Agenda and minutes
To improve accessibility individual documents published after 1 May 2020 are available as HTML pages where their original format supports this
Speaking at a Council or Committee meeting
Venue: St Aldate's Room, Town Hall
Contact: Catherine Phythian, Committee Services Officer tel 01865 252402 email democraticservices@oxford.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Fry (substitute Councillor Pressel). |
|||||||
Declarations of interest Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|||||||
Financial Inclusion Strategy Action Plan Update PDF 86 KB The Revenues & Benefits Programme Manager presented the report explaining that the nature of financial inclusion work and the specifics of the action plan were on-going and long term. The FIS action plan was regularly updated to reflect progress and to incorporate new issues such as those resulting from the welfare reform measures and the potential cuts to Children’s Centres had been factored in. The Committee requested that the directory of affordable childcare is shared with Councillors.
The Committee questioned whether the action plan should include a stronger emphasis on more joined up partnership working, for example around social prescribing. The Committee heard that this was an area that the City Council was very keen to be more involved in and that Council activities such as supporting people into work had already been delivering savings for the NHS.
The Committee questioned why Contact Centre staff would no longer be receiving training to identify key risk factors and noted with concern that this was due to resourcing constraints. The Committee heard that frontline staff from other service areas and who were more likely to be in contact with people at risk of financial exclusion would receive training instead. This was seen as being a more practical approach.
The Committee noted that some landlords were evicting tenants who had lost their jobs as they did not want to accept claimants of Housing Benefit. The Committee heard that unaffordability was a huge issue in Oxford and that some private sector landlords were charging 3 month’s rent as a deposit. The Lord Mayor’s deposit scheme was still in place and was being used.
The Committee questioned whether the targeting of people in the private rented sector at risk of fuel poverty was capturing all those at risk, and what enforcement action was being taken against landlords of rented properties with Energy Performance Certificate ratings of F & G (action 20). The Panel heard that this was a new activity for the City Council, which had previously focused on educating landlords supported this new approach. The Committee suggested that any plans to help households find the best energy tariffs (action 14) should be brought forward to enable them to take advantage of higher rates for feed in tariffs where possible.
The Scrutiny Committee RESOLVED that the following recommendations be put to the City Executive Board:
1. That the FIS Action Plan is kept under review so that the Council can be responsive to significant changes in circumstances (e.g. further welfare reforms, reduced children’s centre provision);
2. That the directory of affordable childcare is shared with Councillors;
3. That the FIS Action Plan contains a stronger emphasis on more joined up partnership working, for example with the health sector to support social prescribing;
4. That all frontline staff receive training on recognising the indicators of financial exclusion;
5. That the City Council monitors both the accessibility of the private rented sector to people who are out of work and the use of the Lord Mayor’s Deposit Scheme; and
6. That the City Council brings forward any plans that would assist households in taking advantage of higher feed in tariff rates.
Additional documents: |
|||||||
City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) PDF 212 KB
Contact Officer: Richard Adams, Service Manager, Environmental Protection Tel 01865 252283, radams@oxford.gov.uk Additional documents:
Minutes: The Board Member for Crime, Community Safety and Licensing and the Environmental Protection Manager presented the report on the City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), explaining that the revised order had a stronger focus on specific behavioural issues. They explained that a separate code of conduct for busking was being developed and that the focus of the PSPO was on street entertainment that caused a nuisance or obstruction.
The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee asked that the Committee limit their discussion to the remaining areas of concern, begging and busking, and not re-open the wider debate that had taken place at the City Centre PSPO Panel meeting and previous committee meetings and the Panel’s suggested recommendations.
Cllr Gant, Chair of the City Centre PSPO Panel referred the Committee to the notes of the Panel meeting held on 5 October 2015 (previously circulated, now appended) and summarised the main points of the discussion.
The Head of Law and Governance briefed the Committee on the substantive points of his teleconference with Liberty on 6 October 2015. He said that Liberty had welcomed the Council’s reconsideration of the PSPO but had specific and overarching residual concerns which they were likely to set out in a letter. If received, this letter would be put before CEB for consideration. In response to comments raised in discussion the Head of Law and Governance assured the Committee that the current draft PSPO was a permissible exercise of discretion and that the CEB report did address the issue of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. The remaining contentious issues reflected different philosophical approaches to enforcement.
The Committee heard arguments in favour of using Community Protection Notices rather than a PSPO or referring the nuisance behaviour to the police for resolution.
