs during holidays. If it finds they do then Ms X and Mr Y have lost out on this provision since September 2016.

134. The failure to co-ordinate assessments put an additional administrative burden on Ms X. Ms X has also been put to additional time and trouble pursuing a complaint to us.

Decision

135. There is fault in the way the Council considered Mr Y’s special educational, transport and social care needs when he transferred from school to college. This has caused injustice to the young person and his parent. The complaint is upheld.

Recommendations

136. The Council must consider this report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

Page 178 20 137. In addition to the requirements set out above the Council has agreed to take the following action to remedy the injustice to Ms X and Mr Y identified in this report:

Within four weeks:

 Apologise to Ms X and Mr Y for the faults identified

 Retake its decision whether it owes a transport duty to Mr Y under s.508F(1) Education Act 1996 or is willing to make provision under s.508F(8). It will share a copy of this decision with Ms X and us.

 Review Ms X and Mr Y’s care assessment to:

o set out Mr Y’s total eligible needs including consideration of:

(i) transport to college (if this is not to be met by the Council under s.508F)

(ii) transport to leisure activities

(iii) holidays;

o include an assessment of Mr Y’s mental capacity;

o detail which needs a carer is ‘able and willing’ to meet;

o detail unmet eligible needs the Council will meet;

o detail Ms X’s needs as a carer; and

o consider whether a personal budget or direct payments are suitable for any further provision identified.

It will share a copy of the updated assessments and care plan with Ms X and us.

 Make a financial payment to Ms X of £100 a week (calculated from September 2016) to recognise her time and expenses (and those of friends) providing unpaid care to transport Mr Y. This payment also recognises Ms X was not able to seek employment and later, when she became unwell, was caused additional stress finding alternative drivers. Payments will continue until new arrangements are in place so that Ms X is no longer responsible for driving Mr Y to college.

 Pay Ms X £1,500 in recognition of:

o the seven months delay in providing social care support between September 2016 and March 2017 during which time Ms X had to support Mr Y at activities; and

o the uncertainty whether a more thorough social care assessment may have led to a higher level of support being provided, including for Ms X’s own needs. Page 179 21  Pay Mr Y £300 for the loss of one term’s additional therapist input due to the delayed EHC assessment and subsequent appeal.

 Pay Ms X £300 for her time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Within three months:

 Update its Local Offer to show how it currently assesses eligibility for transport for post-19 learners. Once a formal policy on post-19 transport is approved this should be made available via the Local Offer and on the Council’s website. The Council has agreed to consider complaint, mediation and appeal mechanisms when drafting the new policy.

 Consider whether, as a result of our findings, it needs to change policies, review guidance or provide refresher training to ensure:

o EHC assessments are carried out in a timely way and always include consideration of social care needs;

o officers across relevant departments are clear about transport duties for learners aged 0-25;

o it has the correct mediation arrangements in place and the correct information about mediation is available to all relevant officers and families; and

o transitioning planning is in place that considers the care needs of young people before they reach 18 and the changing needs of their carers.

The Council will prepare a report of its findings and share it with us.

138. Within six weeks the Council will review the cases of young people (19-25) who have an EHC plan naming an educational setting, but who are not currently receiving free transport, and report its findings to us. The review will consider if others have been similarly affected by errors in the application of s.508F Education Act or the way the Council has considered DLA and mobility cars.

139. We welcome the fact that the Council has now accepted our recommendations, but regret the time it has taken for the Council to reach this position, which has necessitated the issue of this report and led to Ms X and Mr Y having to wait longer for the Council to review its previous decisions.

