Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Clare Harrisson, Councillor Shafi Ahmed and Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim. Councillor Rajib Ahmed was deputising for Councillor Clare Harrisson.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest were declared by the Members.

To approve as a correct record of proceedings, the minutes of the meeting held on 31^st January 2018.

The minutes from the previous meeting 31^st January 2018 were approved as a correct and accurate record of the meeting.

Consideration of any written comments received from members of the public in relation to any of the reports on the agenda.

[Any submissions should be sent to the clerk listed on the agenda front page by 5pm the day before the meeting]

The Sub-Committee noted that no public submissions had been submitted to the Committee Officer by the deadline. (5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.)

Matthew Phelan, Public Health Programme Lead for Healthy Environments, Public Health Team presented his report stating the report related to the release of up to £4,824,474 of section 106 and CIL recourses to NHS Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to deliver increased capacity, access and service provision via a number of premises improvements across primary care to enhance local GP services. The funding is divided into £3,494,990.79 of CIL and £1,329,483.21 of S106 monies.

He referred members to point 1.4 of the report and said the project would allow a greater level of service to patients with 24 clinical rooms in the South West locality, with a capacity for up to 25,000 registered patients (an increase of 8k new patients) which will also provide up to 50,400 new patient appointments.

He said the building is expected to be completed and handed over to the NHS in March 2019, with the fit out taking approximately 11 months. The health centre would become fully operational in October 2020.

Mr Phelan informed Members that the projected population growth meant that the Whitechapel and City Wellbeing GP practices would not be able to cope with the demand. Hence the Goodman’s Field development.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         Does TH CCG have enough Doctors for the proposed health centre?

·         What quality of training is given to reception staff to make them more customer focussed?

·         Where is the new health centre located?

·         Will the adjoining borough – City of London also be made to contribute to the cost of the health centre?

·         In reference to page 20, can you clarify elements which are VAT exempted and those which are not?

·         Page 19, point 3.2 refers to ‘community health services’ – What does this mean and are services to be co-located in the health centre?

·         Page 26 – remove reference to Island Medical Centre

·         Can clarity be provided with regard to which CIL and S106 is contributing to the project.

o   ACTION: Officer to provide Members with information on GP recruitment and workforce training and development plus how the new health centre will embrace new technology to reduce waiting times.

Members of the Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Grant’s Determination Sub-Committee to:

1.    Approve the grant funding of £4,824,474 to NHS Tower Hamlets CCG to deliver increased capacity, access and service provision in primary care and maintain continuity of local GP services.

Keith Burns, Programme Director, Special Projects, Integrated Commissioning, Health, Adults and Community Services presented the report stating the Ageing Well Small Grants Fund 2018/19 was aiming to provide financial support to organisations and groups which help older people combat problems associated with social isolation and loneliness. He said the process for applying is similar to the process followed the previous year and the total grant fund was £1,850.

Mr Burns pointed out that although the Grants Determination Sub-Committee (GDSC) had delegated responsibility for agreeing awards to the Divisional Director, it was felt the four pending grants in relation to the 2017/18 should be referred back to the GDSC, as these organisations were in Council owned buildings without a formal lease in place. Mr Burns explained this linked back to the recommendations made by the Commissioners.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         Raine House, in Wapping do an excellent job in supporting older people in isolation. Have other organisations been informed as to how to apply for the grant?

·         Recommendation 4, page 32 should also state “or Corporate Director”.

Members of the Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Grants Determination Sub-Committee to:

1.    Approve the process for inviting applications for the Ageing Well Small Grants fund 2018/19.

2.    Note the availability of funding for the proposal.

3.    Agree the process of awarding the grant funding, and subsequent monitoring arrangements.

4.    Agree to delegate responsibility for approving the awards of grant to the Divisional Director for Integrated Commissioning [or the Corporate Director].

5.    Agree to the award of four grants, totalling £1,850, from the 2017/18 Ageing Well Small Grants Fund.  

Ishara Tewary, Fostering Development Team Manager, Children Services stated the Directorate had in the past made ex-gratia payments to the Tower Hamlets Foster Carers Association (THFCA) however was now seeking to award a grant of £6,000 as per the decision to by the Council to treat the payment as a grant.

She said the THFCA provided many benefits and was a voice for all foster carers and foster children.  The Association provided advocating and mediation services and was an invaluable resource to the Fostering and Children’s Services Directorate. They provided comment and support on the effective delivery of the fostering service and were vital partners when consulting on fostering policy and procedure either locally or nationally. 

Ms Tewary said that grant funding would help them continue to provide support to foster carers and foster children alike.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         Does the THFCA have a written constitution? They are doing an excellent job.

·         Do they support all foster carers or just Tower Hamlet registered foster carers?

·         This is another example where is it not easily identifiable as to whether this is a grant or a service which is commissioned.

Members of the Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Grants Determination Sub-Committee to:

1.    Award the Tower Hamlets Foster Carers Association Committee an annual grant of £6,000 in order to conduct their role and responsibilities in supporting and advocating for the foster carers and foster children.

2.    Delegate to the Corporate Director: Children, authority to make future annual grant awards to Tower Hamlets Foster Carers Association (THFCA).

3.    That it be noted that awards to THFCA will be reported to the Grants Determination Sub-Committee as part of the annual Grants Register report.

Steve Hill, Head of Benefits Services informed Members the report provided them with an update on the delivery of certain actions agreed within the Voluntary and Community Sector Strategy (VCS) 2016-19 Action Plan. He said in particular it detailed the progress made in relation to three pilot programmes relating to diversifying the resource base of VCS organisations.

