Transcript

Welcome to this meeting of the OG screening committee. I'm Chancin Erwin-Deal, and I will be chairing this meeting, which is being streamed live on YouTube. Before we start the meeting, we thank the staff members of the committee and everyone else to make sure that their mobiles are on silent. We will start our meeting with 72 seconds of silence from those who lost their lives in residential tragedy. We will start our meeting with 72 seconds. Does any member of this committee have an interest to declare blue? I'm not sure whether it justifies the interest, but I am the governor of two primary schools in the borough, and I must say the governor of the Chancellor's Westminster Hospital Cross, since we're dealing with a wide range of subjects. Yep, and I will declare my day job is in a GP practice in Paddington where, I mean it's conceivable that some of our patients are as far west as the Grenfell area, but most of them won't be. In front of the NHS. But yes, okay, when it's the previous meetings. So I'm going to ask you if we can order a business in the published version, and that we consider item six, relating to the long-term recovery. So I've really taken down the class. It's going to seem, it's going to seem amenable to that next. Brilliant. And before we move on, and I invite our NHS police to come to the table, I will just remind the room that when we come to questions, after we've had an introduction, I will turn first to the committee, then to members of the council who are in the audience, and then to the rest of the committee. Just keeps it nice and clear who's whose turn it is, so that's the way I'll be doing it. If you'd like to come to the table, we do need to come to the table. Thank you. The World's Ten Reaching and Reaching Programme was established by NHS England to address concerns raised by the coroner. And the programme was developed to deliver a commitment with trauma-informed, community-led care shaped by those itself and adapted as needs evolved. And can I ask Rob Hurd, who's the Chief Executive of North West London Integrated Care Board, and Andrew Stephen, who's the Biomedical Director for NHS North West London, and we've got Cameron Hill, who is the Assistant Director of North Queensland and Recovered, and Jennifer Roy, who's the Chief Nursing Officer at NHS North West London, to perhaps introduce that paper. And I know that you're operating under some constraints in terms of information constraints, and if you want to describe those, please do. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. I will bring in the team to sort of fight with some opening remarks and then leave maximum time for questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come for the update. Since we were last here, clearly there's been a lot of things going on. We heard the cloud and clear the messages that we needed to redesign services to meet need, acknowledge the fact that the NHS had not historically, although we've had significant funding and put into service and commissioned a range of services in our role, to commission those services to meet the needs of the community. And so the phase to reset that and to try and design the model for the future, if it came out of the five years into the next five years, has been uppermost in what we've been trying to set up. That is within an environment of significant change that we've been subject to, and we are not at the end point even now of what those services potentially are going to be funded for the period ahead, because that is still under discussion. But we felt that rather than wait any longer before giving an update on the next step, it was important to come back here with your invite to give an update of where we've got to, to give that overall context of the kinds of services we're designing, the importance that we recognise of community trust, the importance that we need to be in this for the long term, and that the NHS will commission services over the longer term. And against that, the needs that we have in this community. I'm going to hand over to Cameron and Andrew to talk through a little bit of where we've got to and what we plan for the future. But this isn't a decision point, this isn't a setting in policy time, this is an update as to where we've got to on designing those future services for the years ahead. And where we've got to on learning from the years that have gone by around that and acknowledgement that we need to continue to listen and do better to meet the needs of this community. Thank you. Thank you. I'll try and keep this as brief as possible. So, just three things for me to speak to. So, firstly, focus and then a look back around the inception of the programme, work to date, and then taking us back through last year and some of the work that's been done, thinking about sharing services. And then lastly, with a specific focus on the engagement and the development of the programme and for the French health programme. So, as people will know, the North Kensington recovery programme was originally a five-year programme until March 24. It was an NHS England commitment for five years to fund this work. So, 24-25 was a transition year after that five-year programme ended, and we used some of that time in the programme to really talk about what we needed to do in terms of sustainability going forward and continuity. So, as people may know, there are some components of the service offer at the moment to address physical health, mental health, emotional wellbeing, self-care. So, we have the Grown for Health and Wellbeing service. We have enhanced health checks. We have had a Healthier Futures programme with a range of voluntary community sector partners. So, you'll find a bit more detail on page two of the report, list out the different elements of that service offer. And just to mention, the very least in the last four months we initially exited personalised health assessments for people who left the Tower after 1.28 in the morning, whether the volume of smoke was thicker and may have been well-hazardous. So, on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, those were set up. We have two dividers. One's an NHS provider, one is a non-HS provider. So, people provide a choice of where and how to go. But around half the number of people who could potentially book in do so, so far. So, just recognising that we've been in the phase, it were, thinking about the future and the health needs of the population. We've had a focus on this being both responsive and sustainable and making sure that resources align with moving both now and into the future. So, the review really fed into our approach, working together with partners, with public health, with NHS providers and communities as well. So, our model of care work over the last nine months has sort of built on some really important evidence bases. We have the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, which was published again in 2024 as a refresh. So, that gives sort of information around the kind of support that is relevant for communities affected by Grenfell. We have lots of data from our services, lots of activity data and other public health insights, including the Health and Wellbeing Survey. And we've also had some really important external publications, the Second Phase Enquirer report, the Lessons Learned report from the King's Fund. All of that has fed into consideration about how we might do things differently and better. So, again, there's more detail in the second dependence on health needs, a kind of summary of health needs, as we understand them. And that is a set that we played back both to our partners and providers, but also to communities as well. It's kind of a sense, Jack would say, does this reflect your health needs? Do you think that there's anything missing in here? Do you think that there's anything that we're trying to do, because we wanted to make that part of dialogue? So, thinking about the model of care workers, which ran for the period into this year, we very much used a partnership approach, with the kinds of services that we would need, and some common themes came through from that. So, we'd already heard from the Future Grenfell Support Consultation how important personalization and tailored services were to people. lot of people. So different people need different things and didn't want to run the size for the solution. We also are very aware of core services, core NHS services over time in North Kensington will need to be in a place to address the needs of everybody in North Kensington. So we would in the future envisage a blend of brain health-specific services and core services that are very well-placed communities as well. And as we heard earlier, there is integrated neighbourhood team development and working that is coming together and working around place and neighbourhoods. That is the delivery vehicle for integrated care in the future and where we see a lot of this work coming together at a local level and place. So in summary, there's two appendices around the community engagement that we have done and summarised. They're both published at the Grenfell NHS website and their post-tap. Most recently, we've concluded the second phase of work and there were nine themes that came out of that, which I'll touch on very briefly. In addition to that, we know that adherence to Regulation 28, thinking about conventional future debts and Coroner's recommendations, it's very important going forward, and that we're in a place where we have a timetable between distresses and deconstruction of the tower and some other significant events, meaning that we need to have a really flexible and adaptive approach because we can't predict how people respond, how they will feel about some of those events that have taken place, that are really significant to them. So in terms of what we heard most recently through engagement, we heard about proximity to the tower being an indicator of need. People were keen to stand physical and mental health integrated in the same place wherever possible, going to the same place to get all of their health needs met. We also heard that there are some levels of anxiety and stress that are really enduring for people and that they are still being felt and they will change. There continue to be some concerns around toxicity, around how my health is now, how my health may be in the future, that may be linked to the materials in the town, the wider environment, as people really want to know that they will be okay and they are okay. So we continue to look into that and any future testing options. And finally, we want a mix of not just the limited services, but peer-led and community-based services as well. And very often, it's not the classic NHS services that help to keep people feeling well and healthy. We've heard that very clearly. Finally, I just mentioned, we heard a lot about doing things differently, about doing things in an accountable way, a transparent way. That includes how we make decisions. So under community-based recovery, that's something that we want to develop and be led by the community around for the rest of this year. So we'll continue to have those conversations and understand what that means to people and how we can really work differently for communities that are genuinely led by them. Thank you. Yeah, just a short update on some of the clinical work that we've been doing. So I'm fortunate enough to chair several meetings that involves the clinicians that are delivering the screening and delivering the care to the suppliers and to the community. And many of them came to the engagement meetings that we had in January around the new model of care. We were able to listen and engage with the populations and talk to them about the model of care there. So I thank them for turning up to that. We have had meetings with Professor Stafford here when we had a chat with the professor about the paper that she brought out on toxicity and we talked to her about future work that she was doing. She was able to share with us some of her concerns and we were able to listen to those and adjust the model so that any kind of cancer screening that was necessary we made sure that it was available depending on what was going forward. We've also talked to the Farmers Union around the work that they've been doing on toxicity and effectiveness and that's an ongoing conversation we're having with those researchers too. So we find it very hard to inform the debate with as much information as we can from the people that are doing the studies around us. We reached out to the Twin Towers medical teams that are doing screening and monitoring to them just to make sure that there was learning that they had that we couldn't pick up on and work here. It was difficult because they've got a very different health system to us but it was insightful to see that some of the things that they are picking up that you may need to be aware of. But they were also able to illustrate the differences they thought between what they were doing what we were likely to see here. So because the likelihood that any change is likely to be in very small numbers we've also employed some mail from Imperial University around how do you pick up changes from very small numbers from very small levels of statistics too. So we've reached out for some help from that to make sure that we pick up out. So yeah I hope that's helpful. Thank you very much. I'm going to start over there. I'll just ask the committee. We've got lots of people here who are really interested in asking questions. Can we keep our questions succinct and carefully consolidated? But on the other hand I'm anxious that there's much debate still needs. Thank you. Thank you for this very interesting and informative report. Something struck me in this report when you said you did engagement for developing the model of care and I would like to know when this was because I attended too and I didn't see no formal presentation in the model of care that was going to be delivered. I also stressed about the questionnaire that was not for the purpose and it wasn't very well done considering what we went through in Kensington after Grenfell fight. I think it was very poorly written considering the information that we're trying to get in order to actually shape services moving forward and actually enhance services. So I would like some information and answer for that and my other question is how will the ICP ensure that individuals affected by living around 500 meters are excluded from the need services? So those who are affected and were living at Grenfell and now they moved away, how is the ICP going to ensure that they're covered for emotional support moving forward? And given the community and mixed preferences, how will the ICP coordinate between clinical and non-clinical for mental health support services? Thank you, we'd like to address those two questions. Alan, do you want to speak on things? We start with D, that people have moved away from the area. So in response to that question, so there is a principle of flexibility where people are affected, but they move in the area. So for example, with some of the CMWL services, there is an effort to make contact with people where they may not be living at their old addresses. We understand that everybody lives, continues to live where they used to live, and we know that we need to be flexible as a system and responsive to people who moved out of area. We do know that through working with service providers, we get feedback that sometimes it's not possible to get a hold of people who may be on a list. And the phone number may no longer be in use, or whereabouts are unknown. But that is a proactive approach to making contact that is definitely encouraged. In terms of any kind of manageability criteria, I think again, the principle of flexibility is really important in recognising needs. So if somebody's been affected, then services will work with that individual needs. Andrew, I don't know if you want to comment on the primary to get in respect to people moving away. Yes, so I think there is a register and patients are identified as grand health survivors and there are IT systems that flag them up. So they should have access to the services if we go forward, and I hope that's the case. The question around the mixture of care for mental health patients, whether it's medical or non-medical, is a principle that I think will continue. And certainly CNWL has a history of doing that. And so I anticipate that once their services develop and mature going forward, that they will include a range of clinical and non-clinical services. The other arm of delivering both mental and physical services to the residents of the North Coast will hopefully be more and more through the Neighbour INT, which is a group of clinicians, voluntary sector and local authority, people coming together to first of all assess need, design services and then deliver the services. So we've got a good history of doing that. And certainly it's a priority in North Kensington to continue that. And we're talking to to the local authority about starting something called North Kensington first, which is a way of prioritising resources and schemes to look after that community in particular. Yeah, in the report, it said 1,000 clients. We have 1,000 clients, but I think now, also the engaged ones that are engaged in the ones that are not engaging. So are we got any data of relapsing and we're coming back into service? Do we have any data on that to those who weren't engaging? Do we have any data on that to service? Because as you know, people were traumatised. Sometimes they're not ready to engage. So at that first point of all. Now, do we have any data to see if there's anyone that come back into service and need the support now? So firstly, on the 1,000 figure, there's an report. So I had picked up with that. There's an error. So that should read 2,000 in terms of completed treatment. Okay, so it's 2,000? So it's 2,000, yes. So that is an inevitable process. We do receive service activity data from C and W.L. and the substance. So that comes to us. So it's validated through return directly from them. There is a focus on completed episodes of care. So, for example, a health check would be considered a completed episode of care. A long-term monitoring intervention would be a completed episode. We know that people may be in a therapy with that for a while over several sessions, but when that treatment is completed, we may come back at a future date, but that would be counted in the same way. So we have some different, I suppose we have referrals, we have activities counted in different ways for children and young people and for adults as well. So we've really summarised that at a very high level in the report. So people are open to coming to the service at any stage. So if they thought previously that they weren't ready for it, then the service remains open to them. So I think it's about how the sessions informed the development of the service model and the concerns about the questionnaire. Yes. I'm very concerned about that question and I'll tell you why. When you read that question, it seems as if it's gearing towards a particular service instead of opening up to collect data to make the right decision based on the evidence that is put in front of you. So for me, I just don't think back. And also, when you go online to get that question, you don't have, what therapy do you prefer or who supports you the best? You only have one option, but when it's printed, you can seek as many bots. So that is not factual data. Yeah. I was going to start and recall that that evening when he was mentioned. And I think what we got to do is to learn from that. So I think if we're thinking of any questioners for the future, we really need to get yourself and others to be able to say, I'm going to fill this out. What's the information that I need to be able to help us in terms of the benefits of services? So I apologise for that because I know it was quite upsetting that night about the questioners. So if we are thinking of doing something for the future, we've got to learn from that and then come back to yourself and our residents to say, we're going to put something together. Can you help us to make sure we maximise the information that we need to devote to services? Thank you. Thank you. My two colleagues outside of me are stronger on some of the finer details. So I do want to ask a slightly broader question. The number one is about the