The Committee asked a number of questions, including why the boundaries of the PSPO included university-owned land such as the University Parks and Christchurch Meadow and why Council resources would be used to enforce in these areas. The Environmental Protection Manager was asked to check the content of the Equality Impact Assessment with regard to sexual activity in public toilets.
The Committee noted the following suggestions: · that Thames Valley Police could be asked to contribute to the training of OCC enforcement officers · that officers should monitor the situation in another local authority which had included within its PSPO the requirement for dog walkers to carry “poo bags”
The Committee voted on a proposal to exclude section 1a, dealing with the behaviour of aggressive begging, from the PSPO. This proposal was not agreed by a majority of the Committee. The minority who opposed the inclusion of aggressive begging in the PSPO felt that criminalisation of the activity (with the threat of fines that this included) was not the best, or a proportionate, means of tackling the problem.
The Committee voted on a proposal to exclude section 1e from the PSPO for one year pending implementation of the code of conduct for busking and a review ... view the full minutes text for item 43. |
|||||||
Proposed Lease and monitoring arrangements for community centres PDF 94 KB Contact Officer: Mark Spriggs, Strategic Community Centres Coordinator Tel 01865 252822, mspriggs@oxford.gov.uk
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Board Member for Culture and Communities presented an updated report (previously circulated, now appended). She explained that the revised version of the report would be submitted to CEB on 15 October 2015. She outlined the main changes in the report and said that the revisions reflected recognition by the Board of the significance of the concerns raised by Community Centre Associations regarding the lease proposals.
The Committee questioned the wisdom of presenting the proposals for lease renewal and monitoring arrangements independently of the Community Centre Strategy. The Head of Community Services explained that it had been the original intention to present the two reports in parallel but that in view of the concerns expressed by the Community Centre Associations it was felt that delaying the lease proposal report would be unreasonable. He assured the Committee that, subject to the consultation results, there was nothing in the draft Community Centre Strategy that conflicted with the lease proposals.
The Scrutiny Committee discussion focused on the importance of recognising the work of the volunteer staff in the Community Centre Associations and ensuring that these valuable assets were used for the benefit of all groups in the community.
The Committee requested more clarity about what expectations would be placed on Community Centres, for example the need for centres to be open and accessible to the whole community, and what mechanisms would be in place to ensure that such expectations would be met. The Committee suggested that guidance should be developed in the form of a code of conduct that sets out the expectations on Community Centre Associations and the types of support that Associations can expect from the City Council. This should form part of the lease and monitoring arrangements. The Committee noted that the guidance should not be too prescriptive because the individual organisations were very different.
The Committee considered the conditions around the termination of leases if a Community Centre Associations defaulted or wanted to end their lease. The Committee questioned whether independent advice would be made available to Community Centre Associations signing new lease arrangements.
The Scrutiny Committee AGREED that the following comments should be referred to the City Executive Board:
1. That the Scrutiny Committee regretted the late publication of the report but welcomed the revisions presented;
2. That the Scrutiny Committee regretted the tone and language of the report and its reliance on legal arguments which gave no recognition to the important work of the Community Centre Associations and their volunteers. The Scrutiny Committee hoped that CEB would take the opportunity presented by this report to minute their thanks to volunteers who put time and effort into managing our community centres.
The Scrutiny Committee RESOLVED that the following recommendations be put to the City Executive Board:
1. That the City Executive Board considers deferring the decision on this report and taking it alongside the Community Centre Strategy decision, which is expected in November;
2. That the City Council should develop a “code of conduct” that sets out the ... view the full minutes text for item 44. |
|||||||
Draft CEB response to the recommendations of the Inequality Panel PDF 70 KB Contact Officer: Andrew Brown, Scrutiny Officer, Tel 01865 252230, abrown2@oxford.gov.uk
Minutes: The Chair of the Inequality Panel welcomed the positive response to the majority of the Panel’s recommendations, noting that of the 29 draft responses to recommendations or sub-recommendations, 17 were agreed, 3 were agreed in part and 6 were not agreed. Comments had been received for the remaining 3 recommendations (14a, 18a and 18b) but it had not been clearly stated whether these were agreed or not agreed by CEB.