Page 180 22 APPENDIX 2 LGSCO recommendations: Case reference 16 012 609

Recommendation Action Expected Completed Notes AUTH date The Council must consider this report Report to Mayor and Cabinet 03/10/18 Reports completed and on agendas and confirm within three months the on 20th September 2018 action it has taken or proposes to take. Report to Full Council on 3rd The Council should consider the report October 2018 at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended). In addition to the requirements set out above the Council has agreed to take the following action to remedy the injustice Page 181 Page identified: Apologise to the resident and her son Letter from Executive Director 02/08/18 02/08/18 Letter sent for the faults identified for CYP to the resident apologising Retake its decision on whether it owes a Decision made agreeing 02/08/18 02/08/18 Decision made and form sent to assess transport duty to the person concerned eligibility as at September future eligibility under s.508F(1) Education Act 1996 or is 2016 willing to make provision under s.508F(8). It will share a copy of this decision with Included in letter from 02/08/18 02/08/18 Included in letter to the resident the resident and the LGSCO. Executive Director for CYP to the resident Review the Care Act and Carers Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 assessments to: Carers assessment set out total eligible needs including Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 consideration of: Carers assessment transport to college (if this is not to be met by the Council under s.508F); and transport to leisure activities APPENDIX 2 LGSCO recommendations: Case reference 16 012 609 holidays Adults with Learning Disabilities Team include an assessment of mental Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 has contacted the resident who is capacity Carers assessment currently out of the country. On return, detail which needs a carer is ‘able and Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 the team will establish ordinary willing’ to meet Carers assessment residence (the family have moved) and detail unmet eligible needs the Council Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 arrange for the completion of a fresh will meet Carers assessment assessment of need and carers detail carer’s needs Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 assessment. Carers assessment consider whether a personal budget or Undertake a Care Act and 02/08/18 direct payments are suitable for any Carers assessment further provision identified

Page 182 Page Make a financial payment of £100 a Calculate payment and pay 31/08/18 week (calculated from September 2016) resident compensation to recognise time and expenses (and those of friends) providing unpaid care and transport. This payment also recognizes that the resident was not able to seek employment and later, when she became unwell, was caused additional stress finding alternative drivers. Payment calculated and confirmed in Payments will continue until new wiring with resident. Await acceptance arrangements are in place so that the and banking details allowing payment to resident is no longer responsible for be made. driving her son to college. Pay £1,500 in recognition of: Pay resident compensation 01/08/18 the seven months delay in providing social care support between September 2016 and March 2017 during which the resident had to support her son’s activities; and the uncertainty whether a more thorough social care assessment may APPENDIX 2 LGSCO recommendations: Case reference 16 012 609 have led to a higher level of support being provided Pay £300 for the loss of one term’s Pay resident compensation 01/08/18 additional therapist input due to the delayed EHC assessment and subsequent appeal Pay £300 for the time and trouble spent Pay resident compensation 01/08/18 pursuing the complaint Update its Local Offer to show how it 04/10/18 Post 16 policy has been updated to currently assesses eligibility for transport reflect Section 508F. It is available on the for post-19 learners. Once a formal Local Offer. policy on post-19 transport is approved this should be made available via the CWCNS will work with adult services to Local Offer and on the Council’s website. develop a 0-25 Transport Policy over the Page 183 Page The Council has agreed to consider next year. complaint, mediation and appeal mechanisms when drafting the new policy Consider whether, as a result of our 04/10/18 All relevant CWCN staff have been findings, it needs to change policies, provided with the updated post 16 policy review guidance or provide refresher and updated on section 508F. training to ensure Any further training will be considered once new 0-25 Transport policy is developed. EHC assessments are carried out in a 04/10/18 EHC assessments are monitored monthly timely way and always include and performance is reported to DMT and consideration of social care needs EMT. Latest data showed 90% of EHCP’s are completed on time. Social care needs are considered as part of the planning of what assessments are required at the SEN panel. Mr Y’s complaint referred to a transfer from a Statement of Special educational APPENDIX 2 LGSCO recommendations: Case reference 16 012 609

needs to an EHCP. Lewisham has completed all of its transfers within the Government timescale. Officers across relevant departments are 04/10/18 Lewisham will be developing a 0-25 clear about transport duties for learners Transport Policy over the next year. aged 0-25; It has the correct mediation 04/10/18 Mediation is available to all families as arrangements in place and the correct part of the EHCP assessment process. information about mediation is available Lewisham commissions Kids to deliver all to all relevant officers and families; and mediations. Information is provided to all families of their right to appeal which includes how