structure of the steering groups and how information is processed, how, you know, eligibility membership of them and how their results are sort of scrutinised in particular. And I'll ask the second question, which is slightly broader. It's just because it does hit me that, you know, fewer people tend to tick the other box, right? So if you've got 25% of these particular numbers, this is what they're spending on. And what you're looking at is grossing, it's like food, household items, right? How are we... I guess, I mean, yes, there's also, like I said, a quarter of an overarching job. If we're looking at that, how are we thinking about the fact that the immediate Grenfell area, Nottingdale, in terms of poverty, in terms of deprivation, in terms of multi-deprivation, has plummeted, right, since 2017. Sorry, I'm not aware. So it seems that some of these actual results, some of these figures, point towards that. And that is sort of, to me, just raising, like I say, broader questions of like, you know, and I do think it's important that in these, you know, specific briefs, somebody's thinking about how this ties into the broader question. Why is it like this? How can these reverse this direction of travel? And does that actually mean you start to have to look beyond the recognition that you had in Grenfell? And I know it's a broad question, and I'm trying to do it succinctly with it. But I hope that makes sense to you and you can give me some home response. Yeah, I'm kind of joking, thanks back to the membership of the steering group, a bit of that, but I've just, the idea, and I think Andrew has alluded to some of this, that, I mean, ultimately, we've got to acknowledge there is need in our communities, and that's the need that there, and the services that we need to try to respond to that need, are the product of a multiplicity of things in the state of the health and care system in responding to that need, but it needs to be designed based on both the quantitative to relative feedback, the experience data, and we have a whole approach to that, in addition to the particularly targeted specific needs of the groundhog community, in order to take both quantitative and quality data to inform our joint strategic needs assessment. So the inequalities, deprivation, the racial inequalities that we have in health and care services, both in terms of identification of need, the response to an ability to provide access to that, and the well-evidenced reason for our existence as a commissioner of health and care services, to address the inequalities and the improvement in health outcomes. So our whole department is geared around addressing that variation that is inherent within health care services, irrespective of the very, very important issues we're talking about tonight, which we have a specific additional approach to, with our Grenfell Recovery, our North Kensington Recovery Programme, with the North Kensington First Neighbourhood Teams, which are designed to ensure that our community providers, our mental health providers, our primary care, our GPs, and our voluntary services sectors are organising around those individual community needs. So our overall role is to ensure that the funding that we have, the resources that we have, are targeted at that need, and that is laid out to go into strategic needs assessment. And then that is enhanced by the particular needs of the Grenfell community that we have set up as a long-term recovery programme, with additional resources and start to work with our providers that we commission those services from. But to distinguish the need of that we're talking about, specifically tonight from the needs caused by the variation that have occurred, either separately to that or occurring anyway, it's all part of the challenge that we are here to, in the NHS, to commission those services against that. I don't know if Janet can reach that specific steering group and leadership, because we need that community, voluntary services, providers, as well as ourselves as the buyers of those services, to work with our local authorities and colleagues. So we're taking the opportunity at the moment to actually do a look back about the purpose of our steering groups, and about how we can transition into the future. And I think the key thing is, it's great that you can have your partnership and all the good teams, you know, and all the different bodies sitting together. But actually, what is it we're trying to achieve? But actually, what is the message back into the community to the use of services? And I think there's a gap there, that how do we actually bring our residents and use services into those conversations. So I think it's something that we need to think about, that we have more of our residents probably coming to these meetings and having a say around the table, because we want to do a collective course. So we are taking the opportunity to do a review of all our steering groups that we have, because we have a number of meetings, that we just need to follow up on this as well. I'm also wondering about, and it is mentioned in the documents here, about how we're increasing visibility and accessibility. I think it's been mentioned several times, mental health services particularly. I mean, people who live on a couple was over, you know, and, you know, they hear a helicopter and it's right, it's all coming back. And, you know, and I just know that I think there's generally awareness that we haven't quite nailed how to get to all the people we've been getting. So I think you'd like to respond to that? Yeah. So this ultimately is the challenge we face. So we have attempted to commission services, and put in place that are responsive to local needs. We are acknowledging the fact that we are still on the journey to ensure that we're getting those services to the people that need it and need to access those services. And to sit here and say, it's all right, the services are there. They're just not being used. It's not good enough for anybody. And that's why we need to reinforce the need for the engagement, understanding as to why those services that we are commissioning and putting in place are not being fully utilised by those that need those services that we've put there forward. Notwithstanding the fact that that's a, you know, significant use of precious doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, non-clinical staff who are geared around those needs, not spending time with the communities. And therefore, we need to understand the reason for that and keep working on the reason for that as it's being improved and opening up on that engagement and working in a local setting with the local authority team, with the providers and joining that up so that it is more focused around community rather than just putting in those services that are not fully utilised. But overall, our aim is to put the money into the services to meet the need. And that's part of that. We acknowledge there are gaps across the health services of our core services. So we have to do a balance between what the standard core expectation of any citizen should be of core NHS community primary care and health services. And then we need to understand the local variation we have in need around that and put in place, as we have in North Kensington, additional resources to meet that need. But both of those things need to be approved. If we design the core NHS offering in too much of a variable way, we won't get the maximum resources to actually put towards the needs of a specific unit. I'll just go back and say, so it goes back to that questionnaire, about making sure the question is done properly so that we can get the questions, get the answers, but then how do we use our community to help to reach the hard to reach individuals, because we have that everywhere, so that we can actually make sure that as we transition into a new way of working, we can reach out to everybody across the, you know, to reach out to everybody, you know, to reach out to everybody, you know, Thank you. Sorry, Sharon, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. No, just three words. The visibility, accessibility, and culturally sensitivity. Yeah. Thank you. Well summarised. Claire. Thank you. Claire. This is really very, very important. It's under underlying this is the Coral's concerns and there are eight recommendations purposely to prevent future deaths. And I know that there were future deaths. So hopefully going forward, we can actually implement these in a way that will be effective in that way. One of the things I wanted to ask was in terms of proximity, you're an indicator of vulnerability, shall we say, or effectiveness. I'm sure, and I'm just wondering, I'm correct in assuming, would you say that the vulnerability to trauma is not only determined by proximity, but also things like pre-existing experiences and mental health issues? Yes. I think we've acknowledged that every individual is different and all of that is relatively quite different. Yeah. So the answer, the answer is, I know we've got guidelines around certain services and opportunity, which is the right, the right point. What we do say to everyone involved in the service is if you think this person needs the service, whatever it happens to be, then let them access the service. So there's no, there's no cutoff. No. Good. Because there might be people who, for instance, are previously known to services who were therefore at greater risk and who unfortunately were not acknowledged as such and perhaps not given the care they might have had. So I hope that is something that can be looked at going forwards. In terms of transparency around, you mentioned monitoring, you've mentioned about the toxicity concerns, and I was wondering if you would commit to working with our public health healing council, making sure that there is transparency around the monitoring in terms of presentations, symptoms and deaths before and after the fire, because I think that would go a long way to alleviating people's anxieties about that. And I know that that's something to be difficult to coordinate so far. I see nothing which is great. So Anna comes along to, she's very closely involved with the groups that I chair. So she comes and informs as well as listens. And so, and we did some, we did some joint work with that on the GSNA as well. So I anticipate that work will continue. I think it's about, again, as Councillor Thattswood said, disability. And I just also wanted to add, I also attended some of the engagement meeting that was evaluating. Engaging with this generally as a member of the community affected is painful inherently. But I just wanted to say, I also did not see any future models. So I'm certainly curious how this is evolving and how this will be presented to residents for feedback going forwards. In other words, I suppose, was this an iterative process? You've got feedback, you've presented something and then went up and you changed it again? No, I didn't see it either. It was more to speak back under different topics, wasn't it? So in terms of the engagement at the beginning of the year, in January and February, we thought about topics in terms of the different health areas and different concerns that we'd heard from people around monitoring their own health, health assurance, mental health and emotional well-being. All those larger events we used in our animal table discussions to really try and unpick some of the themes and what people wanted to say about what mattered to them. So we took all of this together with the survey data, but also with some data and focus groups really to just start to get a much richer picture and an understanding about what mattered to people around their own health needs. Because service data and quantitative data really only tells us so much of it. It is a layered approach, so it's not done in January and February. We need to continue doing that, checking in with people and certainly once we're in a position to come back and do some further engagement. We are very mindful of the anniversary month of June and really doing that in a way that's sensitive, particularly when people may have a lot going on. We want to time that so that it works for people, and that also those opportunities are close to home. They're in community venues and we're able to take that opportunity out to people and we can use different channels that we need to get feedback. So the engagement will be will be ongoing throughout the next phase. Thank you very much. It's great. One more. One more. Sorry. I just wanted to ask whether what your view is on the importance of locally available provision for residents, given that 75% of Nottingdale residents do not have access to a car. And we have already seen regrettably some removal of services from the area, which places an additional barrier to access. Have you got some examples? Yes, I have. Parkside, FAMS, Adult Psychotherapy, and Cognitive Care would be another one. Thank you. The balance needs to be struck between, as I was displaying, more about what the core offering and the ability of us to staff and resource services for our communities and response to local need. We can't have all services in every location at all times. We try and have a core offering and enhance that. I can't call it on a particular list that's been... Can we be mindful of not removing any more services from North Kensington? As a general overall point, bearing in mind that we have a priority to care for the physical and mental health of the Grenfell community, the proximity to the tower, who don't have access to cars. It wouldn't be a problem for me to never say never on any service change going forward in a world in which we need to continue to engage on that. Could you take, could you take on board the point? I will take on board the point that we have a balance that in terms of investment in resources, significant additional investment over many years out of hospital into that community, and if we compared over time with investment in our mental health services, investment in primary care relative to other areas of our... So I think that the services that we are funding in that area have have growth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've just got two questions. The first one was just with events like the towers and events were on the horizon. Are there plans to provide additional trauma support to those affected? I appreciate that you all have agreed to keep the MCAS on some charts, but in addition to this, can you sort of really understand what that support looks like? I'm telling us we were looking at putting specific things in place on this. So we have a commitment to review health needs on an ongoing basis to sort of understand what might change for people, particularly around really sort of milestones like taking down the tower, working with our colleagues and our partners and providing some of those specialist services at the moment will be for the rest of the rest of this year on an ongoing basis. So the current set of services that we have in place at the moment will sort of gear and remobilise around events in a way that is sensitive to what might be coming up for people. So that extends to GP care as well. We will work very closely with GPs to make them aware of potential increase in demand referrals and the kind of activity they may be seeing. We have quite a lot in place to support more understanding of trauma-informed working, for example, of culturally competent working, and sort of really making sure services are responsive and effective around communities' kinds of needs. Yeah, and we do anticipate that there probably will be an increase in need for a period of time after that. So we have identified money that should be available for extra services if or when they should require it. So that piece of work has been done. And you're all not concerned about resources or capacity in terms of that additional amount. I think we've got financial resources available to pay for extra services if they're required, whether that's from GPs or from other services. And then just a more general kind of, given the well-documented and ongoing mental health needs and the lack of trust that does exist within the community and within NHS services, what specific measurable steps are being taken to deliver trauma-informed, culturally competent care? And how will this progress be tracked? And then that's the community to try and rebuild some of that trust. So I think having an ongoing team, longer-term local development of that naval team approach that we've described to continue to engage and learn when we make mistakes, what we need to do differently, like the questionnaire, continuous improvement, methodology, some trying to create some stability in the local teams to develop an coordinated approach across the local providers. I talked about long-term commitment and certainly our long-term commitment to meeting the needs of that community in the North County Kensington team is there and that it will only build over time if we continue with that kind of kind of approach and to have investment in that team. Thank you. Thanks very much, Chair. In the interests of time, I'll just go to my big question and leave the small ones. And I was very encouraged, Rob, by your opening and saying you were in this for the long term, but the reality is that like us, you're governed by budget cycles. You've presented us with a five-year plan in here. And I think last time I saw this when I was on the Social Care Committee about six years ago, there was a previous iteration of that that we looked at. And let's say you've got these cycles. But yeah, this is going to be a very long-term endeavour. And we have abandoned disaster in Wales, which was in 1966, nearly 60 years ago. There are still tremors of that in that community. So what assurance can you give me against the background that you've got these budget cycles? Can you give us that you can embed a culture of keeping this service, this level of service in the community beyond your own terms of office, beyond our terms of office? How can this be embedded within North West London? So, as you say, we have both the sort of one-year cycle, the five-year cycle, and so we've made the commitment in the five-year cycle going forward around this. There is the annual budgetary rounds that we face in terms of the reality of what we've got to do. However, the needs are set and why I emphasise the long-term commitment through the joint needs assessment process, the team being in place to take what I described as ultimately the development of our standard NHS core offering for all of our communities versus the way in which we identified the need goes from above that and the specific needs we have in the grand health community. But that is part of our statutory duty to work, you know, so you've got the statute of our responsibility to involve, engage against need and design services. The way in which that works in terms of our work with the health and wellbeing boards on our long-term strategies and to make sure that this never falls off the list, I would suggest. But the sort of technically, statutorily, the commitment to meet need from the health care budget that we have to meet health needs to vary that for the needs of individual communities is the protection there. I totally acknowledge that there's there's a kind of a reality of that on an annual basis and indeed as we're reflecting five-year forward views that I would suggest councillors and MPs need to be vigilant upon the NHS to make sure that that is upheld because nobody can sit here. Nobody can sit here and commit to beyond five years and it's difficult sometimes to commit to tomorrow in the environment in which we face. But that's the kind of a mechanism, as I say, that the development long-term of these neighbourhood teams that are embedded into our providers, our GPs, our community services, our mental health services locally, organising themselves as we are asking them to do and funding and incentivising them with money to do so, to have a North Kensington first integrated neighbourhood team to use the job and organise around the neighborhood community and to only get paid if they are meeting those needs and that's the kind of direction of Trump model we face. We will have less resources, as you know, level in order to do that, but we will have the resources that we can targeted at those frontline engagement involvement of local agencies and design of other services that the Commissioner