The report looks at Crowdfunding, Procurement (Social Value) and volunteering.

Mr Hill referred Members to points 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 in the report and said the pilot programmes relating to volunteer brokerage including help with volunteering roles and volunteers, an online brokerage service and an Advisor Appointment service. He also referred Members to the case study at the bottom of page 53 to page 54.

In reference to Crowdfunding, point 5.8 Mr Hill said the pilot was progressing well and there had been good innovative projects that had been support by this method of funding. Points 5.12 and 5.13 gave further detail on the social value procurement pilot.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         In reference to the maps, pages 55, 56 and 57, it would appear funding for projects in the Isle of Dogs, is miniscule.

The Grants Scrutiny Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Grant’s Determination Sub-Committee to:

·         Note the progress in implementing actions within the VCS Strategy, with particular reference to diversifying the resource base of the VCS through crowdfunding, social value in procurement and promoting volunteering.

Steve Hill, Head of Benefits Service presented the report looking at the Main Stream Grant programme 2015/18. In particular the report provided an update in relation the premises arrangements for Our Base and additional information in relation to the Pollyanna Training Theatre.

With regard to Our Base, the Council withheld funds until the organisation agreed to enter into a property agreement. The organisation has shown a willingness to enter into an agreement and therefore it was recommended the withheld payments for the period March 2017 to June 2017 be released subject to satisfactory performance.

With regard to the Pollyanna Training Theatre, the issue related to a variation to reduce the number of BAME beneficiaries from 53% to 33% however the GDSC wanted additional information on what outreach work had been carried out. Mr Hill said this was detailed in the bullet points at 3.4 of the report.

He also referred Members to the recommendation at page 6 of the report which was seeking the significant variation be approved.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         Pollyanna Training Theatre should consider holding performances at schools in order to get ‘buy in’ for students and parents alike.

The Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Grants Determination Sub-Committee to:

1.    Agree the recommendations relating to the releasing of payments to Our Base and the significant variation for the Pollyanna Training Theatre as set out in sections 3.3 and 3.6 of this report.

The Chair, Councillor Andrew Wood introduced this report stating that the Scrutiny Review looking at ‘Recreational Activities for Children and Young People in Tower Hamlets’ was as a result of the Sub-Committee agreeing to examine this topic at its November 2017 meeting.

The purpose of the review was to investigate the different provisions offered by the Council for young people to stay active in the Borough. The review was underpinned by three core questions:

·         What Council provisions are currently available for Young People to stay active?

·         How does our Grants Programme support young people to be physically active? And

·         What recreational facilities do we have in the Borough and what can we do to make them more accessible?

As a result two evidence sessions were held. One in January 2018 to look at evidence from the Council’s Public Health Team, Youth and Community, Sports and Physical Activities sectors and another in February 2018 when evidence from the Grants, Arts, Parks and Events service as well as the Sports, Leisure and Culture services was held together with input from Robert McLean, the relationship manager for London Sports.

Councillor Wood stated that the review was making a total of seven recommendations stated on pages 63-64 and welcomed the views of the Sub-Committee prior to the review being submitted to the parent Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:

·         What is the Scrutiny Review into recreational services for children and young people trying to achieve? It is not clear how this relates to the remit of the Grants Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

·         Think the scope of the review is too board. Is the aim of the Review to deliver more physical activity or to look at grant funding streams for sport related organisations / events?

·         Recommendations 4 to 7 relate to planning matters and therefore are not relevant to the Review.

·         The remit of the Grants Scrutiny Sub-Committee itself is narrow - it is mainly concerned with the process of recommending for approval a grant to the Grants Determination Sub-Committee. Therefore whilst the review makes valid points in relation to space and physical activity it does not provide the evidence of how the recommendations made will be supported or costed.

In response Councillor Wood agreed the review had delved too broadly into the subject area and with hindsight should have focussed more on the grant funding of organisations that provide sport and youth activities. The review looked at “space and access to space” and not the allocation of monies. He said that due to the lack of time, and the impending local elections, the review was reporting back to the Sub-Committee with its draft report. However the work of the review should continue, with the new Sub-Committee looking at how the issues identified can be executed and delivered.

Members of the Sub-Committee AGREED to recommend to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that:

1.    The recommendations identified as part of the Scrutiny Review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Members to receive a demonstration of how the Buzzacotts GIFT software works.

Stephen Hart, from Bazzacotts demonstrated the GIFTS online system.

He said the GIFTS online system would allow the Council to extrapolate data on the number of grants the Council has approved plus provide information on where and to whom the grants had been awarded to, as well as how much has been awarded.

He said the system was hosted via an online cloud solution and was approved by Central Government as a safe means to hold data. He said the information could be accessed using a number of devices such as a PC, Laptop or smartphone and users would need to clear security checks via the log in process.

Mr Hart said the idea was to provide an end to end online Grants management system, which could be used with the minimal amount of training. Mr Hart demonstrated the types of data that could be provided via dashboards and the benefits of using the system to search for organisations and the amounts awarded. For example, the system would allow you to see the history of grants awarded to a particular organisation, the amount and who the Donor source was.

Members of the Sub-Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the presentation:

·         Can third party organisations view the data?

·         Can the system allow you record committee decisions?

·         The system looks interesting and would be great for transparency. Have the third sector been involved in its design and types of reports it can produce?

·         Can people send messages via the software?

·         Good to hear data will be shared with the 360º Giving organisation.

·         What metadata can be run off the software?

·         What are you looking for, from this committee?

·         Is there additional maintenance cost for using GIFTs online system?

No other business was discussed at the meeting.