Page 184 Page to apply for mediation. Transition planning is in place that Ensure that effective transition 04/10/18 Transition planning pre 18 is currently in considers the care needs of young planning is in place place but still needs to improve, people before they reach 18 and the reflected in a Transition strand in the changing needs of their carers Children’s Social Care Improvement Plan Within six weeks the Council will review 15/08/18 There are 230 young people 18yrs plus the cases of young people (19-25) who with an ECP. 70 of those young people have an EHC plan naming an educational already receive travel assistance. setting, but who are not currently AWLD are currently identifying whether receiving free transport, and report its any of the 160 young people who do not findings to us. The review will consider if currently receive travel assistance have others have been similarly affected by applied for travel assistance and be errors in the application of s.508F refused. So those assessments can be Education Act or the way the Council has reviewed. considered DLA and mobility cars

Sara Williams Children & Young People

5th floor Laurence House Catford London SE6 4RU

Telephone: 020 8314 8527

[email protected]

2 August 2018

Our reference: ic377664

Dear

Your complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman ref: 16012609

I have been asked by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to write to you following the outcome of your complaint, made to the Ombudsman’s office in February 2017.

The Ombudsman has considered your complaint, reached a determination and chosen to publically report his findings. As part of those findings, the Ombudsman has made a number of recommendations which I would like to address on behalf of the Council. Before I continue to do that, I want to thank you for your time and trouble in pursuing your complaint and giving the Council the opportunity to put right the things we have got wrong and make sure we do not make the same mistakes in the future.

As part of the outcomes reached by the Ombudsman the Council has been asked to:

- Apologise to you and to for the faults that have been identified; - Retake its decision whether it owes a transport duty to under s508f(1) of the Education Act 1996 or is willing to make provision under that act; and - Share our decision with you and with the Ombudsman.

The Council acknowledges its error in how it reached the decision not to provide home to college travel assistance to . There was a failure to consider section s508f(1) of the Education Act (1996), and whether it was necessary to make travel arrangements so that could access his educational placement. The ‘Post-16 transport to education and training, Statutory guidance for local authorities (October 2017)’ states;

“The statutory walking distance of 3 miles to school (along the nearest available route) for those of compulsory school aged 8 and over is set out under section 444(5) of the Education Act 1996. This can be used as a benchmark by local authorities in defining the distance a young person might reasonably be expected to walk to access education or training.”

Page 185 As such, based on the distance from your former home to college, and mobility issues, you were in fact entitled to travel assistance in September 2016.

I sincerely apologise for that error and for the inconvenience, time and trouble it caused , you and those friends and family who supported you both, and the Council will pay the associated remedies recommended by the Ombudsman which I will refer to again shortly.

The Ombudsman has also recommended that the Council:

- Reviews its Care Act and Carers assessments to: set out total eligible needs including consideration of: o transport to college (if this is not to be met by the Council under s.508F); o transport to leisure activities; o holidays; o include an assessment of mental capacity; o detail which needs a carer is ‘able and willing’ to meet; o detail unmet eligible needs the Council will meet; o detail carer’s needs; and o consider whether a personal budget or direct payments are suitable for any further provision identified

I have liaised with Joan Hutton, the Council’s Head of Adult Social Care regarding the recommendations. First and foremost, Joan would like to apologise to and yourself for the failings identified by the Ombudsman in regard to the Council’s Care Act assessment of needs and yours as his carer, both during term time and holiday periods.

I understand that the Council’s Adults with Learning Disabilities team has been in contact with you recently and that, at present, you and are not living in the borough of Lewisham, having moved to our Neighbouring borough of Southwark. As such, we’re not able, at this time, to complete an assessment of needs. We will though, of course, work with Southwark in terms of providing comprehensive information in relation to needs. Assistance with needs and support for you as a carer will be the responsibility of Southwark while you are both resident there and you will need to make contact with them so that they can carry out a fresh assessment. If you haven’t already made contact, you can do so either by email at [email protected] or by phone on 0207 525 3324. Alternatively, if you prefer, we can make a referral on behalf.