will buy. We will still have a small dedicated team to do the work, so although we do try and integrate it into our neighbourhood and partnership, we will still have a dedicated team specifically for instance in the country. Thank you. So what more comments is something you said in the middle there, which feeds into my supplementary the question. What more can we do as representatives in the community to keep this utmost in your mind? What are you looking for from us to make sure that you're on track? So clearly we are, after fair shares, allocations against population need of people of North West London and indeed grandfather. We have thus far continued to ensure that we get additional resources targeted of this need. Our overall equation, we are overall, without that resource, we are at a distance from targets and we're short of that overall. And we're continuing to ensure that over the years ahead that we have those resources. Point number one of highlighting the resource need of the additional needs. Point number two are the support for the direction that I've described around our providers, organising themselves and holding our providers to account on delivery. Because I'm a commissioner, we're the commissioners here and we use the work of the local teams and the local experts, but we try and then allocate public resources to meet that need and hold our providers to meeting that need. One of the things that we've had along the way here is that tension between what we're putting money into something, we're putting the electronic resource up to meet need, but we are not self-evidently seem to be meeting the needs of that community. So we need to continue to promote our providers, organising themselves around that rather than the fragmented landscape that it can often feel like to users of health services, that we're not joined up, we don't talk to each other and trust that this is all joined up. So we're trying to join it up, we're trying to target the funds at that more community-facing service and the neighbourhood team approach is what we value your support on. Then we can bring the resources and the response to need together. Thank you. I think you've just touched on, firstly my first question was asked down there, but I wanted to ask about the disconnect in your ratings and the level of trust that actually there is. Here you read some people delivering quite well and then you have a disconnect in that people are not trusting you. I'd like to explain a bit more why. I appreciate what you're doing to address it. And then my second question is, it comes to the challenges of accessing GPs in the area, and I think you're interested to understand how you're looking to help with that. I think that the NHS has not always historically done well at genuine engagement and development, continuous improvement of services and learning as we go. We've tried to correct that. We've continued to try and correct that. But we are often governed by sets of criteria and rules that stand in the way of that, and we're trying to change the way in which we organise ourselves. And what I've already been saying about the investment in neighbouring teams and organising providers, not in the image of the provision itself, but in the image of the community. And so I think not doing that engagement and involvement as well and in partnership sufficiently with the community and with other partners. And we've tried to invest in that. We've tried to learn and we've tried to brush ourselves down. The only answer here is to continue to do that and try and do better going forward. That's not to say we haven't attempted, therefore, to go to the part where we're going to have in describing it, to set those sets up, to ask our hospitals, to ask our GPs to do these things, to provide resources and funding in order to say that these things are in place. And with that, it's a very difficult equation. It doesn't matter if we put it in place. It's not being utilised and access and the trust isn't there. We have an ongoing journey to continue to try and recover that. Thank you. So I think the other thing is, I think when people use the services, generally speaking, people are happy with them, which is why we're able to report very high levels of relation satisfaction, whether it's either with the services or with the GB. But the mistrust outcomes, people probably, you know, aren't using the services and therefore staying away, which is the issue that we're obviously going to address. Around access, we recognise post-COVID and even pre-COVID access remains a problem or an issue of concern. So in West London, previously as the CCG and now as a borough in the ICB, we've invested in incentivising access to GPs. And so that's a scheme that we've been investing in locally and continue to do so. And on top of that, we've joined with North West London on an access piece around general practice, which started this April, which is to make access to GPs much easier and to streamline that and to make people's patients experience around that much, much better. So we're doing that at scale, as well as inside primary and long-term GP practices. What does that actually mean? Well, so locally, we run clearance at QBK. We run clinics every bank holiday. There are clinics running in the evening to support practices, as well as getting practices to have a minimum number of appointments per 1,000 patients, increasing that number during the winter, making sure they've got a range of options around delivery of appointments, face-to-face, telephone, online or other. So does that answer the question? Thank you. I'll come back to you. I'm going to finish going around. Will? The first point I wanted to make is, could we have more time and shorter paper? Because I put a lot of my personal time in and I just still don't feel I've done justice in terms of scrutinising this paper. I just don't think that it's possible to scrutinise this amount of information. There is a lot of background information here. One of the ways around this is, could we have, through scrutiny, more briefing on how the NHS works well or not so well with our parallel virus services work? Because part of the difficulty that I personally feel, and I know my colleagues share this, is that there's a lot of jargon. There's a lot of understanding about how changing parts of the NHS cannot specifically to do with groundhog that we're here to talk about tonight. And if we had prior knowledge of that, we could focus the limited time that we had on this shorter paper, which will be focused on the gradual aspects of it. So that's a request. Perhaps we'll take that outside of the meeting and perhaps in conference with the meeting. Yeah. The first question I want to ask is, will the required budget reductions in the ICB last financial year and this financial year, which are radical, it's 50% reduction this year and 30% last year. Will that reduction in resources actually compromise the ability to implement the programmes that have been put forward here? As we sit here now know, we have affected what you're talking about is the sort of non-front line administrative overheads that we incur within, as you describe eloquently, the integrated care cuts and board cuts. The whole idea of those is to allow maximum resources for the providers and the community. And the whole idea is that we develop neighbourhood teams that have people that are engaging more to translate, as you describe, you know, the noise of everything that's going on to what that means for a local community. We do have, and we've got, you know, we're still in deliberation around exactly what scale of resources we have for different component parts. So we are in a process. So you describe an announcement of 50% cuts. That is a whole year ahead of exactly what that means and a need to sit down and talk to people about what the implications of those are going to be. But the headline spirit of them is to allow for upping the pace on removing the bureaucracy and increasing the neighbourhood team focus around that. So you've got less people like me in layers in the chain and have that focus around that local community. But we've got a whole year ahead of going through that bit. But for the purpose of today's discussion, that has not been relevant, that 50% has not been relevant to any decisions around what the Grenfell local support team is. Thank you. It's good to have that assurance and we'll obviously revisit that when the enactment happens. The second question I want to ask is, it follows on from page eight and nine, GSNA, but also moving on to page 36. The aspects of GSNA points to mental health. health and most issues are not specifically Grenfell related. It's a surprising phrase that I saw there, which has possibly been covered by some of the earlier discussion, and it's a combination of prior needs and sort of exacerbated or complicated by the stress put on the Grenfell disaster, on the individual by the Grenfell disaster. And it also points to the fact that the mental health has the most assistance issue or perhaps the physical health needs. The question is to do with how these, through the joined up personalised physical and mental health care patterns, how they will address this in particular digital. The supplement to that is, specifically on page 36, it looks at the aspect of the needs of schools, NHS and parents working better together. And I presume that would be disaggregated down into 0 to 5, 5 to 11, 11 to 18 age groups, which are natural transition points in child's development. And how this will also help them in implementation of transition to adult care. Well, there's a lot in that. So that's the reason your report, indeed. So, I mean, the first thing in terms of some of the language, I apologise if it's not quite totally correct in terms of that, but the basic acknowledgement of the joint up to it is about the physical and mental health. The fact that, again, I'm not going to be able to go into all the pieces of the whole mental health strategy about the need that we are investing significant extra funds year on year in mental health support services and other mental health investment strategy. And fully, much of a distinction between physical and mental health is, you know, we are talking about individuals and it's a whole package that we need to, and so those joint health plans say, we are trying to integrate data digitally, so we have one health record, we're looking at it all in one, we're looking at an individual, there will be information about that individual, with the relevant clinicians able to advise on the relevant service and access to services. And yes, working with schools then, if you then link it in with, you know, the wider aspects of that, and yes, that would be the other difficult issues across those age groups. So, absolutely, you've got the impact of children and survivors, and that community that we're working for in North Kent, and so then you've got the wider population, and we work with you around the neighbourhood case, wrap around the service, so we know that we're meant to have children, there's a lot more children accessing the camp service, you know, to have services, and the whole idea is to make sure that we have those services, which are in the middle of the yard, and then the numbers are, you know, from 5 to 19, and then that transition here from, going from 17 to 18 to adult, so that transition piece of work that we're doing. So, I think when we look about the way we do the work in the future, it's about what can we offer the neighbourhood, and what care can we offer, particularly we're talking about the Grenfell residents, but actually we want to do the work around the wider population, so children are our next generation, and we know children are impacted now, and that's the reason why we've got the CYP service for the mental health support, the camps, and we want to make sure that we focus on those children transitioning, because I think some of the feedback we've had in the past is about how children are managing at school, and the impact about those who are not able to get into the educational system because of the mental health issues, so we have got a big focus around that, and we've got our dedicated doctors who are focusing around children, the next generation. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, brother. Certainly. Thank you, Geoff. I've got a few questions, but my overall starting point is I'm a bit concerned, and I haven't read this report, but I've got some of the answers you mentioned, so I'll go into them in a bit of detail. My reading of the report, if you look on page 65, it's 66, the first paragraph, I'm trying to understand the document, it took in the first line, it says the ICB manages 5.1 billion in the past, if I thought that was correct, and then on page 8, this is a 50 million pound rent for support programme about 52.6 million. My question is, is the 52.6 included in the 5.1 billion, or is it a separate amount over and above the standard LHS per billion? So we have historically received an additional top-up to the standard allocation, which will be included because it is a 5.1 billion probably in that number, I don't know if it's precisely, but in terms of our overall approach, as I said, because we would then have an overall needs-based populism, the way that by nature, I'm sorry for the technicalities, there's a needs-based formula of how much appropriate funding a health system gets for its population, and we have traditionally been below that historically in Northwest London as a whole, and we have a recognition of the top-up needed for the gradual need, and that 50 million relates to the top-up we have been receiving. We are expecting at the time, therefore, that need to be recognised in our ongoing, forever more formula of needs in the 5.1 billion as it grows every year, and our distance from target is topped up with a great need, so that it becomes business as usual, rather than an additional top-up. And our commitment is to continue to assess the need and to fund the services needed for that community, irrespective of that top-up, because the formula will correct that top-up over time, and we will ensure there are events written that's made against the need for that community. That doesn't mean we're committing to a particular sum or any particular day or any particular year. It doesn't mean we're committing to a process to meet that need and ensure that, as per our search of duty, that the needs-based assessment for all of our communities accrued, including the very specific needs of this community are built into what we spent in that 5.1 billion, which will grow at an even faster rate if we have a correction against our needs-based funding formula, which we are continuing to make progress on over time, and therefore we're spending more proportionally than many parts of the country on growth and investment into some of these services. That's nice. So maybe going forward, as the Council of Pascal said, is that when we talk about rent down North Kensington, and we just focus on that area, so we don't actually talk about the whole ice and how much money we spend in the RCV, focus will be. Because you've got two sums there, you've got the six or five billion that we've got as a budget, and then we've got the budget that we have six people in North Kensington as our program. So I think it's probably just the way we presented it, and they've got some confusion. So we just have to do it the other way around. So my concern, the reason for the question, of course, is that you've got a specific cohort we've heard about as a fan, 60-year, 70-year legacy. In normal budgets, if you absorb specific amounts of money for a specific cohort into the general budget, it gets disappeared, and then the people will be left behind. So I'm extremely concerned that you just absorb it and say, oh, no, it's gone, and I deal with it in the normal area. That's what comes across in your response, and I'm extremely concerned. Can I just put everything I've been saying is, because I can clearly understand that whatever somebody like me sits here now, it's what's going to be there in the five billion. What I'm saying is that if we support the development of neighbourhood teams, the needs-based approach, the statutory responsibilities that we have to meet that need, then we won't be at a whim of any particular budgetary cycle, and wherever we are each year, we will be driving it from the evidence and the needs of that community based on what that is. Because I think you're right. I think there's an absolute danger that it gets lost in that. But if we hold on to the neighbourhood team and identify that need and have a methodology through our health and wellbeing boards and joint strategic needs assessment to make sure that that doesn't happen, then the commissioner who has that five billion will be responsible for a duty to demonstrate that that that is happening, rather than it is reliant on the whim of any particular year and the budgetary cycle. And I do think that's the only answer anybody will be able to give you this, because we seem to longer term, none of us can do that. And then if we turn to page 23, I think we've heard a little bit about this as well. In the middle of the page, we've got no trust in NHS services, and it seems to be yes across the board. And if we turn to page 103, that mental health on the right hand side, second paragraph, people involved in print, do not yet have confidence in the services that we offer. And this is talking about mental health, I'll come back to. And then slightly more alarming on page 25, bullet point three, it says, particularly low for children who live out of area. So my concern there is, Wednesday didn't happen yesterday, it happened a long time ago, and yet I'm reading that trust and confidence, but I'm extremely concerned that you drop particularly low for children who live out of area. Why can't I just contact the parents? Because if the children live out of area, it shouldn't be too difficult to contact the parents, do you know where they live? I'm concerned. I think that's responsible. I can't comment specifically. So on the point of children's families living out of area. So we have a paediatric long term monitoring service, which is responsible for giving children a full health check. So as children grow up, as they sort of move through their developmental stages, that paediatric service is there for them. It's a specific service with a lot of dedicated time for every child. However, not every family chooses to use the service. And a lot of the work that we've done with our colleagues at Imperial has been around, how can we do what we encourage families and children to come to where they live? So there is, there is some very specific work around trying to increase uptake for that service. It makes us waste risk in the fact that it's low, it's the fact that if the access is there, we can reach them out to the items that actually probably know what we want. So we can probably just need to do that again. Thank you. I think I've acknowledged up front that we've noticed all of this is saying there is not the trust. We need to continue to do better at how we generate that. And we need to have a way in which it's not just about we're spending money on services and setting them up, but they're actually being responsive to the community. And I acknowledge that some of the causal factors of that is we have not generated engagement and involvement in those services. We haven't generated people accessing the services that we've set up. And I'm just acknowledging that that is an issue that we need to continue to improve the world right now. My final question, Chair, is in relation to, on page 103, paragraph one, the £80 million specifically for improving mental health. We've heard about mental health already. Do you have a dedicated helpline for Grenfell survivors to call? That's RingFence, so it's the Grenfell support line. Do you have GPs that only deal with Grenfell and Grenfell people? So it's the RingFence, so that everyone knows where to go. Because if you try and blend it in to the general NHS, and it gets lost in translation. No one knows who they're going to or where they're not going to. People won't come. And we've heard a lot, and I'm just extremely concerned that you've been doing this for a very long time, yet you're still having extremely poor take-up, extremely low low. I mean, not uptake, but just the people from the community. And I will be out of