Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Goldspink.  Apologies were also received from Ansar Ali, co-opted member representing the Cambridgeshire Police Authority.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 21 July 2010 were approved as an accurate record.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions.  If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for Call-in to consider.

The Community Cohesion Manager presented the report and informed the Committee of how the Strategy had been developed and the objectives and key messages that the Strategy contained.  The Strategy was about how cohesion shared values would be promoted all over Peterborough.  The language used in the strategy was bespoke and the photographs used in the draft strategy were temporary but the final document would contain pictures that reflected all of the diverse communities across Peterborough.   A number of cohesion partners who had helped to produce the strategy were also in attendance to explain their work and their involvement in pulling the strategy together.

Community Cohesion had been embedded across Peterborough for some time through various documents but this strategy was a new document which provided a definition of cohesion and the aims, values, vision and priorities of the Cohesion Partnership.  Action plans would underpin the document.

Brian Gascoyne, Chairman of the Millfield and New England Regeneration Partnership, informed the committee that the title “Home in the Meadows” was derived from the word Meadshampstead which later became Peterborough.  The city had always been a place where different people from different backgrounds had come together and was built on migration from both within the United Kingdom and from outside.  Cohesion was a key part of the city and needed to be recognised.  Peterborough was a city of culture and an example of this was the fact that there was 109 different languages spoken in Millfield.

Bryan Tyler, Disability Forum Manager, spoke about the work that had been achieved through partnership working to bring a Changing Places toilet to Peterborough which would be built next to the toilets in the Car Haven car park.  A logo had been designed that would reflect disabled facilities and the changing places toilets and the Department of Transport had picked up on the logo and wanted to use it country wide.

Jean Hunt, Chairman of the Senior Citizens Forum and a Governor at City College Peterborough, spoke about how young and old people were working together.  She had attended a recent project at the Green Backyard to talk to students with special needs from the City College about the war and digging for victory, which the young people had found very interesting.  She had also helped to set up the first committee for male senior citizens in the central ward, along with a committee for women. 

Mahebub Ladha, Director of Peterborough Racial Equality Council, stated that cohesion was about giving everyone the same life chances and outcomes and not about communities leading parallel lives.  The strategy had been designed to be a living and readable document which was updated regularly.  The priorities of the Cohesion Board were updated annually and this year’s priorities were:

·         Young People and NEETS – 15% of young people today were NEETS.  One group of young people that had not made much progress was poor white people and there was a need to understand why this was happening.

·         Poverty  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report informed the Committee of the new Citizen Power Programme in Peterborough and specifically the following two strands:

·         Civic Commons

·         Building Recovery Capital

Graeme Clark, Project Manager presented the report accompanied by Julie Rivett, lead officer for Civic Commons and Karen Kibblewhite, lead officer for Building Recovery Capital.  Also in attendance was Emma Norris who was the Royal Society of Arts lead for Civic Commons.  A short presentation was given on each of the strands explaining what the purpose of each was and the aims and outcomes behind them.

Civic Commons was about:

•          passionate citizens, leading local figures, well known thinkers and politicians for discussion, debate and action on topical local and national issues (e.g. immigration)

•          capacity building – advocacy skills, confidence, knowledge about a range of issues

•          seeding ground for ideas and local innovation

The Civic Commons would:

•          provide space for dialogue and deliberation

•          provide spaces for citizens to engage in bigger-picture political and social issues

•          help citizens gear up for a new, more involved role in civic life

•          build national reputation of Peterborough

•          address some social problems

The Recovery Capital Project was about:

•          How communities could support people with problems associated with drug & alcohol use

•          Understanding the capacity of specific communities to deliver

•          Peterborough as a leading example of Recovery Community

•          User defined recovery services

Its aims and outcomes were:

•          Ability to define & measure Recovery Capital

•          Foundations of a Recovery Community

•          Peer led Recovery Community Networks

•          Shared understanding of recovery & Recovery Capital

•          Reduction in the stigma surrounding substance misuse

•          Increased collaborative working in the city

•          Work alongside existing services

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members wanted to know why Citizens Power was being developed as there were already lots of opportunities for residents to get involved in decision making.  They also  felt that there was a danger that Civic Commons could attract the same people who usually got involved.  Emma Norris advised Members that this was a way of trying to engage differently with people and about getting local people to set the agenda.  It was about engaging with local people who were quietly doing good work in the community but who did not necessarily get involved in committees and meetings.  Civic Commons was not another committee and it was about bringing the right people together and harnessing the good work that they did.

·         When was Citizen’s Power launched?  It was launched on 19 July 2010.

·         What action plans, objectives and measures had been put in place?  Members were advised that work plans were currently being developed and would include outputs and targets.  Members of the public would set the agenda and outcomes for each strand. 

·         Would there be any additional funding apart from what had already been committed.  No additional funding was available.

·         How would you measure the impact and success of the project?  Members were advised that there would be targets set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report provided the Committee with information regarding the issues raised at the Scrutiny Big Debate held on 16 February at the Key Theatre and information in response to those issues as to how the Council were addressing them.  Members were satisfied with the responses and requested that a report come back to the Committee in six months time to check on the progress being made on each of the issues.  Members paid particular attention to the response on Restorative Justice and requested that they be kept informed on how this progressed.

ACTION AGREED

That a progress report on the Big Debate Issues be brought back to the Committee in six months time paying particular attention to Restorative Justice.

To consider the latest version of the Forward Plan

The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Forward Plan, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme. 

            ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Forward Plan and requested that the item on Section 75 Pooled funding arrangements for substance misuse services be brought to the Committee in March 2011 for scrutiny.

To agree the current work programme and discuss future items

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2010/11 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2010/11 and the Scrutiny Officer to make any amendments as discussed during the meeting.

10 November 2010

10 November 2010