More information about Southwark’s local adult social care offer is available on its website at: http://localoffer.southwark.gov.uk/care/how-to-make-a-referral-for-adult-social-care/

The Ombudsman has recommended that the Council makes the following financial payments as part of its suggested remedy:

- Make a financial payment of £100 a week (calculated from September 2016) to recognise time and expenses (and those of friends) providing unpaid care and transport. This payment also recognizes that the resident was not able to seek employment and later, when she became unwell, was caused additional stress finding alternative drivers. Payments will continue until new arrangements are in place so that the resident is no longer responsible for driving her son to college:

Page 186 - Pay £1,500 in recognition of the seven months delay in providing social care support between September 2016 and March 2017 during which time the resident had to support her son’s activities and the uncertainty whether a more thorough social care assessment may have led to a higher level of support being provided; - Pay £300 for the loss of one term’s additional therapist input due to the delayed EHC assessment and subsequent appeal; and - Pay £300 for the time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint.

The Council will pay the suggested remedy of £9,700 (76 weeks @ 100 per week = £7,600 + £1500 + £300 + £300).

The payment can be made directly into an account(s) of your choosing. I will instruct an officer to make contact with you shortly after I have sent this letter to discuss that with you and retrieve the necessary banking information from you.

I am sorry for the time and trouble you have been put to through pursuing your concerns and I hope that my response on this occasion goes someway to reassuring you that the Council will do its best to improve its services as a result of your complaint.

Yours sincerely

Sara Williams Executive Director for Children & Young People

cc: LGSCO

Page 187 Agenda Item 10

COUNCIL

Report Title Action Taken by the Chair of Council Under Rule 19 of Section E of the Constitution Key Decision no Item No.

Ward n/a

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

. ACTION TAKEN BY THE CHAIR OF COUNCIL UNDER RULE 19 OF SECTION E OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. The Chair of Council agreed under the urgency procedure set out in Rule 19 of Section E of the Constitution, that the matters listed below should be treated as matters of urgency and not subject to call-in. This determination not to subject two decisions taken by the Mayor & Cabinet and a decision taken by the Executive Director for Children & Young People to scrutiny was made by the Chair of Council as the delay in considering the item of business would have prejudiced the interests of the Council.

Date Title Reason for Urgency

July 12 2018 Application to Legal advice was given that an Secretary of State for application to the Secretary of State, the Milford Towers endorsed by the Council on July 18, had Leasing Scheme to be submitted by the end of July to ensure sufficient time to consider the application before the leases on the properties at Milford Towers expired.

August 20 2018 New Woodlands The New Woodlands school project, School which comprises works to facilitate Key Stage 4 Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Special Educational Needs provision at the school, was due to be delivered for September 2018. However owing to an unsuccessful procurement exercise, whereby the low number of returned tenders were either over budget or did not meet the required quality standards, it has not been possible to appoint a contractor to undertake the works over the summer holidays. As such, the majority of these works will need to be re-procured, and a revised completion date of September 2019 has been agreed with the Children

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\6\6\ai00020662\$3y1cchpq.docPage 188 and Young People Directorate and the School. This will provide the necessary time for the scheme to be competitively procured, and for the works to be programmed and executed with minimum disruption to the staff and students.

However in order to accommodate the Key Stage 4 pupil intake in the 18/19 academic year and meet their statutory obligations, the school need to provide a science curriculum. The works to convert the ‘Chalet’ building into a science laboratory therefore cannot wait until next year, and need to be delivered ASAP. Ideally this facility would be in place by September 2018, but the earliest the works can now feasibly be completed is the end of October 2018, through a variation to one of the existing School Minor Works Programme contracts. The works detailed in the variation report are the essential works required to refurbish the Chalet and convert it into a science laboratory, to be delivered by October 2018. The school will need to provide theory/desk-based science curriculum until such time as the laboratory is ready.