that, because if you do look on page 28, and look at bullet points, five, you say here that you've got these additional services, swimming, yoga, I think it's a massage that you've got to message, and frequently mentioning positive feedback. So you are getting positive feedback on some of the services, as I say there. So you are doing some things right, but I'm just very concerned that overall, that doesn't seem to be the message that you've got to be, as the Councillor said, a 300-page document. And I'm very concerned about that, because this is many years ago. I'm sorry to ask you some of those specific questions about the mental health line and the dedicated service for the gene to talk about, the dedicated service that you've got. So we've commissioned. Yeah, so, Councillor, we have a dedicated service in a system that is there for survivors and bereaved, and that is a service for them for their care, and their health needs joining up with other services that are Grenfell specific and non-Grenfell specific. But in terms of primary care, there are enhanced health checks, which are specifically for survivors bereaved and people who have seen Grenfell affected in some way. And so GPs in North Kensington and other GPs in US London are using that scheme and are proactively identifying patients to come in and make use of it and really promote the benefits of an annual health check to sort of understand where people are with their own health and the concerns that they may have around their health as well. Thank you. Thank you. We didn't finish the question. Is there a dedicated mental health line? No, we used to have a phone service a few years ago, but it was clearly... What for just the Grenfell? Yeah, but it was very rare to use. So you solved it? So it was at the SPA, Single Point of Access. I think that was the replacement to the night service, wasn't it? Yeah, the night service. I think that's a good thing to generate into an overall conversation with people. Thank you, Chair. Most of my questions have often been answered, trust, accessibility, etc. One of the overall observations that I made is that there is no mention of, are all these different bodies going to be... so is there going to be a cohesiveness between different bodies? Because quite often within NHS, it's very popular, you know, I'm going to go for a blood test in one but we don't have on the computer, and it's just wasting funds. And I don't see that anywhere in there, that sort of cohesiveness between different bodies, you know, consultation, all the different services that you provide. And do you plan to do that? So that's the whole reason behind what we've been describing, the move to neighbourhood teams, where we're organising our providers to be more focused around community-facing services, as opposed to joining up the data and the record between those providers, so that the community, or the mental health provider, the primary care, clinicians, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, are all working together around that. That's the terminology, but apologies for the job, but the neighbourhood health approach, and setting up those teams in those existing providers, central, north-west London, the GPs, the community mental health services, to do that through a neighbourhood team supported by Karen and the team in terms of the community engagement. Thank you all right. Okay, show me one more thing. And the other thing I'm just going to ask, this is all about clarification, on page nine, when you talk about the everyone's gathering and the analysis, one of the things that just puzzled me, it says ongoing concerns about service navigation was trust and cultural appropriateness. What is that? Cultural programming, how does that impact? So we had, so we learned lots of lessons very quickly about how different sectors of community do things like mental health, mental illness, and other things, and so we, Krishna, set up a nationally approved cultural competency training course, so that we could understand different groups. Oh, sorry, Krishna who? Are you really, really putting that on, Krishna? You know the truth. So, well, okay, but certainly you, if it was other people, then thank you very much. Please don't, let's just do it. But cultural competency training is, it's something that we've added because we recognise there was a gap in our understanding of how people view how to do it. Thank you, thank you. So I've got a quick question, and that is about the consultation. I'm surprised by the lack of data on your consultation here. So, for example, the number of people that responded, the number of people that were asked. So I'm always being very mean to our own officers, as some of them will attest, about, you know, setting ourselves standards of how many people we ask. What do we think, before we get the answers, what do we think is a reasonable response rate? Because if we don't get that, then we haven't done the consultation, which just goes back to points that's funny to over there. And I think, you know, before you set up on these journeys of consultation, I'm sorry, I said journeys now, that's jargon. So when we set up doing this, we ought to set those parameters to start with, and then judge our consultation against it, making it right every time, and sometimes you'll fall short of it. But at least I'll start with an honest approach. And I would really urge you to do that, although you may tell me that that's not possible, and I've asked the wrong question. But I think that's, again, tied in with accessibility, because if you're setting yourself those goals for engaging and getting responses, then I think you're helping yourself in the future with the reach of your services. How would you respond to that? Is that fair? We do have some harder data that we haven't included in the PACs, with the wish of keeping things as short as possible. But we do have records of how many responses and some further breakdowns and some further data. So what you have here is a summary, but we do know how important it is to understand how successful we've been in reaching out. And there's also something around hearing what preferences are in terms of how people would like to have the conversation as well. So we know we can't sit still with that. And actually that engagement has to be on the terms of people we are serving and the communities we are having the conversation with. So that's something people are told. I think it could be more transparent in the future, of course, because this is a very important aspect, possibly less words and more figures, fewer words and more figures. But I mean, if I look at page 52, basically they look like there are 188 responses to something, which seems quite low to me. And that may be unfair to me, but you know, tell me why that's unfair in future courts. I'm not expecting an answer for that now. That's just an overall, because I'm expecting that we will have a report like this in the future. And when I do, I'm just trying to set this committee's expectations. And I'm going to take a very short intervention. It was an intervention following Councillor Gardner's, the answer to Councillor Gardner's question, which was about GP access. And I was very interested to hear about the work that you're doing to improve access to GPs. As a Nottingdale counsellor, I have constituents who came to me, including Reaping survivors, who are having real difficulties accessing the GP. I will say I have those difficulties myself, but they practice fits very near to grown adults for years. And I just wondered whether the work that you talked about doing there on improving access, that applying specifically to Nottingdale community in particular. And then just quickly following Sydney's question, where there's no uptake in and out of area children. Could that be anything to do with a barrier such as distance, transport, or journey time? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Who'd actually respond to that? So the access work is both North-West London, which is all over North-West London, which we are implementing in West London. There's also the West London work as well, which is for RBKC and Greenspark and Parrington. What we do do is we look, and this group does look, does look at the access figures to see if there's an issue. Because we get the same reports that you get, Councillor, about difficulties getting access. So if there are issues around the particular practice that draw attention, then we go and investigate what those issues are. And that will continue going forward. Well, thank you. Okay, I'm going to open this to the floor. So I'm going to invite, I'm first, I'm going to invite councils in the audience, if you'd like to go first. Emma does possibly. Marwan, do you want to ask anything? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you very much. As concisely as your colleagues on. Yes, I'm just following up. Actually, I admit they're not on that, regarding the GP. But yeah, thank you very much for resetting the clock regarding what's been going on for a long time, recognizing there is a traumatized community you are dealing with here. So you are doing different research. So my question is really, does it really worry you that from the start of the 40th of June 2017, until now, we are going to the eighth anniversary of this tragedy? That if you look around, building on what my colleague in Nottingdale, I picked one single point, which I keep, I've witnessed, I've seen it. And you will expect a first class service in our medical community, as well as our local provisions, in particular, within the 500 meters of Krakow. So if you can see and focus on one aspect, I would like to see the first class service, even within that immediate community. Because the budget is time. As many said here, it's a long term issue provision. And how the quality of data you're trying to capture is going to feed within any future model, which you recognize is so complex, there are so many complex parameters, you are dealing with Jarvis, my counselor, my fellow counselor, highlighted on the different parameters. So you try to devise some measure to fit all where we are, as well, you are focusing on personalized provision services. So how do you foresee tangible evidence regarding the opening hours of GT practice? Yeah, I've seen myself, elderly person, 8.15 in cold weather, just sitting at the door, where that clinic should have been open at 8 o'clock. Can I ask for a response on that? Yeah, I mean, that shouldn't be happening. And that's why we know there's a piece of work we have to do about access and make sure that that's easier. I certainly share your aspiration that we create an improving and good service and better service for the survivors. Generally speaking, for the residents in North Queensland, because we know that we were previously underserved by the healthcare system, so we want to make that better. We don't rely just on our own review of data and information. We invite other people to come in and check it. And we work with Amorali on looking at the data that we're producing as well, and make sure that it makes sense and that we're looking at the right data and we're not missing anything. The one area that may be of interest in, Councillor, we came to your meeting a few weeks ago, and what we were able to demonstrate there is that in Councillor's screening services, we've seen an improvement in the north of the borough, whereas we would normally expect the areas of deprivation or poverty to be on the bottom of any kind of league table. We've seen an improvement. It's still an awful lot way to go. There's an awful lot of ways to go. I absolutely accept that. But it's encouraging that maybe some of the work that we've started in partnership with the local authority and voluntary sector groups might be having an impact. But I completely agree with your aspiration. And Chair, can I just quickly follow up? Extremely 30 seconds, even less. Regarding measurable outcome, I mean, that's why I'm focusing on some processes where this can be easily measured and monitored. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I hope we're very happy to share the metrics that we're measuring that on measurable things on improved same day access into primary care, as well as the extended services that we've been putting in place, and that we measure that by practice, by groups of practices. I'm sure Lucy's committee will be interested. Now, I know Ella has changed her mind, what she's entitled to do. I would like to ask a question. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to say this issue about accessing appointments. When I came to the meeting in January and discovered that I was supposed to have an annual health check. I was absolutely delighted. I hadn't had one for many years, and I've been suffering from cancer. I'm good now. But, you know, I found it quite surprising. So, again, this is great. I need to get an appointment. So, you can't get an appointment over the counter, as it were. You have to get there at 8.30 in the morning on phone, and you're in competition with somebody who's been up all night with a sick baby. So, okay, go online. It literally took me half an hour, and I'm quite an intelligent person to work out how to get an appointment online, and I was so delighted when I did it. And I've never been able to find anybody else who's managed to get an appointment online. This is so complicated. It's worse than getting a driver's license, but it's worse than getting... So, Emma's personal child is a challenge to you. But this is, yeah, but this is my, you know, my chief who's got 2,000 patients. I'm clearly not the only one. And so, this idea of access, where is my annual health check? I've gone now, but it's kind of... Some of this just isn't... It doesn't ring true. I'm sorry. This is what... It's just experience for people on the ground. Thank you. Now, I'm going to open it on the floor. I know Josh wants to speak, but I'm going to come back to it at the end, because I've sort of put it open to the floor. So, the gentleman here, then, Melanie. Melanie? Thank you very much, Chair. My question is a line of what's been talked about, but we've been engaging quite closely with the NHS. And for the last year, we've been talking about what they call the transition period, which is 24. I don't know how they put it, the year of transition. But anyway, we're not talking about that. But from there, we had a commitment from the ICP, and the name of Mr. Rob Heard, and they replied to our complaint letter about some misuse of some of the resources that disappeared, and we haven't been used in the community setting. So, we still haven't got response to that. I'm sorry to have to bring it to you now, but because Mr. Rob is vegan as well. So, he's giving us commitment. But this is not personal. This is just facts. I'm talking about facts. I'm not talking about anything. Now, the question is, the commitment you said, we're going to have the community to lead the recovery, and we're going to deal with health inequality. Now, in this report, you're telling us we are moving or we are transitioning to place-based partnership and integrated neighborhood team model. Something we've never been informed about or talked about or had any consultation on, and now that is supposed to be happening in North West London as part of the ICB. The question also about the allocation of the resources. So, you have at the council, they are developing 24-28. You are developing 25-29. How are you going to align that? Because those are resources, we want you to know how much resources are available for the community, and are those resources for Grenfell specific, rather than the service that you provide similarly in 42 million people in North West London? Rob, I don't know if you want to respond on any particular question about resources, but then there's also a question again about, which I was going to draw points at the end, just a concern about your pipeline authentication, essentially, and how we address that in the future. Yeah, so I think I apologise for my sort of NHS jargon, but the whole concept of community-led response and neighborhood team approach is the same thing. It's a continuation of attempting to get a more locally focused community-led neighborhood approach to that, and the terminology around the North Kensington integrated neighborhood team translates into how we're going to get those community providers, those services, and the teams are engaging the community to bring that together in a joined-up way. I'm very happy to go and look at the lack of response you've talked about. I know there has been a lot of disquiet around, you know, the £50 million and the resources that have been expended, and I would say that in terms of using those resources to ensure that we have access to services for that, and I've acknowledged this as an issue in terms of how we've got the value out of that in terms of having its impact. That is why we need to make sure we're designing services and improve on our impact, and if there's more information that we haven't provided on that, we'll do so. And the re-fencing issue, I think the means to that end is to ensure that that recognition and the needs assessment is permanently there indeed in the NHS's strategy. I think in your communications as well, you need to kind of outline how much more you've got as a result of that aspect of the needs assessment to all of us. I think we all would appreciate that information in the future if it's not going to be sort of officially. Thank you. Okay, so Melanie. Thank you for coming here. It is good to see you, it's been a little while. So I'm Melanie Bull and I run along with colleagues in the community, North Kensington Community Kitchen, and we respond to the dire inequalities and poverty across not only Nottingdale, but across North Kensington. We feed hundreds of, we share food, I should say, with hundreds of people a week. Around 65 to 70 percent are children, from very young children through to our youth. So we have quite a good idea of what's happening on our own ground, so to speak. So we would of course like to know more about the funds for future years, how they're going to be solidified, how they're going to be, as Noah said, how they're going to be ring fenced and kept for all of us. It's very nice to be able to sit here and for everyone to be polite, which is of course good and wonderful. However, it is quite horrific to be talking about future deaths, for many the thought of the destruction of the tower, thinking about the contamination that we've all breathed in, and yeah, again, future deaths, people who are already dying, adequate testing for anything really, but particularly the issue of toxicity and contamination is a huge issue for so many of us. The GPs, we talk about going to GPs, but they won't necessarily, not all GPs will recognize that things are Grenfell related. I've got a child born and bred here, it can take three weeks to get, and this is at the moment, it can take three weeks to get an appointment. It's incredibly frustrating. It's very hard, even for us within our communities, it's very hard to keep people engaged when there are no outcomes that they see as relative to them. And I think that's what I'd like to bring it back to, which is what's actually happening in our communities, what's the received care that we're getting. And we do appreciate all of your, the work that's gone into this. Thank you very much for that. But you're talking about peer-led, community-based, all of these things, community-led recovery. Mary, can I just encourage you to simply ask... Yes, I do feel this is really, it is really, really important because we've been asking for what you're talking about now. We've been asking for this since the original Grenfell Scrutiny Committees. And that was, what was that, a few months after the fire they started. So this has been years and years and years. Mental health, severe issues in our communities, there's no adequate outreach. We see the effects daily. There are suicides, like my neighbour was murdered. SEM, children and youth, particularly concerning. It's really dreadful. And I'm sorry, but everyone here should know about the services that have been rescinded. Parkside clinic, being closed down straight after Grenfell has had a massive, massive impact within our community. As for Dr. Steedon, thank you for letting us know about the Twin Towers learning and the contamination. Is it possible to share this learning? You