Agenda and minutes

Councillor Sangster declared a personal interest in Minute No. 48 (Big Lottery Fund) being a Board Member of Wath Mongomery Hall, a potential bidder for a specific B.L.F. programme.

Councillor Ali declared a prejudicial interest in Minute No. 55 (Monitoring Report – Infrastructure and Corporate Initiatives Fund (I.C.I.B.)) being employed by M.A.A.R.I, now managed by the Diversity Forum, which is a beneficiary of the I.C.I.B. Fund.

Councillor Burton declared a personal interest in Minute No. 55 (Monitoring Report – Infrastructure and Corporate Initiatives Fund (I.C.I.B.)) the Council’s representation on the Women’s Strategy Group and the proposed beneficiary of the I.C.I.B. Fund.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion held on 17^th July, 2006 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

Reference was made to Minute No. 37 (Draft International Links Policy) and confirmed that Emily Knowles had left to commence her one year sabbatical in China.  Her replacement, Natalie Hunter, from Scotland, would take up the post in November.  The opportunity had been taken to expand the post to include some experience in European funding issues.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Zafar Saleem, Equalities and Diversity Manager, which provided an update of the Council’s progress on the Corporate Equality Strategy Action Plan for the first year to April, 2006.

Positive achievements were highlighted along with actions to ensure good progress was maintained and the areas for improvement.

Particular attention was drawn to the slippage on Year 1 for the Equality Impact Assessments and actions now being taken to ensure this was being addressed, with workshops planned if considered necessary.

Equality monitoring of service user profiles, customer satisfaction and complaints was central to the achievement of Equality Standard Level 4.  Whilst some Programme Areas were proactive in their introduction of equality monitoring and data collection systems, some did not have systems in place to provide meaningful data for analysis.  Equality Champions were finalising equally monitoring summary reports for their Programme Areas, which would highlight any further action.  Consideration was being given to a customer records management system, which would integrated between the different software packages used by Programme Areas in order to provide one unique identification number when populated.

Validation of the Equality Standard at Level 3 was still awaited and the decision was expected before the end of September, 2006. 

Resolved:- That the good progress made on the Corporate Equality Strategy Action Plan for the first year to April, 2006 and the action by Cabinet to maintain review and delivery of the Action Plans, to ensure the two areas of slippage were addressed and the progress to achieve Level 4, be noted.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Zafar Saleem, Equalities and Diversity Manager, introducing the new Translation, Language and Communication (T.L.C.) Policy, which had been approved by Cabinet.

The policy would seek to provide information to its service users and customers in formats and languages they could understand.

Specific reference was made to the current translation context, the policy’s objectives, operational guidelines, monitoring, value for money and benchmarking.  A review was also taking place of the services being provided with a view to providing a single translation service.

Members welcomed this policy, but suggested that consideration be given to the literal translation of messages into certain languages as this was often difficult to understand and the translation often obscure, preferring a basic and simple approach to getting the message to the reader.  In addition, consideration also needed to be given to the website translations as raised by the Cabinet and the character format that appears on some computers resulting in square boxes instead of text in some circumstances.

There were various sources for advice and assistance, but often translation services were accessed from a South Yorkshire pool or the British Sign Language Association and were often costly.  A breakdown by Programme Area cost would be made available to Members.

A review of the service, including calculation of the percentage of sub-regional support, would be undertaken and submitted to Members in due course.

Resolved:-  That the Translation, Language and Communication (T.L.C.) Policy be endorsed.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Zafar Saleem, Equalities and Diversity Manager, which provided the rationale for a Women’s Strategy for Rotherham and an overview of the work to date on the development of the Multi-Agency Women’s Strategy.

Specific reference was made to why Rotherham needed a Strategy, the approach to developing the framework, consultation which had already started, work for the sub-groups, format and initial ideas for the content.

The work on this Strategy would contribute to meeting the forthcoming positive duty to promote equality between men and women.  Failure to consider the needs and priorities of women in all areas of the Council’s work would mean the Council were not in compliance with this new gender equality duty.

The Strategy had been approved by the Chief Officers Group for the Local Strategic Partnership and would be submitted to the Local Strategic Partnership on the 28^th September, 2006.

Members welcomed this Strategy and hoped it would address equality issues across the whole of the Council and not just in isolation.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the report be noted and endorsed.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Colin Bulger, Head of Policy and Partnerships, which detailed how the Council had commissioned Voluntary Action Rotherham to research and draft a Strategy for the Voluntary Sector.

The voluntary and community sector was being given growing prominence by Central Government, with the Treasury engaging in a comprehensive review of the voluntary sector to determine what spending, financial service and tax policies stood in the way of groups delivering services.  An interim report was expected before the end of the year after consultation with organisations.  A key ambition of this review would be to move to a more “mixed” economy of provision of services whereby some services traditionally delivered by local authorities could be delivered by the voluntary and community sector.