The programme for these works is incredibly tight, and in order to meet the October 2018 deadline it is imperative that the works are instructed by 23rd August. This will ensure the contractor has enough time to mobilise prior to the end of the summer holiday, and order the specialist furniture, fittings and equipment.

It would not be possible to complete these works on time if the report was subject to potential call-in at the next Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel meeting on October 2 2018.

August 28 2018 Homes for Londoners A proposed bid was made to the Greater Bid London Authority for grant funding as part of the Building Council Homes for Londoners programme and additional headroom in the Housing Revenue Account. Both of which will help the Council to meet the Mayor’s target of delivering 1000 new social homes by

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\6\6\ai00020662\$3y1cchpq.docPage 189 2022.

A report to Mayor and Cabinet on 20 September 2018 sought approval to submit the bid.

An exemption from scrutiny was sought for the following reasons:

• There is an imperative that the bid to the GLA is submitted by 30th September 2018. Due to the timing of the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel for M&C papers on 20th September will not be until 2nd October 2018.

• The funding window for the GLA bid lunched in mid-July. Due to the work required to provide a robust, well- evidenced submission, the M&C on 20th September is the only realistic date that this bid could be presented for approval

• Prior to Mayor and Cabinet, the paper will be presented to Housing Select Committee who will scrutinise the decision formally in public

RECOMMENDATION that the actions taken by the Chair of Council be noted.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\6\6\ai00020662\$3y1cchpq.docPage 190 Agenda Item 11

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion 1 in the name of Councillor Daby to be seconded by Councillor Dacres Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

The Windrush scandal is a British political scandal concerning people born British subjects, who came to the United Kingdom (UK) between 1948 and 1973. They were predominately from Caribbean countries, and have become known as the Windrush Generation.

Many of the Windrush Generation were denied their British citizenship and legal rights, wrongly detained, and threatened with deportation. There are many who were wrongly deported from the UK, or denied the right to return from vacation or family bereavements by the Home Office. To date, the Home office has failed to provide the exact number of people whom this has affected.

The ramifications of those who were suddenly told that they were not British Citizens, despite being British before entrance into the UK has been devastating. They have lost their jobs, homes, pensions, and financial security. They have been denied benefits and medical care to which they were and are fully entitled to. The denial of medical care has led to deaths. Many of those arrived on these shores as invited British subjects have lost their dignity, been marginalised, felt ashamed and embarrassed, and have had the lives ripped apart. Many of those affected through the Windrush Scandal have been older vulnerable people, as well as their dependants. Furthermore, an unknown number of long- term UK residents were wrongly refused re-entry to the UK, and a larger number were threatened with immediate deportation by the Home Office.

In one month alone, the UK Government received a total of 13,000 calls to a specialist unit set up within the Department of the Home Office, in the aftermath of the extreme scale of those affected. The Home Office has since disclosed that more than 850 people now have documentation to affirm their British Citizenship following an appointment with their dedicated team. However, the total number affected at home and abroad are still unknown.

This motion pledges that Lewisham Council publicly opposes the mistreatment and criminalisation of Windrush individuals and families; and resolves:

• In continuing to actively campaign for an end to all ‘hostile environment’ policy measures , calls upon the Mayor of Lewisham alongside the 3 local Lewisham MPs to demand that the Government enables the Windrush Generation to acquire British citizenship at no cost, and with proactive assistance throughout the process, which is not time limited. To note that the ‘hostile environment’ is not restricted to the Windrush

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\6\6\ai00020667\$emuwi03t.docPage 191 generation, and that the campaign be extended to include post-1973 spouses and children that followed to join their pre-1973 family member.

• To proactively advertise the open consultation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, through which victims of the Windrush Scandal will be able to claim compensation.

• To call upon the Government to fully and financially support advice agencies in their work to achieve support, advocacy and justice for all Lewisham’s residents affected by the Windrush Scandal.