know, Imperial's coming on board. How are we going to get this information? How can we start communicating to all of us? Not parts of our community, but to all of us. Everybody in the community is important. We did start with CNWL, some comms within our community some time ago, and it just stopped. We stopped hearing from you. So basically, I am finishing now. This is taking forever. Almost eight years. We're losing lives. What are we actually going to get and when? We'd like solid information about the delivery. We'd like follow up. We'd like to know more about the actual funds for us. For example, what's left from the original applications? Where is it going? What's going to happen? And how is it going to happen? Who's going to respond to that? Yeah. So, well, I think I've acknowledged throughout that we're clearly not answering the exam question unless it's gone on for a long time. We have, in terms of, well, I'll start with the last point on the resources. Essentially, the money has been spent, whether it's felt that it's been spent on the right things and achieving the utilisation and the access to services, I can only acknowledge that that is not felt to be the case. I think the, I might ask come around you to comment on the extent to which we can have confidence that this will now feel different going forward based on the work that we've done to date, and that we will be presenting the actual tangible service changes and things that are putting in place that are different to, which require us to do things differently in future, that which has been in place from the past. I can't see any other answer to give us this point. Sorry, sorry, Rob. Could you also explain why it's taken so long to get to this point? Can you do it through the chat? Again, I'm in danger of repeating myself, and I do apologise, because I realise I'm not talking about this issue. I think we have struggled to find a whens and means of translating what we've attempted to do with community liaison and involvement into a feeling that that is turning into tangible outcomes and services that are different to, and as we've described, built into how NHS services are provided. It's extremely complex to create, in a health system, how those additional things are added on, organised in addition to the services that the NHS provides. We've attempted to do that, we've attempted to fund that over and above those services, and we've attempted to fund those providers, and I'm trying to make that happen. I don't think I'm going to be, you know, I don't know if Cameron remembered a lot to talk about what assurances have we got that this time we're going to be able to, it's going to feel... Is there anything else we do like, Rob? Well, just, I mean, accepting that we haven't got it right before, and that we'll probably make mistakes going forward, I think what we can promise is an ongoing conversation around what your concerns are, and how services are shaped and delivered going forward, and that's an integral part of the way that the neighbourhood delivery will be going forward. Hopefully we get that right, and that's presumably something we'll be scrutinised and challenged on as we start to deliver that as well. I'm going to move on, Melanie. Sure, but sorry, could you please just, if we could ask, when is this neighbourhood, when is this actually going to happen? It's been almost, I guess. So the neighbourhood work, as we anticipate, will be part of the 10-year review, so it's a national programme, it's not just North West London or North London, but it is something we've been working on locally for a year, and it's beginning to deliver some services in a very small way, and so we anticipate over the next year or so that you'll see more. And if you don't, or if you're not getting it right, then there will be opportunities to have your input into that as well. Thank you. Can you talk something? Yeah, so I'm going to bring a different perspective, because I've listened to a lot of what I would call brothel this evening, because what you're doing is taking the whole of the Grenfell community down the Garden Park, because what you don't have is data on the survivors that made it out of that building that night. There's not been adequate long-term health monitoring with the survivors, so before you even think about what Melanie's spoken about, people dying and all the different toxins and everything else within the community, you don't have the data on the survivors that made it out of the building that night. And it was one of the points that the coroner made, and when I look through your response in respect to the coroner's eight points, every last one of them says a primary care-led enhanced health check. Emma just spoke about a primary-led enhanced health check. Guess what, Emma? Me and you have the same check. Every year, me and you will have the same check. You tell me how you know from me that got out at 4.47 a.m. that morning that has any health concern different to Emma. Peak flow, that's it. Peak flow. Yeah, you get a lung function test if you're lucky. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You tell me how you once haven't been for the last eight years, and I will say, all right, I'll give you a grace of a year. For the last seven years, we're leading this community down the garden path. They're talking about resources and misappropriating, you know, how you spent the money. It's a question we've been asking for many, many months, Rob. Many, many years. We've been asking how you spent it. Half bit, mental health, GHWS. You can definitely say how you spent that money. You've done a lot of quoting them tonight, how you've commissioned a dedicated service, how you've done the culture-appropriate work. I'm sorry, Krishna did the culture-appropriate work. You know, that wasn't the case. You've done a lot of saying how wonderful GHWS is, and you're right to do that, because they have delivered for this community. But from a physical health point of view, you haven't. And you haven't done it with the survivors, which is not Regulations 28 set out. It didn't set out for the community from a long-term health monitoring. But what you did was you commissioned the Chief Federation, and you gave them a lot of money last year to deliver enhanced health checks. What you did was told the minister that there was going to be a bespoke service for the survivors. That's never materialized. Year six, when Professor Chris Whitty said that's what you needed to do, you've never delivered on it, and we're now in year eight. If you don't sit here and tell people you think they want to hear, what you guys need to start doing is telling the truth, because you have no data. Even when you look through some of these figures, 500 appointments, but then you haven't broken it since 2020. What does that even mean? The only thing you can confidently sit here and say is the paediatrics, and you're talking about children that live out of borough. Well, there was only 74 survivors, but you've added, and I get that. For me, as I've always maintained, and in the last Michael Gove meeting, you committed to ensuring that there'll be adequate provisions for children for life. In the last Michael Gove public meeting that he held in March last year, you absolutely sat there and said that children would be looked after for life, and that's children of the whole North Kensington community. But what you cannot do is sit here and say that everything's going to be one people and great when you know and I know you don't have the finances to take this service forward. You know and I know that the GP extra 20 minutes have all come to an end because the GP Federation are delivering it out of St Charles. You know and I know that the GP Federation would be in heart health checks and cold calling everybody to get them in to accept the service. I've got the messages on my phone, and I do mine through my GP. They're cold calling people, and you knew this from last year. So don't sit here and tell people that there's going to be all of these provisions. Tell the truth. There isn't. There isn't going to be money for this community because you squandered the money that there was for this community. And he was going to sit here and say there's constraints as to why you can't talk about the business case. There's constraints of why you can't talk because the Minister pulled you over the coals again. Not for the first time. Because they're very much aware. Because can I just say something. I have every piece of evidence that I could present to everybody in this room from promises to what was supposed to be delivered. And I'm dating back to 2018 when we had everybody in the room, when public health England said that Redfield was nothing more than a house fire. And that's where the 50 million pounds come from. Because we went to Theresa May and opt for that money. So don't you dare sit here and say, oh, well, we've done our best and we haven't got it right. It's taking you eight years to acknowledge you haven't got it right. And then we're meant to trust you for the next four or five years with our health. But you couldn't even tell me what's going on inside my body because there's no one looking at my data. There's people that have long-term health issues as a result of the fire that refuse to go into services because of how badly they've been let down. And they're survivors. So you can't sit here and say that everything is going to be hokey-toory. It's about time that the ICB tell the truth. And every single person sitting on the desk, all your jobs are safe, right? Because what you're going to do is continue to milk this community for a little bit longer so that you get paid. Because that's how it feels. You've already said, oh, they still be here. But everyone else is getting cut by 50%. If it was up to me, you'd all be cut. If it's up to me, let us go back to business as usual. Let us go back to the sound, can't get into Portland. We all know it's Portland we're talking about. Can't get into Portland Medical Center. When you can't shed loads of money into Portland. Shed loads of money. So where's that money gone, Rob? It's that empty well of private care that you filled the gap. That's where that money's gone. Natasha, can I pick up the point that you made about health checks. That was one of the points that I particularly picked up, which was concerning about whether or that they don't tell or that there's no such thing. And there was a 20 extra 20 minutes. Can you respond on that? So there are a range of services, which included enhanced GP access, which wasn't specifically for survivors, although survivors can have access to it. That was a general service that we encourage GPs to offer and incentivize them to do so. With regard to the monitoring of the impact of the fire, you did mention the paediatric service, which Mando runs, which is ongoing and Mando is continuing to run that, monitor that and arrange a transmission. How do we move people from childhood into adulthood and make sure that we can maintain their screenings. So that's a service that's developing to everything. Alongside that, too, I don't know if you've accessed this, but Laura Martin's respiratory She went to part time. You employed her 18 months ago. She's meant to be analyzing the data. It's never really. And at the end of the day, what data is she analyzing? Because you've already said there's no uptake. You're already saying that there's not enough people coming through the service, so much so that you're offering it to everybody. You cannot say to anyone sitting here who's talking about people within the community, about Toctin, and everything else that's about to come as a result of that. Sorry, no councilman, sorry. I sat here with an hour and a half listening to them waffle and not even give direct answers. So I just need to respond to that. At the end of the day, that tower's coming down. We already saw what we saw with soil contamination back in 2018. We've got to have a whole community that's not only going to go through anxieties around health, but you've got nothing. There's no baseline data because you've never taken it. There's no baseline data from any of us. So how can you measure from the beginning if there's no baseline data? And it doesn't matter whether you've got Laura Martin or you've got whoever, Bob Martin, I don't care. But there's been no data capturing in that respect. So I was referring to the respiratory monitoring service. I don't know if that's what you were... But it's long-term health monitoring. What does health monitoring mean? So certainly we have data and we share data with with Anna and the public health team to try and work out that. We also publish it as well. Now, there may well be pieces of information that we, as new things, as we become aware of new issues, then there are new pieces of data that we might start to pick up on as we go forward. So we are looking for changes, for impacts of the fire. We're just as concerned as everybody else is about the potential impact, which is why we've had conversations with Professor Stack and with other bodies around, you know, what services should we have in place? What monitoring should we be doing? What are the things that we should be looking out for? Well, we don't know the answers to that. No one, unfortunately, knows the answers to that. There are suspicions around things that might happen. And so we have screening services in place, people who access it. So people get CT scans when they go to the respiratory monitoring service. And as new technology comes along, there'll be new services. There's already talk about a cancer blood check, which is hopefully going to become available at some point. We're talking to the firefighters' union, firefighters' research around how they were monitoring altered DNA, potentially as a result of exposure to fire. But that's an ongoing conversation because even that study isn't able to definitely say that was the cause. And so, but we're still, we're having those conversations because we're just as curious and concerned as everybody else. Well, there's an overall perception that the data following, following through of the cohort isn't clear enough and about what they're getting. And I think when we're talking about the next report, what we see here, I think we'd like to see, I completely appreciate that the numbers are small, and that has anonymity issues. But we would like to see some more hard data following through that cohort, both the narrower and the wider cohort, and what services they have been able to access. In some detail. Meli, I'm not going to come back to you because there are other people waiting to hear. There's a gentleman behind you. It's important. Just really briefly, I was a little bit shocked to hear, after eight years, we're talking about hard to reach communities, because it strikes me that the hard to reach communities we're talking about are exactly the community that Natasha was talking about. People who were deciding not to access services because they don't have trust. After eight years, the question is, after eight years, what are you going to do to build that trust to enable Natasha's cohort to come forward? It's key for this, it's about, it's going back to the engagement and making sure that we reach out and keep reaching out and to listen and to action. I think, you know what, you are an absolute joke, a lot of you, an absolute joke. And I swear to God, every time I sit in a room with you and listen to the same waffle time and time again. Minutes from meetings, time and time again, it's an absolute disgrace that you can actually even think that you can treat the brain fog community like this, after what happened. And sit in the building where those people that created what happened and have the same audacity to do exactly to us what was happening to us pre-fire. It's exactly what you guys are doing now. I must concur with what Natasha says and a number of other people. Just a couple of questions. When you're looking at actually collecting data, what is it that you still use these terms that are so meaningless called engaged and surveys? Our community are surveyed out. If it's not RBKC giving us 24 surveys about something or another, you're using exactly the same techniques. There are other ways of collecting data. I mean, try and be a bit creative. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job. You've probably paid triple or millions of times more than me, but you know, you're not going to collect any data in this, in this way. So I really think if you want to go forward to, to actually access some of these hard to reach communities, they're not hard to reach. I mean, I live in community, they're not hard to reach, but you use these perpetual methods that actually fail. You know, so that's something to think going forward. And then the other question I want to ask you is that Jim Mackey, the NHS boss said, and you're talking about what you're going to be able to deliver going forward. Jim Mackey said on Friday, he defended the budget cuts and said that the trusts, the cuts are going to be eye-watering. Yeah. And that would lead to service closures and cuts to staffing. Now you're telling us something different. How is this, you know, what is it that's made CNW special? Because when I read this, I think, well, you surely can't be excluded from this. Thank you. Very trenchant questions. First of all, I'm going to apologise, DP, because I can hear the strength of the feeling that continues. And I know those will make it feel like empty words, but they are the people felt. The, as I say, what we've tried to do is set an investment involvement team to get that which we commit to working more closely with the local authority, other people, and learn about how we can get out there or get to actually use insight in the community involved in designing their service. In terms of the Jim Mackey cuts, what I'm trying to distinguish, people out here today, between the the, how are we ring-fencing, if you like, the potential for financial challenge of the NHS from those of the Granville community? And what I'm describing is, there is, of course, everybody is affected by the scale of resources that happen in the NHS. And there's the extent to which we've got, I think, that what you're referring to is the 50% cuts that we were talking about earlier. But those, as I said, are not directly then flowing through to a cut in the types of things we are talking about here today. That's talking about the back office services, the support infrastructure. And we will, we, it means that it's not the cuts in the teams that are working on the clinical services that are being provided to that community. So those cuts are to do with the 50% are to do with the reduction in the administrative overheads, the bureaucratic infrastructure, the layers, the National Health Service. They are not deductions in the clinical services. Well, they, some of them, they needed to run the service. Exactly. I have to turn to you. Josh, do you want to say something? I'll just very briefly, Mary, and I don't want to take away from anyone, especially residents, impact on this. But I just want to say that Rob, myself, the leader, Maxine, our chief exec, and Callum met with Rob and Penny, the chair of the ICB, a few months ago to discuss many of these issues that were raised tonight. And I was like disappointed that despite our conversations that didn't come to the forefront, we're still having the same conversation now, despite of being raised at the top, the top level. And just from my two cents, you know, this is, I don't want to take away from anyone's or what they said, but this is a big report that says a lot of things, but at the same time, it says nothing. So I don't know if it's a bit of a bombardment of information. One question though, by May Chair, is just regarding the implementation and co-deliberate. So you mentioned in the report that new models of care are expected to begin, at least, and take effect in October. And then you talk about talking with bereaved survivors and the wider community about it. Now, October is quite soon. Secondly, we've got the anniversary in June. Then we have summer holidays where children are up, or you're looking after parents or doing that stuff. And then we have the issue of the tower as well. And all those things going on in the community that impact one upon itself upon itself. Then to ask at the same time, well, by the way, what do you think of the new model of care? I think it's going