The Committee noted that the Cross Party Working Group had reviewed the draft responses. The Committee restated their support for all the recommendations and made the following comments on the draft CEB responses to specific recommendations:
· Rec 3 – A robust metric or series of objective measurements was necessary to ensure that proactive policies could be developed, better focused and more effectively scrutinised; · Rec 10d – Working with OCCG to simplify access to services would be mutually beneficial. In testing social prescribing, GPs were utilising an on-line tool to identify agencies to which patients could be referred to resolve the need, pressure and worry that caused illness; aspects of which include health, physical activity, housing and social care. Scrutiny would prefer that residents could access such a tool before becoming ill and requiring medical intervention; · Rec 13 – Approval had recently been given for a £10m bid to government to reduce food waste. If successful, this recommendation for greater collaboration and strategic leadership to address food poverty could potentially be achieved. There was a need for food poverty initiatives to be effective in all parts of the city with pressing need. · Rec 14a – Asylum Welcome had precarious funding. Without committing to increase the value of the support given, a commitment to provide support for three, rather than one year, would provide reassurance to this charity at a time when the need for the charity's services was clearly increasing; · Rec 16a – Although OCVA was charged with providing a directory, current practice illustrated that charities were unable to work with efficiency. For example, inappropriate applications were received by some charities that could have succeeded if made to the appropriate charity. A simple task of highlighting the aims, objectives and qualifying criteria for each charitable fund would save time and effort for the applicant, charity and sector advice agencies, with the outcome that appropriate aid would be provided timeously for those in need; · Rec 17a – The County Council grants were focused quite differently to the recommendation made by Scrutiny; · Rec 17b – This suggestion had no additional cost. Measures were required to identify families with children with underlying qualification for the pupil premium (a measure currently practiced by other district authorities); · Rec 19 – Poor and bad employment practices did exist in Oxford and could be illustrated by those establishments that assumed tips and reduced the wages of staff solely based on the assumption that tips were received. Such malpractices needed to be addressed and the City Council had a role in upholding and promoting best practice; · Rec 20 – ... view the full minutes text for item 45. |
|||||||
Briefing paper on the Performance Summary - June 2015 PDF 37 KB Contact Officer: Andrew Brown, Scrutiny Officer, Tel 01865 252230, abrown2@oxford.gov.uk
Minutes: The Scrutiny Committee NOTED the supplementary information relating to the 2015/16 Q1 performance data. |
|||||||
Work Programme and Forward Plan PDF 61 KB Contact Officer: Andrew Brown, Scrutiny Officer Tel 01865 252230, abrown2@oxford.gov.uk
Additional documents: Minutes: The Scrutiny Officer presented the work programme report and asked the Committee to consider the following matters: · to determine the scope of the taxi licensing report scheduled for the November meeting · to confirm the membership of the Diversity Review Panel · to identify any additional items from the Forward Plan for pre-decision scrutiny at the November meeting
The Committee noted that officers had been asked to include the following matters in the taxi licensing report: · background information on the types and number of licenses issued · to what extent can the Council set its own policies for taxi licensing · the main issues and challenges that the licensing team and taxi drivers encounter.
The Committee reviewed the Forward Plan and concluded that there were no additional items to add to the agenda for the November meeting.
The Committee resolved to AGREE:
1. That the taxi licensing report should cover the following matters in addition to those already agreed: safeguarding and unlicensed taxi activity in the city.
2. That the membership of the “Diversity” Review Group would be: Cllr Hayes (Chair), Cllr Altaf-Khan, Cllr Taylor, Cllr Thomas.
|
|||||||
Report back on recommendations PDF 95 KB Contact Officer: Andrew Brown, Scrutiny Officer, Tel 01865 252230, abrown2@oxford.gov.uk
Minutes: The Committee NOTED the report. |
|||||||
Updates since the last meeting For scrutiny members to update the Committee on any developments since the last meeting.
The next Housing Standing Panel is scheduled for 8 October 2015 The next Finance Standing Panel is scheduled for 29 October 2015 Minutes: The Committee NOTED the dates of the October Standing Panel meetings. |
|||||||
Minutes from 7 September 2015
Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2015be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.
Minutes: The Committee resolved to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2015 as a true and accurate record but noted the following amendment:
Minute item 27: Leisure & Wellbeing Strategy 2015 – 20
At the end of the sixth paragraph beginning “The Head of Community Services said that one consistent…” insert the following sentence: “It was suggested that Fusion Lifestyle should be encouraged to develop its own app to enable leisure bookings”.
|
|||||||
Dates of future meetings Meetings are scheduled as followed:
2 November 2015 9 December 2015 12 January 2016 2 February 2016 7 March 2016 5 April 2016
All meetings being at 6.15 pm. Minutes: The Committee NOTED that further meetings were scheduled on the following dates:
2 November 2015 9 December 2015 12 January 2016 2 February 2016 7 March 2016 5 April 2016
All meetings being at 6.15 pm.
|
|||||||
Confidential appendix - Proposed Lease and monitoring arrangements for community centres Minutes: The Committee NOTED the contents of the confidential appendix. |