• To thank third sector organisations within the borough for their support and advocacy for victims of Windrush Scandal. Signposting those affected to organisations which provide support, advice and advocacy.

• To call upon the Government to conduct an independent public enquiry into this Windrush scandal.

• To review the Council’s policies and procedures to ensure that those affected are supported appropriately.

• In honour and recognition of the immense contributions of those known as the Windrush Generation, who arrived in the UK between 1948 and 1973, lead Lewisham in the annual celebration of Windrush Day on 22nd June. That this day recognises the contributions from The Commonwealth Member Countries to Lewisham’s rich culture and diversity.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\6\6\ai00020667\$emuwi03t.docPage 192 Agenda Item 12

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion 2 in the name of Councillor Liz Johnston Franklin to be seconded by Councillor Joe Dromey Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

Building a Statutory Youth Service This Council notes:  That the Conservative Government has failed young people by overseeing unprecedented and cruel cuts to youth services across the country.  Overall spending on youth services in England has fallen by £737m (62%) since 2010.  Youth work as a profession has been eroded and undermined through funding cuts and market reforms. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of JNC programmes, the number of providers employing JNC qualified workers and the number of students enrolling in undergraduate programmes.  Between 2012 and 2016, 600 youth centres closed down and 3,500 youth workers lost their jobs.  Cuts to youth services have devastated the lives of young people by damaging community cohesion, making it harder to stay in formal education, and having a negative impact on their health and wellbeing.  83% of youth workers say the cuts have had an effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.  Youth work is a distinct educational process offering young people safe spaces to explore their identity, experience decision-making, increase their confidence, develop interpersonal skills and think through the consequences of their actions. This leads to better informed choices, changes in activity and improved outcomes for young people.

This Council believes:  Youth services should be made statutory, recognising the important role universal youth work plays in supporting young people to realise their potential.  Each local authority should set up a local youth services partnership with young people, parents, professionals and councillors, to ensure that provision is tailored to the needs of each community.  It should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport to promote and secure youth services in each local authority across the country.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\6\ai00020668\$p1cddurb.docPage 193  There should be a mandated national body with dedicated ring fenced funding to oversee youth service provision across England.

This Council resolves to:  Ask our 3 Constituency MP’s to support and campaign for fully funded statutory youth services.  Make a submission to the Labour Party’s ‘Building a Statutory Youth Service’ consultation before the deadline on Monday 12 November 2018.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\6\ai00020668\$p1cddurb.docPage 194 Agenda Item 13

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion 3 in the name of Councillor James-J Walsh to be seconded by Councillor Amanda De Ryk Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

This council notes

Though slavery was abolished in the UK in 1833, there are more slaves today than ever before in human history. Figures from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) suggest that there are more than 40 million people in modern slavery across the world, with nearly 25 million held in forced labour.

There were 3805 victims of modern slavery identified in the UK in 2016. A rising number but still well below the 10,000 and 13,000 potential victims estimated by the Home Office.

Modern Slavery is happening nationwide. Traffickers and slave masters use whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce, deceive and force individuals into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment. This can include sexual and criminal exploitation.

*This council believes*

That action needs to be taken to raise awareness of modern slavery and the fact that it is happening all over the UK.

That the current support for victims is not sufficient and needs to go beyond the 45 days they are currently given by the government.

That councils have an important role to play in ensuring their contracts and supplies don’t contribute to modern day slavery and exploitation.

*This council resolves to ask the Mayor & Cabinet*

To consider adopting the Co-operative Party’s Charter against Modern Slavery to ensure our procurement practices don’t support slavery.

*The Charter* London Borough of Lewisham Council will:

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\6\6\ai00020669\$yebhapz1.docPage 195 1. Train its corporate procurement team to understand modern slavery through the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply’s (CIPS) online course on Ethical Procurement and Supply.

2. Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.

3. Challenge any abnormally low-cost tenders to ensure they do not rely upon the potential contractor practising modern slavery.