to completely dilute what you're trying to achieve or what the community wants. So I'm just asking, have you thought about that? And if so, how are you going to mitigate all those big events coming up in the next few months? Jane, can I just say that I think we've heard frustration in the room. There's nothing new in this report. We knew all this already. And really, I think we need to know what plans are in place before the decision is made on the tower, when it's actually going to, what's going to happen and when. And also, really, there should have been something in place before the eighth anniversary. Nobody knows what support's available. Okay, so there's two specific events that are causing concern, and we'd like your reflections on those. And also, yeah, the things that Josh just mentioned. So, I think what we've got to say is we've got to come back with a specific timeline of what the proposed service is around those things that are going forward. So, we'll provide a specific set of needs and the timelines of the services around those things. That would be very helpful. I must be certain like that. Thank you. Sorry, the lady over there wanted to do. Can you not answer the mitigational question that Josh asked? Sorry, you're obviously right. Mitigating the events, the tower, what plans do you have in place? Not just in terms of timeline, but what services? Yes. So, I mean, in terms of June, we recognise that that is a month when there is a lot of activity. We don't want to be holding involvement, engagement sessions at an appropriate time. It will be led outside of that month and also on the best way to do it as well. So, we do understand that that would not be optimal timing to be conducting significant engagement, but I think it will be a mixture of communication and involvement because we're hearing really clearly that people want to know what plans are, so we should be sick on that. Also working with our community groups so that we can do that in the best way possible. Thank you. Lucy, it's more of a bit of a clarification, actually, just from the question earlier, because I work in the Grenfell Robbing Service and you asked about the mental health part and like distinguishing it between non-Grenfell or Grenfell. It's actually, it's quite easy to distinguish for mental health what is Grenfell specific in our service just because we do an assessment and if they are coming to process the trauma around Grenfell or depression that maybe it's turned into or anxiety and they're talking about that and they want to come in to discuss that and have maybe therapy or facial therapy or anything, you know, around that, then they will come in if they were affected by Grenfell before and then they, maybe there's a car crash or something completely different and they were needed to talk about that, then we would send them to sister services so there's not duplication. So it gets a bit more complicated with children because, but if their parents maybe were affected or their school or their housing, then they will come in. So there is that flexibility around the children, but if with enough assessment and not enough kind of talking about it, maybe over a couple of sessions, you do find out if there's the Grenfell link that we should take on or they should be moved into other services that are already provided for. Thank you, that's very helpful. Now I know Claire just wanted to say one more thing and then I'm going to sort of this conclusion because we've been going to us, we've got two very important Grenfell takers after this. So Claire. Thank you. I'll stop by saying this is really important because this is about preventing future deaths among other things. Now Natasha has mentioned the coronies eight recommendations. I have some of them here. For bereaved and survivors and present responders, there should have been risk evaluation, regular health screening, access to guidance and information. It should oversee and coordinate and provide effective mental health support including for local residents and minimise persons affected slipping through the net. Now it's really alarming and I trust that it would be equally alarming to the whole committee to hear that that doesn't seem to have been happening for eight years. And I know that we've had items on this. We haven't had parental scrutiny for a long time and that may need something to do with how we do it. But this is really, really alarming. And I don't know what the obstacles are. Why have we got to this point? Why is it like this? What's the obstacle around funding when we have commitments from the Prime Minister? How can we move forward from this to actually put right what's gone wrong? I don't think people are particularly confident or convinced that's the case. And I think it's one thing to acknowledge that we haven't got things right but it's another thing to actually put in place something as serious as the monitoring of the virus of that hour. How have we not got data? Thank you. I'm going to draw a couple of things I may not manage to cover up for you, but that we feel strongly about as a room really, as a community, but also things that maybe should be included in future reports and your future approaches. So really, there were lots of questions about reach and access, which are two sides of the same coin, maybe, and holding yourselves up to a higher standard of reporting on data of how you've engaged, how many people you've engaged with. Are they properly spread across the community, the right percentages of people? What were you expecting and have you received it? We've talked about the monitoring of individuals, particularly survivors, and data on that, and data generally for the community. So seeing what's been happening over the years, how many people have been seen. We want to make sure that nobody's coming to the net and that everybody's had the services that they want, and we can't really tell that in this paper. So I think, you know, those are possibly the two strongest themes that have come through. I know there's been some concerns, for example, about that, and I had a question which I did read out because I think it's been covered about the 500 meters and needing assurance that if you live outside that you'll still get the services. I think we got that from you, but I think that needs to be there. And there's a real concern about whether that, if without real solid type of application, whether this community can be absolutely certain that the right funds are being allocated to the grassroots. Having said all that, thank you very much for being here. Can I just say, sorry. My name's Nick, I'm from the Tower. I've had over the years with respiratory stuff, but it's quite shocking for me, all this information that's coming in. Because on Friday, I'm going to have my first four-hour extended scene, and I was going to take my blood things for the first time to check on stuff. And this is, I've been sick over the years, and now just to find that, like, over nearly eight years along, it's going to be my first time for extended enhancement checks. I'm first going to take my blood and everything. I think you're going to take that, but you told the right people. Thanks. And that came out, like, Natasha, but after 2.30. So it's shocking that was the first time that I'm going to have this stuff. Cameron, I'm going to encourage you to respond very quickly, because I am going to bring this discussion to the end. So I believe that that may be on the back of an invitation to personalised health assessment. We will be following up every single one of those with patient experience. Every question about what happened before, or what didn't happen before, which is... I've heard the best retreating ones over the years. Back in my lungs than anything, I think. Thank you. I'm going to bring it to the end. Sorry, can I just... Anastec, sorry, just one second. Anastec laid out the testing that we needed to have done years ago. That way, we can get the data. When can these tests be done, starting with those who are actually in the tower? That's the only way we're going to get the data. It's a huge effort. When can that be done? It's vital. Without that, the rest falls apart. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'm going to turn to the next paper. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My next paper is on the future rate. is very succeed because i know that all my community will have read this paper um thank you chair we'll keep it very brief just to say this is an update on the progress on the three record uh support programs we last brought a report to the committee in november of last year when we were just about to finalize some of the final details community support model and since then the new cycle of opting out decisions from breezing survivors and a new cycle of stressful budgets the most significant progress has been on the record and support and so you'll see some of the figures in the paper from the end of April but actually we've got some updates of what we speak with tonight as well i think probably under-emphasized in the paper are some of the challenges we've had in rolling out the new support particularly with the changeover from idc to oracle which is meant for payment of household well-being grants has been a bit delayed and some unforeseen problems with the legendary centre about get rolling out of all the memberships but i'm happy to talk more about that this evening and the education training work at an earlier stage but good progress and moving towards the launch of the education hub in september and we've focused on these reports on delivery and impact i think it's better to say these reports more focused on delivery and reach programs and we expect some of the data around impact satisfaction and the kind of broader questions about the outcomes to come with future reports and it was in the report that we will um as of this month i hope have the benefit of the independent scrutiny from a new and scrutiny function which alongside your comments that we will help us strengthen the monitoring of the program and indeed ensure there's adequate scrutiny of the delivery thank you very much i'm going to start on the side this time thank you um i have four questions first on page 20 uh three points on five um you talk about uh the outcomes you just have to strip by 3m or highly satisfactory but there's no breakdown of you know numbers so i would love to have that what numbers are you doing i can cancel it that should i give you all my questions oh yeah as you wish um uh and then i have on page um 27 um 5.27 um we took you mentioned that uh we've already uh committed to minimizing the uh amount of evidence requested from applicants are you maintaining the minimum requirements of agility um page 29 uh on the door knocking number of residents engaged with um you talk about the number of doors that are knocked upon those 549 so uh and 360 not answer so i would like to know what was the follow-up one three hundred six six was there no mention of that and on page 30 it's a bit i think there's something that there's a huge disparity sorry uh 0.5 point 34 you mentioned uh that 69 um discussed having one or more disability but then your last point um you say that the long-term condition not you know was 18 there's a huge disparity within those figures so i would like some clarification on that thank you please okay so on the first question uh the number related in 3.15 is set out in 3.14 so the percentages are of those support requests that come to the system that have been closed i'm sorry the paper wasn't okay thank you uh and on 5.17 so no that's right what we've done is tried as we've said to minimize the amount of information that people provide so where possible we've done an automatic check using council tax records or other records that the council already has access to to make sure that people who are giving their address at the time of time we can match them where that's not possible we've asked for additional information so in every case we're we're fulfilling the minimum eligibility requirements we're just doing it without people having to provide additional information where they can and on page 29 and we said there was some door knocking that happened early when the Brentville community advocacy team first started since then they focus more on drop-ins in key community locations as part of the next phase of the work they are going to have engagement they are going to restart some of those door knockings i think in the first instance some of that door knocking in the first instance they'll look to door knock in some of the other areas but then absolutely lose them back when we have a record of who we weren't able to contact so that we can follow up with them again but since they did that door knocking because we had applications from almost 1900 people quite a few of whom uh wanted to support from the community advocacy and the priority has been following up first with them and then doing some of that door ground reach and on your final point i think that's really a really significant uh finding it is a big disparity and i think probably if you compared some of the statistics to the particular cohort that we have reached so far the disparity would be smaller so we have overwhelmingly reached people through this new program who live in social housing which i think tends to have a higher rate of people with disabilities but we can certainly look into that in a bit more detail and i think we will also i'll be continuing to build the number of applicants will continue to work out whether or not this is kind of broadly representative of the area and i think there is a question about the nottingdale area is home to some very wealthy residents who may not want or need to access the support and so there is a genuine question i think about what the ceiling is for the number of people who are likely to come forward to access this support and what their profile is thank you thank you thank you thank you um just two very quick questions on page 27 uh bullet 5.18 um you mentioned oracle there and implementations and just in the last sentence you talked about uh continue to process your request when we can i guess some understanding of how might people have to process their request because it's not clear when we can but it's not a measure thank you also i know that that's a fair challenge and that's the question that we've been trying to resolve since our call launched at the end of april um the challenge is there are a number of steps to the process but the challenge is to provide assurances that they can do those in bulk the process is in bulk we originally made a commitment to process them within four weeks i think as i'm actually going to be able to speak in two weeks i think that will be possible where that hasn't been possible is with the backlog that we've had since we've had the payments freeze and so we haven't since oracle launch been able to make the number of payments that i would have hoped which means that some people have been waiting for a long time so i am hopeful that by the end of may we will have processed the backlog and going forward that we will be able to process those payments where we have all the relevant information in within two weeks so just so i'm clear the 280 outstanding will be processed within the next four weeks of may well i hope that they will be processed by the end of may and the backlog that we have and i think it's now closer to 300 and some more happens but then going forward we will have a clear a clearer sense of how quickly and i hope that i'm within two weeks great thank you and then my final question was on page 36 the top full it points at the top of the page um annual birth rate the second line it says the first thing is up to and then it says pounds dot 15k what is that it's up to uh to notice it's up to 1.5 a year for children young the point is point should be between the one and the five thank you thank you 12 points um i'm saying things i've said before the papers were a bit late and i would beg for them to be a bit shorter in the future um there are definitely some typos which are very confusing page 19 we go from 3.7 to the heading of 4 and then back to 3.8 the number system is obviously wrong somehow it's consistent uh but there's not the only place in the paper but i think there needs to be more editorial control on these papers which support that their issue with christmas and the request for substantial more substantial requests would be there are a large number of acronyms used by integrated working group and there's one to do with the team and so on and they refer to different links in different groups can we have a diagram which actually shows those links pictorially because there are so many things that if to to get this you know picture tells the past stories i think is that the second question is to do is could we have more insight into the problems and successes of the integration working implementation working group policies i think children's examples as well this is work well and i'm not a lot great uh thanks councillor mascar and the paper wasn't late but i agree that um if we needed a it needed a further proofreading because i can see that i apologize for those um and i think more broadly i appreciate it's a lot of information to process i think it's always a balance for us in providing the relevant background partly because there is this complex landscape but also trying to get to the point of keeping short so we'll we'll certainly take that feedback on the world and we can absolutely provide a diagram with different groups and in fact of the models i think more generally might be helpful so that as a reminder for a committee what's involved in each of the three programs and perhaps a visual presentation of that would be clearer than a table or than bullet points and on the implementation steering group i know we reflected in the uh report we were brought in november about some of the learning but i think there we were clear when we agreed the original model of uh the high level model of the community back in june of last year that there were a number of key decisions which still needed to be made and there were some strong recommendations from the excel recruiting team and indeed we felt that there were um that there needed to be substantive community input into that process and i think we found those sessions we ran uh we must have run about 10 of those sessions between june and december when we finalized the model we felt that was a really good forum for both uh hearing challenge from the community working through some of what were some really difficult questions about where we drew the line in terms of eligibility and how we managed requests what kind of information we asked people for and what we didn't and those decisions were made very much in partnership with people although the community were clear that they were there to provide their steer and there's something and they've tasked us on a number of occasions to go away and come up with a few different ways of working so we've tried to carry some of that forward into the operation steering group which is it's kind of it's replacement which is really looking at the service they had the meeting early this evening and there was a picture and they've had through those meetings some challenge and they've looked at some of the same data that you're looking at tonight asking questions and showing where ways we could improve the model and indeed improve communications about the problem i think that communication point was one that we returned to i know in the community but also again and again in the conversations of the community what more can we do to reach out to people how can we use more channels and moving beyond the engagement so actually how do people get messages and how do they get the information that they're most likely to use just to build on that just a second there's there's key learning across availability and regularity it's sort of two core components so we've had working groups post the large consultation and we've done across all of the different work streams on the breed and survivor area where we've been engaging very regularly with that cohort with a sort of clear evolution of a similar practice that we've had on the dedicated service in 2019 the appetite for continued change is lower what they're looking for is the ability to be able to know they can meet with relevant officers when they want to raise concerns and