It was as a result of this increasing Government pressure for change and the need for a local vision and plan that the Council asked Voluntary Action Rotherham to develop a Voluntary Sector Strategy, which would help point out a direction for the sector and inform the Council’s approach to the sector as a whole.

As a result of difficulties the draft was delayed by Voluntary Action Rotherham and was subsequently developed by a Consultant who had been retained by Voluntary Action Rotherham to progress the Strategy further.

The Voluntary Sector Strategy was in draft format and the opinion of the Council would have an impact on it.   Various amendments had been suggested and these were referred to and detailed in the report. 

Members took account of the detail in the report and did not feel that the draft Strategy took account of the need to deliver services in order to improve the lives of the people involved.  There was a need for involvement with local groups whose funding streams were time limited and weakened by Government policy.

The Base Budget Review process would also address some of the concerns being raised about the voluntary and community sector in order to deliver services with a co-ordinated approach.  There was a clear need to work with the community and voluntary sector in order to develop social enterprise and support the good work being provided.

A meeting was, therefore, suggested, in order to improve and move the Strategy forward, with Voluntary Action Rotherham at the earliest opportunity.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Draft Voluntary Sector Strategy be noted.

(2)  That a meeting be arranged as soon as possible with officers from the Council with Voluntary Action Rotherham in order to progress the development of the Rotherham Voluntary Sector Strategy.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Waheed Akhtar, Partnership Officer, which provided an overview of the various Big Lottery Fund (B.L.F.) programmes for 2006-09 and their potential impact on delivery of the Corporate Plan, Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement. 

Further information was provided on the Big Lottery Fund and the various programmes accessible to the Council and local partners and attention drawn to the pending Council bids and the major bids that the Council was aware of from voluntary and community sector organisations.

Given the range of Big Lottery Fund programmes and the number of existing and potential Council bids, it was recommended that there was some co-ordination across the Council.  This would help to avoid duplication, enable bids to be checked for consistency with corporate priorities and make it easier to share good practice and feedback from bid assessors.  Opportunities for joint working could also be more easily identified and partners and other external agencies (including B.L.F.), would have a single point of contact for enquiries.

It was suggested that the Big Lottery Fund information be fed into the Base Budget Review process to show clearly which groups were in a sustainable position.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the content of the report be noted.

(2)  That updates on Big Lottery Fund, as part of a regular report on external funding bids/programmes, be provided on a quarterly basis.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Ian Squires, Regeneration Funding Manager, which provided a brief update on the current activity within both the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (N.R.F.) 2006/08 Programme and also the Single Regeneration Budget (S.R.B.) Round 6.

Further information was provided on the External Funding Steering Group, which co-ordinated the funding decisions made within Rotherham, its overall aim, the N.R.F. Community Chest element, N.R.F. contracts position and future monitoring, Area Assemblies, S.R.B. Activity, new projects approved and the Quarter 1 performance summary.

Elected Members would be kept involved with the activities taking place through information sharing sessions and workshops.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the progress on both funding streams and the updates be noted.

(2)  That regular reports on external funding bids/programmes be provided on a quarterly basis.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Angela Smith, Neighbourhood Strategy Manager, which provided a summary of contextual information about the Gypsy and Traveller Community in Rotherham and the potential implications for the Council in meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the borough.

The Housing Act 1994 placed a legal duty on local authorities to assess the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.  Furthermore, the Housing Act 2004 required local authorities to include Gypsies and Travellers in their local housing needs assessments and to take a strategic approach, which included developing a strategy to demonstrate how the needs of this community would be met, as part of their wider housing strategies.

The Council was currently developing a baseline for the work that needed to be developed and implemented in order to allow compliance with these requirements. 

The absence of reliable local and national data on the size of the Gypsy and Traveller population was mirrored in the lack of information about their housing needs and aspirations and their access to wider services provided by statutory and non-statutory agencies.  Gypsies and Travellers were rarely included as separate racial groups in national, local or sector based monitoring systems, despite being recognised as separate racial groups within key legislation.  Subsequently, little information was known about their experiences or needs, which, therefore, tend to be overlooked. 

Rotherham had not offered any Traveller site provision since 1996, when the site at Dinnington was closed.  The site had existed for many years and was in an area that had a long tradition of Travellers settling in the community.  In addition, many Travellers who lived in settled accommodation in the borough were reluctant to declare themselves as Gypsies or Travellers and tended to indicate White British on any forms they completed for fear of harassment or discrimination.

To enable the Council to create and support sustainable, integrated communities where Gypsies and Travellers have equality of access to suitable accommodation, education, health and welfare provision and where there was mutual respect between all communities, there were some areas of work needing to be developed.  These included:-

·              Development of Gypsy and Traveller Strategy and Action Plan.

·              Raising awareness of Gypsies and Travellers to all employees in relation to cultural diversity.