4. Highlight to its suppliers that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.

5. Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

6. Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

7. Review its contractual spending regularly to identify any potential issues with modern slavery.

8. Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.

9. Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.

10. Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\6\6\ai00020669\$yebhapz1.docPage 196 Agenda Item 14

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion 4 in the name of Councillor Stephen Penfold to be seconded by Councillor Octavia Holland Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

People’s Vote

This Council notes that:

It is now two years since the Brexit vote and the Government still has no satisfactory Brexit plan. The Government seems paralysed between the position of the EU, “Remain” MP’s and “Hard Brexit” MP’s. Since the June 2016 Referendum (“the Referendum”) we have gone from the top of the G7 for economic growth to the bottom.

The Labour Party in Lewisham, and our current mayor, campaigned extensively for Remain locally during the Referendum campaign.

Whilst the UK narrowly voted to leave the EU in the Referendum, approximately 70% of voters in the London Borough of Lewisham voted to remain.

This Council believes:

If the UK leaves the European Union, our country will be permanently poorer, have diminished influence in the world and the greatest burden will fall on the poorest and youngest in society.

For communities up and down the country, jobs and businesses are under threat and it is absolutely right for local authorities to be making a stand on their behalf

Any form of Brexit will damage the NHS; the Nuffield Trust projects the economic impact will translate into an annual £2.4bn shortfall in funding, but the economic impact is not the only area on which we need to be focusing.

Since the referendum there has been a marked increase in hostile behaviour towards immigrants and an unpleasant and dangerous increase in nationalism and xenophobic attitudes in this country.

That Councils already struggling as a result of the “austerity” policies of this government and the constituents they represent, will be hit hardest by the detrimental economic effects of Brexit.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\7\6\ai00020670\$fk21hmxg.docPage 197 The terms of Brexit were not clear in the 2016 referendum, and we have seen no meaningful progress.

Further, the only way for the current impasse in which the government finds itself to be resolved is by a referendum.

This Council resolves:

• To write to the Government urging it to put the terms of any Brexit deal to the people of the UK by way of a referendum with an option to remain full members of the EU.

The Council notes that Lewisham Labour Group will:

• In the event of a referendum being called it will campaign for a “Remain” vote and will write to the Labour Party NEC asking that the Labour Party nationally campaign for a “Remain” vote.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\7\6\ai00020670\$fk21hmxg.docPage 198 Agenda Item 15

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion 5 in the name of Councillor John Paschoud to be seconded by Councillor Pauline Morrison Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: October 3 2018

London Overground Station Closures

“We understand that Arriva Rail London and TfL are planning to close ticket offices in a number of stations.

The proposed closure of ticket offices at Anerley, Honor Oak Park, Penge West, Rotherhithe, and Surrey Quays is likely to particularly impact many residents of Lewisham; but some of our residents are likely to use stations across the whole of the Overground network for daily journeys, including all 51 where this cut to service is proposed.

Lewisham Council believes these are damaging and detrimental cuts and that there is still a clear need for staffed ticket offices at stations. Industry research shows that a clear majority of passengers still prefer to buy from the ticket office rather than from a ticket machine.

Replacing staffed ticket offices with ticket machines, or mobile staff expected to sell tickets on platforms, will undoubtedly limit the quality and range of services available to passengers.

If these changes go ahead we believe that residents of Lewisham: • would not be able to access all the tickets and services needed from a ticket machine; • would find it harder to obtain advice on tickets and fares without a staffed office; • would be concerned that there were insufficient numbers of ticket machines (due to them being in high demand or faulty); • would experience more delays and concourse congestion; • those who are disabled, elderly and vulnerable may be less confident using a ticket machine and could end up overspending or being deterred from travelling; and • that by leaving stations understaffed and sometimes unstaffed it will make it harder to provide a safe and secure environment — especially with CCTV left unmonitored.

We call upon the GLA and TFL to reconsider these proposals and continue to provide the best possible and safest Overground service to the people of Lewisham and London.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\7\7\ai00020775\$bz4gssfu.docPage 199