issues where we've where we've sort of started to offer things uh more effectively for the immediate community in areas where we didn't do enough in the past there's absolutely this continuous desire that joe's focused to to consume to have that ability to see practice change rather than to accept a consultation outcome and see and assume that's done and dusted and that learning i think is very applicable to some of the other things we're listening to tonight and to get a more really concrete example so on the leisure center membership we were ready to launch that in the middle of march and we went with the group and sort of went to that in early march about a deal that we had struck with klc and they said it's not good enough go back and have another go and so we did and we managed to negotiate through that a better deal uh for for this cohort which i think is really positive and a good example of where that kind of community pushback that made us think about what more we can do so education is i don't understand the decision has not yet been made as to where it's going to be if it's based in the school which it might be um could it be so we have assurance that there will be access availability to those living particularly outside the era in times that suit them to get there because schools are generally not open after hours weekends absolutely yeah we have that assurance and the conversations that we're having about the different locations all have accessibility availability exclusivity of views at the heart okay the final question is that we have the external screen and we have this screen um how can you give us more insight into how this is complementary and how how it can work positively ultimately for the both contributing towards the benefit of the grateful re-survigation thanks and you're speaking about this group you're talking about this community and i think absolutely so we we've committed to bringing twice here with the answer that was right we're working together absolutely so we've committed to using twice weekly reports for your committee but we will also bring we will be bringing to this committee and they will want to share with you separately as they've been clear some of their recommendations about our delivery and about the scrutiny monitoring so i think that's one opportunity yes we are meeting with them uh next week i anticipate that probably in the autumn they will do some of their kind of sense making work that they talked about which is looking at the data talking to briefs and residents about what it means and what it might be for the evolution of the program and i would have thought they would welcome your participation and that we'll be happy to share the outputs from that so i think there are plenty of opportunities and would suggest perhaps that the chair meets with them directly whilst they're officially appointed to talk about those opportunities i mean it's essential that we learn from them um thank you uh it was very promising that 72 78 new claimants come came forward and is that because of the author or is it because can you explain why we've got that new proposal yeah thank you councillor so um when we had the dedicated service before you had to live in the country to the eligible service with this this form of support for freedom survivors essentially claimants who are part of the overarching global settlement service are entitled to access support no matter so the vast majority of those 95 new claimants who we've got in that co-op are are live abroad not all of them some of whom just haven't come forwards um and so and i think the process through settling that of the provision and seeing what the offer was on the table i think has enabled those to come through okay um and thank you that then leads on to the fact that you've only got 37 30 of households living in housing association properties and 48 living in council properties that you've still got that short form that you're just not connecting with um how can we reach those better because frankly those are the figures that probably really do need access to this fund yeah absolutely so um you're you're right to point i think towards so we launched support in uh february at the beginning of february so uh we are three or four months on from that point i think uh we've partly we've caused the engagement because of some of the issues with payments so that we can process what we have had what we're planning now post after the anniversary is a new phase of engagement to reach out precisely to those people we haven't managed to reach i think i am more confident about our ability to reach people who live in council properties and indeed there's some good evidence of our ability to do that where we have genuinely struggle is in the engagement with registered providers we did a lot of work early on before the launch to look at how we might reach people in housing associations of course people are always free to come into drop-ins but getting in for door knocking particularly backing off some of their activity has proved more challenging but i'm hopeful that partly through some of the connections that we have in our housing needs department with those registered providers that we will be able to improve that and but i think this data gives us a good indication of where we now need to focus and on particular states or in particular streets where we haven't had uh enough take of the offer but where we think there is time for one quick question i could ask you lots of questions for a word um given that this is has been a very popular and and b it's based on active monthly membership um can you look at the data to actually check that people are using it and if they're not what can we do to encourage them to use it whether there's a a room session or uh i mean something that makes them feel something or an anchor you know water or something that gets them engaged and go across into the center of the unit yeah thanks that's a great question and i think so in the first instance we will have our priority at the moment has been getting the application sorted but we uh we have in the arrangement agreement we've made with klc they have agreed to share routinely i think every month data on who is taking up the offer both so that that under basically understand the financials because you know you pay for what people use but also so that we can do some of that work we perhaps aren't using as much as we expected and or indeed aren't using it at all and whether or not something that's still interested in we're also it's worth saying developing a kind of alternative offer for some people who understandably don't feel comfortable using a gym that is so close to the tower and that has a direct view of the tower and so looking at other options in that space to offer to offer that but i think once we've got some more uh routine data we'll be able to look at where that uptake where we don't have that uptake and is that because people are no longer interested in the offer or because there are other issues with accessing klc or slots or or other things like that or it being an intimidating environment maybe um great thank you mary and going back to the subject of the uh the reach um so we've got a sense of households of 27 27 percent of the population as of this paper explained we found two more through door knocking with you there's basically out there and we've explained what you're going to do about that what do you think success looks like in terms of a proportion uh i think i'm afraid i don't know and i think there is we we budgeted for example on the household well-being grants for about four thousand households out of a total of about five and a half thousand we did hold some money back as well so that's not the kind of culture and i think i would it was interesting to see the change in application we had a lot of applications in the first three four weeks and then they did really start to taper off and i'm not clear until we do a next round of engagement how much is that's because we've reached a ceiling in terms of who's aware of the offer or we've reached a ceiling in terms of interest i would hope that at least we get another thousand people who apply for the offer potentially even another two thousand but i think it will be this next round of engagement that i'd expect to tell us more about you know when people are knocking on doors and being told actually we still haven't heard about the offer versus i've heard about it but it's not right for me or i don't want to access encouraging to see i don't know a greater greater acceptance of the importance of numbers in your answers than elsewhere maybe from being tactful promoting lucy um i you two have just asked my questions but i was going to say when was that next round of engagement start and when she planned to lift that figure from that i mean what what i might have um yeah so thanks and i think we we obviously have had some we've got some increases in the numbers since then um and i think once we uh clear some of the back so the priority between now and the anniversary is really to make sure we've cleared the backlog that everybody was sent up in gym memberships who supplied and everybody who supplied for a well-being grant has received that and then i think in in late june we will then restart that process and particularly so that for example families who might want to apply for a well-being grant over the summer holidays have the opportunity to do that before the summer holidays begin so i think by certainly by the time this committee but i would hope by the end of july we would have a better sense through kind of five or six weeks of engagement and it helped being that people aren't taking up the office because they're not they're giving you feedback that they don't they don't want to be part of um the service there are some people who've said that there are some people who said they haven't wanted or access some bits of it but not others and chosen not to again that requires a little bit of follow-up i think at the moment the balance for us is the results within the team is trying to make sure we're kind of getting the basics right and then using all of the data we have to make sure that we're reaching out to people who have told us say you know they want they don't want to access the particular aspects of the offer or to people we haven't heard from at all and i don't think we can underestimate the reality that a lot of people who live in the immediate community haven't helped entitles to access support and so you know i think the numbers that we've got at the moment are encouraging the feedback that we're getting is encouraging uh you know questions around the future of the tower as that starts to really put your guys on its horizon i think it'll be i think grenfell for those people who don't feel as effective perhaps at the moment but it will come back into the horizon big time and so i think we need to be ready and we're preparing to be ready to make sure we can do what we can to support can i ask one more great question um just in terms of say for example jim the question that was just asked i'm more mean the feedback you're getting would you mold the offer to sort of something different if there was a huge amount of feedback yeah absolutely and that that's per se you're still flexible i would anticipate that come the autumn and indeed come the time of next report to this committee we will use some of the feedback we've had and indeed feedback from the independent scrutiny function to look at how we might evolve that offer and that might be because we we've established that we think there is a bit of a ceiling to the interest in the local area so we're able to do more with the budget that we have but i think those are the kinds of decisions that we're already talking to the operation steering group about is where where we might go depending on what the what the data tells us okay thank you um i um would like to reiterate just quickly first and foremost uh the very difficult job that the team have been doing particularly in respect of the community part of this piece of work um given that you're trying to reach a lot of people they're not very much relatively not very much money and a figure that was plucked by lawyers didn't really have anything to do with the community um so um perhaps there's an argument there and perhaps this will come out of the work as it carries on that um governments and counselling together need to step up and make sure that the need is met as we talked about meeting needs in the previous item um all the relevant parties who have ready to do so should be doing so um and i wanted to just uh follow up quickly from carry on i noticed you said something there about learning um that we don't just accept a consultation outcome and assume it's done and dusted and joe was talking about flexibility there um and um i wanted to um particularly uh mention and ask about run for a walk in relation to uh in relation to what i've just said about learning learning is is it possible that there can be some learning there uh i think it's you need to clarify please i'm not i'm missing the question so you might remember at the previous meeting there were concerns raised um about the um this is not the community aspect this is the period survivor aspect um how grateful walk fits into that and we have heard in the last paper again we have period survivors we have a wider community and we have grateful wall and um i think also a leadership team they raised some concerns as well and um given that we're talking that there can be learning and we don't just assume things are done and lusted we want to be a fairer capsule i wondered whether there was any uh scope for learning in that regard thank you thank you i mean there is always scope for learning and conversations and we continue to engage with grateful walk as a group and as individuals and many of them continue to use the service uh you highlight the dissatisfaction that was apparent and that we made clear in the papers in terms of uh some people within that cohorts sort of uh assessment of uh their fairness of the outcome of the grieving survivor allocation uh they were issues that were raised during the consultation and there was evolution of the model during that process and we've had conversations and we continue to have conversations i know to that and the balance as ever when you're consulting though is that you have to try and balance that evolution with also recognizing that in consulting it is impossible really to be able to please every group to the fullest outcome and i think if you if you are upfront about that there is a risk that you will leave people uh down the garden path um so that doesn't mean that we there isn't scope for further evolution there isn't scope for the conversation but it also doesn't mean that we'll be able to classify every demand that comes thank you thank you and thank um yeah i just um i just um i just um i've just lost i missed but um i just want to ask about um children young people's report that general uh subject because there's um when it comes to i mean just one thing i'm quite aware of is that there's been a an increase in homeschoolism i don't have numbers for that so i'm wrong um um and it just always it always strikes me that if you were five years old in 2017 right and you lived in the area and then like three years later you've got a lockdown right these are all things that are going to pile on top of each other in terms of the child's development and um i'm not seeing um anything i mean this isn't like mocking you i'm just saying that i don't see specifically sort of outreach i mean i know that just there are constituents who've seen more homeschooling and um even if a parent does get the you know the um i don't i forget the term it does get you know the okay from you know from us that is that uh and from education uh uh probably an adequate education that still strikes me you know essentially a a an outcome of of growth right now um that's a very interesting question so is there a higher incidence of higher education uh not that i i don't have the data i wouldn't be able to say yes or no we can absolutely take that away and come back yeah it's um it's um it ties in with um um sorry i'm not not a question just to say take that away um that also ties in with um still exclusions of the i don't know that's obvious but um that's also you know just you know just because i'm doing your money yeah thank you for sure thank you chair i don't really have much to say on this table thank you callum and and joe for putting this together and thanks for the work you've been doing but something strikes me in here for point um five from six eight and i'm very concerned because i've been doing a lot of support working for youths in the community some which have been in gangs some are just hanging out and i was just wanting to know how is this service going to reach those who are affected by grandchildren and how are they going to get the full benefit of this because it's not going to be having this in a report saying yes financial support for residents and employment and really and truly it's just on point or is this meeting a few of these people need instead of all we need to check it on the youths provision in the community those from 16 17 18 not getting in gangs getting arrested for drugs and knives these are the children that are that were living close opportunity of grenville and this is what i've been dealing with on a daily basis you know so i just want to ensure that this service is excellent you know how are we going to ensure on what agencies are you going to be working with to actually get them involved in something like this new justice yeah all these people they need to know about these services but there's no point you have it and it's not reaching no line thank you thanks i think that's a it's a powerful point well made both in terms of the educational information will sort of read across to the trauma and challenge that may well be uh having an effect and sort of materializing in some of the behavior that we see not only just around grenfell but in the community you're a broader point um one the offer that we're trying to expand in terms of the educational support isn't an offer that has been in place before it's an area that i think is really important we've done work in schools but we got more funding through the grenfell restorative justice funding program to be able to tackle that and i would hope that that alongside post work with youth justice and and sort of the broader youth prevention system we should be able to try and see that mitigated but that's something we can try and update you on in a future meeting thank you well one of my um uh i'm joe is uh perceptions from the paper so it appears to be a pivot away from the kind of academic aspect to the education support background in this paper um and more towards special needs is that um did i over interpret um or is that what people want it just seems a pity to move the kind of lose that kind of academic sport i know there are other needs as well so i think that is i can see where you come from on that and i think the hub will be an answer so there we have we will have inclusion officers we will have primary school primary secondary specialists we will have staff who are working in tandem and providing additional capacity for children both to be able to thrive in their school settings or indeed wherever they're learning and have the ability to come and get that additional support the educational bursary grants that we're providing to freedom survivors and to sort of a more moderate perspective to the community they have to be linked to learning outcomes now so we're seeing people use them for university we're seeing people use of tutoring but it is it is broad in terms of its sort of uh application but i think it's it's not quite things like tutoring sport you know if you're let use this or chemistry or whatever that's exactly what you are going to be able to because i think that's you know something that we really ought to go through that's great i'm just going to um say that we've asked for our views on the next report and what it should be like and so i think my observation is shorter and that for the sections five seven and eight really we'd want exception reporting um probably if the committee's is happy with that um just to try and sort of cut down on the back of paper i'm now going to ask i think i think the key point i was trying to