·              Establishing a Forum with Gypsies and Travellers at borough and/or sub- regional level.

·              Making wider links with strategic authorities on the local travelling route(s)

·              Development, implementation, monitoring and review of accurate detailed monitoring information of all Gypsies and Travellers approaching any service area across the borough.

·              Undertaking of mapping exercise and full housing and support needs analysis.

·              Establishment of working group with corporate responsibility for Gypsies and Travellers.

·              Developing a protocol for the sharing of information at borough, sub-regional and wider levels.

·              Provision of a Floating Support Worker.

·              Drop-in advice service.

An updated copy of the Action Plan was circulated to all those present.

Members acknowledged the need for action to be taken and the difficulties associated with data collection.  However, to assist in progressing this issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Andrew Crowley, Asylum Seeker Team Leader, which outlined the current position of the Asylum Programme in Rotherham.

Further updated information about asylum seekers in Rotherham was circulated to all those present.

Reference was made to the Asylum Programme and the changes since January 2005.  The numbers have remained constant despite the changes in the support arrangements.   The Accommodation Providers now operated under new contracts with the Home Office.

Members were informed that the Government was introducing a range of new initiatives to better manage the asylum system. The National Asylum Support Service was being remodelled as the New Asylum Model. This would provide for a named worker who was responsible for both providing the support and determining the claim of an asylum seeker.  It was intended to make initial decisions faster and to identify at an earlier stage those applicants who were likely to fail and who could be readily removed from the country.

The Home Office have a clear agenda to increase the removal rate of failed asylum applicants. Another method to ensure that failed applicants leave the country is to increase the value of the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme. A six month trial of the enhanced programme had recently come to an end. Balanced against these initiatives is the ever present number of failed and destitute asylum seekers in Rotherham. Due to the marginalised nature of this group of people it was hard to be exact with the numbers. The Local Authority was supporting a small number of this group of people under its duties of the 1948 National Assistance Act. This had created a resource issue for Adult Services.

New arrangements are being developed by the Home Office for the support of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children. In Rotherham there were currently ten such children being supported, the majority of whom were over sixteen.  These were children who were on their own in this country. There was a proposal for setting up regional centres for the initial support of such children who would then be dispersed to ‘approved’ local authorities within the region. The management of this group of asylum seekers was with Children and Young Peoples Services.

A more comprehensive way of meeting the needs of asylum seekers was through “Rotherham New Lives”. This was a local strategy which dealt with the needs of asylum seekers and refugees. The strategy was being consulted upon and would be altered to reflect the points raised during the consultation.

It was confirmed that the contract would be affected if the numbers of asylum seekers continued to fall.  This could result in the renegotiation of a new contract and was core driven by the Home Office.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the report be noted.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Colin Bulger, Head of Policy and Partnerships, which detailed the response to the Year Ahead Commitment (6) to complete work on a Rural Strategy and outlined progress in its development and identified the main activities to complete.

It was noted that an all Elected Member Seminar was to be arranged on Tuesday, 17^th October, 2006 at 9.00 a.m. on this issue and any comments made would be taken into account.

Resolved:-  That the good progress in the development of the Strategy, and the timetable for its completion be noted.

(2)  That the intention for the Strategy to be sent out for consultation be noted.

(3)  That the Strategy be referred to the Rotherham Partnership for their consideration and that the Rotherham Partnership be asked if they wish to agree to extend the remit of the Strategy to being a multi-agency document.

(4)  That a further report, presenting a final Rural Strategy following consultation, be received.

Colin Bulger, Head of Policy and Partnerships, circulated a copy of the Community Cohesion Forward Plan for all those present.  Reports by Neighbourhoods were yet to be included.

Resolved:-  That the Community Cohesion Forward Plan contents be noted.

The following item is likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (information relates to financial or business affairs).

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (information relates to financial or business affairs).

Consideration was given to a report presented by Zafar Saleem, Equalities and Diversity Manager, which provided an updated profile of spend against the 2006/2007 budget forecast and sought approval to re-profile one existing commitment and commit unallocated monies to advice and information services.

Specific reference was made to the purpose of the I.C.I.B. Fund, the funding profile and to which groups received funds.

To assist in allocating some underspends and unallocated funds various proposals were put forward.

Resolved:-  That the contents of this report be noted.

(2)  That the re-profiling of the ring fenced monies for B.M.E. Strategy work to the new Women's Strategy development plan as a one-off payment in 2006/2007 be approved.

(3) That the uncommitted monies advice be allocated to migrant communities via the Citizen's Advice Bureau as a one-off payment in 2006/2007 be approved.

Resolved:-  That the date and time of the next meeting be re-arranged and an additional meeting be included as follows:-

Thursday, 19th October, 2006 at 3.30 p.m.

Friday, 3rd November, 2006 at 12.30 p.m.