make is the case management system absolutely is fundamental to enable them what to do what they're going to do and that this needs to be a message from this committee and offices in joe's department to the other parts of the the power of the power to enable that to happen wow did you have a question uh thank you chair yes it's a point of clarification on 3.11 on page 20. um i'm a little bit concerned there with regards to the uh massive reduction in the opting out of key worker support um if you can just give me like uh the chair the the concept of the key worker support as a process why this uh massive dropout um what lesson there what what's what do you read into this uh drop-off of uh support yeah thank you counselor i i i think when you look at the different breakdowns of the statistics statistics i don't think in as a huge drop off in my view so in the first year when we offered the opportunity to not have a key worker we were 49 of the people choosing to opt in of the people who worked within dedicated service before we dropped down to 46 percent the overarching statistic drops down to 43 when you include the new claimants many of whom are abroad many of whom aren't that interested in the access of a worker in in england um the but more broadly we we i'm very interested in working with freedom survivors to think about both when they feel ready but no longer have access to that support so i bear down on anyone who is opting out because they're dissatisfied with the provision so when you choose to opt out of a worker you have to tell us what if people say it's because i've been getting really bad service or because i don't want to engage with the council because i hate the council which we get every now and then and we really look into it we understand what more can we do and we we really inquire about it when people are saying you know what actually i i feel i'm ready to try and not have some you in my life i want to be able to move on from that perspective i know you're still there i know i cannot back in the future i think that is a positive bit emma did you have a question i'm not in this picture i don't know yes thank you very much chair and uh as such here very patiently and listen to you with an excellent job of my to cover both sides of scrutiny and but but then again like you are marking your own homework it's like you are doing an assessment of your own officers doing the work which is especially independent as well that's right that's i'm going to get to that point i'm not saying that you are not doing a good job and i think you are but maybe your focus is not the same as in the community because for example for us what's important is nobody has asked us anything about agenda item five which is the for babies it's not even part of this paper where they are i'm going to get the wrong page but also not paid to be in the agenda five yes yes so yes the point i'm talking about is what is the update on the recommendations for the public inquiry what's the council has done up to now so that's the agenda item the next agenda item right so that's that's something we'll talk about that when we finished talking about this paper well uh i think looking at the time and the chair i i i do appreciate your leading a very good but i think the answers sometimes are too long and maybe that's why i couldn't literally do more and sometimes the questions are too long i know you're you're talking to a customer i know because i do share meetings and i use the data sometimes so just for the comfort of everybody else as well so it's not yeah so we've all received our marching orders thank you very much did you have a question i i have a question yes the question is about the uh and i think what's the councillor uh she will ask how can we work with the independent scrutiny that's supposed to be coming on board that's not officially and that's my question this contract is worth 574 000 and it's been given without any proper due process it's been given to one organization without any other organization bidding for the contract how is that acceptable thank you in the terms of how we work together i will take that away from this meeting and i will meet whoever is appointed uh but do you want to um reflect on that thanks very much and thanks for that question i know you raised questions with government colleagues about the appointment with the isf and i'd like you to try and allay some of those concerns so so there was an open process you're absolutely right that only one organization came forward um i was that i was disappointed that that was the case i think there are a couple of possible explanations one i think we were asking for quite a unique set of skills and activities as part of that contract the specifications that that contract was set not by the council but by the previous external scrutiny team well they set the parameters for that role what they expected it to do and that was based on their engagement i think also sadly i think some companies or organizations didn't want to take it on because of reputational risk concerns about working with the council concerns about working on ground so i was really disappointed that we didn't have more than one organization to choose from what we did then do is share that application with breeding survivors with people in the community with ward counsellors and invite them to judge whether or not they felt that application was robust and whether it answered the specification and whether we did whether they felt uh that the organization would two organizations involve and collaborate would do a good job and i think the we were satisfied as officers and certainly we had some good questions from brilliant spiders and others who said you need to ask them about this you need to ask them about that and we were satisfied with the answers to those questions so there was no reason not to appoint them and i feel confident that they will do a good job but i am disappointed and i share your disappointment that there were not more organizations that bid so we had a more competitive process thank you uh melody thank you um so uh i'm actually going back if it's okay uh to the um education hub uh okay uh so um trauma uh and sen uh going back to whether or not this is a sort of an sen or education issue uh so trauma and sen as we're aware can overlap in how it can appear uh largely due to uh levels of anxiety which are evident in both so what will happen to those unable to physically uh get uh into uh the hub this educational hub wherever it may be and i would be wary of which school if it ends up being put into a school that would be because we we were told that it wasn't going to that wasn't going to be what was going to happen uh as you know we did quite a lot of work with loran on this and and by the way to then never hear about it again this happens again and again we give a lot of information in and then we're not communicated with again it's it's very uh it's quite worrying and so what will happen to those children who can't get into the hub one of the large one of the big issues we have at the moment of children who can't get into school how are they being how are those families and those children being engaged with with some sort of respect and dignity not and not been threatened with court action which is what quite often happens which is absolutely not what the family needs particularly obviously if they've gone through trauma and if they're uh bereaved or survive uh survivors and this can and does happen and can you get the professionals that are actually needed for this educational hub because there's a huge issue at the moment with the scn uh uh professionals um or can't just respond all right those two yeah and then i have a just a finish up for that okay thank you um so on the question of the location and so if it ends up in a school it will be in a sort of unique part of the school when it will not be integrated or controlled by any one school but we are looking at other options as well having some of that feedback the concept of a hub can i think be a bit of a disclaimer so it will be a place where if you prefer to get educational support outside of a school setting you can come but the the resources that we've that we're actually recruiting to which i'll touch on in a minute will be available in schools so we've done negotiations with all the schools based on numbers of need about how much of a speech language therapist how much of a ot etc will be available in each of our school settings with the school and parents being able to put forward impact so we're trying to mitigate that idea that you will miss our people the um we've already started doing some of the work at where people are struggling to be in school settings in people's homes and we can do more of that i'm really sorry that you you've really engaged in the process and then i'll have an update and i'll make sure you get a full little longer i think i said the last email on the 24th of april i believe asking for some information about that and uh also about assessments as well and children being assessed we've got a huge issue with children in uh alternative provision schools yeah that basically haven't been properly assessed within the system and so uh if that could be considered um and i said i had just a quick follow-up which is uh we um i can and talk about our organizations and the so we partner with 14 local organizations or groups every single week apart from the other uh organizations and the charities etc that we worked with so it's a it's a large network we're not seeing any of you in our community uh no one comes and visits us nobody uh they come and visit us when they need information that's it uh we don't ask or don't get any support um large parts of the community uh is are being left out what we're seeing are that you've got um and it may be uh it may be our raise maybe other organizations but we're seeing the same people again and again on the same all over the the same committees all on different boards different committees but you've got the same cohort of people and it cuts out the rest of the community this is a massive issue across north kensington we really really appreciate if you could take this really seriously and look into it it's also affected the ground and i've already brought this up with you callum yeah but i think there's a very serious issue that you need to look at because we're seeing these people who are huge people who have just never spoken to thank you thank you any other comments before we move on to the next paper on this paper okay thank you very much i have got the terrible one on the comment i made on this length of paper actually is my comment on the next paper but i think everything else thank you very much and sarah i should have invited you forward let's move and please please do join us if you'd like to for this next paper which is paper a five shot me out of the slide if you have any questions in my notes very good um would you like to introduce this one which is last late on the council's commitment in response to crazy two of me that's why i can't share and uh sorry could i just point out i didn't really get an answer yeah so that last question you also said we took that seriously and did it yeah yeah and the educational uh the educational points sure that's okay thank you and so this this report as you said gives out the committee on the 45 commitments we uh made in response to our inquiry report those commitments were ambitious and they were developed at pace in about two and a half months after the uh the uh the response inquiry was published and we published our responsibility stopped by board council at the end of that month again i'm committed to bringing six monthly updates to you and i think i won't i'll leave it there but i think there is there are areas of progress in the report and things that we have made significant progress and there are areas where we need to do more work partly to define more clearly uh how we measure and deliver commitments i think the priority for us has been to try and make sure these commitments are embedded in every area of council's work rather than seeing them as a discrete program to work these aren't things that i think it is easy to tick off a list in any straightforward way they are things that have to influence strategies right across the council so i think there's a balance in bringing the report to the committee in in showing that there is progress being made in each of these areas but also in providing assurance that these are being taken forward and driven through the independent pieces of work that sit in departments and across the council and are scrutinized both by the institution committee by the individual select things uh of course shall i start with you i'll start with the no no i'm sorry all right toby okay uh uh yeah sorry i was not expecting uh um yeah so just give me one um would you like me to go to claire first if you don't mind because i was i was counting on the next five minutes sorry um um i wanted to um ask about um the on page uh 78 where we have uh section eight and we're talking about uh status in public life um obviously this is extremely important in terms of legal address um and i wanted to ask first of all how are we embedding that uh within uh the culture change aspect especially at the leadership level um when we talk about the leadership level here i'm not seeing it include uh members and that is actually a huge hugely important part of how you're going to drive culture change it has to come from the very very top across the board so um is that going to be included do we think um uh that's uh page 88 c21 uh and c32 um and uh i also just wanted to add uh in terms of what uh council panel office said previously in the work around this report um around uh lead building trust that you need to have competence and it was pointed out to her quite correctly that the flip side of competence is actually integrity so um there needs to be honesty and transparency and that needs to be included within the culture change aspect and i just wondered if that's going to be uh exceeded and finally uh while we're talking about um scrutiny uh i'm not seeing very much there about this consideration which has been put forward multiple times um about grenfell recovery sputamine committee um we talked about the uh independent sputamine function external sputamine um we have seen previously how important that is and the good outcomes that come from that um but we've also seen tonight we've had a hugely long meeting um specifically about three really important governmental related issues um and obviously this is the overview of sputamine committee which has a broad remit um and it might be that uh had this come to a dedicated meeting that we may indeed even have had more some public engagement um sharing more public engagement and yeah just provide reassurance i thought we'd include it in the paper but the independent review of culture does include that because we were explicit about that any commitment would be made and i think that's a good challenge about how we look at how to embed some of those um early warning signs as the committee and standards of public life for some public life calls them in both the independent review culture perhaps asking people to look specifically asking the organization or the person appointed to look specifically about whether staff feel able to speak up and challenge the way things are done which i know the committee emphasizes in its report but also looking at how we can build those into some of the other external reviews we committed through inquiry response to independent embracing independent challenge and oversight in a range of different ways and hopefully you've seen in the resilience review in some of the other examples of how we try to do that i think this report which was published relatively recently gives us some good tests that we can start to apply and indeed perhaps the committee can apply when looking at some of the examples examples of some of the activity going on across the council to make sure it meets those those important sets and the integrity and transparency point and i think that's again building the right considerations into that external review of culture into the specification and then testing those i think will be will be critical but you're absolutely right and i think we could do one of the things i could bring this report and the feedback we get tonight is that we'll be able to take a transparent approach to reporting which commands a degree of confidence we've brought a very specific kind of report to the committee tonight but alongside that we're looking at publishing a kind of update on progress which could be shared more widely and we welcome views about how to make sure that's accessible for people and tells people what they want to hear thank you lucy um i had a question on um resilience and emergency company i'm just um it's sorry my brain cells are really going slow at this point so um the changes to our imaginative response um how are we involving residents particularly those who are high-risk um in in high-risk housing in shaping our planning and preparedness for that let's talk a bit more about that uh i think in terms of i've not i've not got all the detail i've been trending if i did and i think the the work that we're doing in terms of resilience in terms of engaging with residents there's there's absolutely a dedicated post in terms of the community interface in terms of the preparedness we're doing more work than before in terms of of thinking about data and vulnerable people about making sure we know who they are where they are and engaging them in therefore what good looks like and indeed individual services within uh building control within resilience within housing management would be well placed to follow up so we can get more people to answer to you and there is you know there is work that's obviously gone on in terms of uh raising awareness about the need for personal evacuation plans and how to make sure that everybody who should have one of those has one of those and i think housing management would accept that that is very much work in progress and that there is always a way of doing more to reach out to make sure that everybody who has those uh who has specific needs that might affect their ability to leave a building in the event of an emergency has that support and i think that's not you know i don't think they would say that they're 100 there i think they would say there's more work to do to reach out through new uh so on where people live in our housing the challenge from the inquiry report was a broader one about list of vulnerable people which really support a response to an emergency i think that being frank that is an area where we had hoped for more guidance from central government in their response to the inquiry report partly because where people aren't our tenants it's difficult to know how how we would gather and store and maintain those kinds of records so i think that's an area where we'll be pushing as part of work on resilience for more national and regional guidance about how we how we might take that forward thank you i'll remind course not everybody has to ask just um a bit of feedback when i was reading this report it didn't it didn't make a lot of sense until i got some table at the end we're all 45 of them and then and then i didn't work out why you've chosen those particular 20 to go into detail with i appreciate that there will be a detail and you may be such good pictures on that but i realized that at the end uh but in terms of questions i am going to pass because i realize there's something and uh that'll make me know and just to say i think in a future report if there are particular areas that the community would like to focus on in particular that would mean we will be welcome and then we can include a tracker with progress in all of them uh alongside that thank you joanna thank you um i'm sorry this paper's come so late because i also feel you're rushing through the answers but the previous paper in this paper um and i think uh it's a shame someone first uh so um for me i very much read this report where are the counselors so if you go to the paragraph 559 564 636 phase one counselors all counseling or general counselors are missing and you kind of know why and so when you talk about staff you don't talk about counselors so i would ask you to take that away and revisit it um secondly um i you talk somewhere about a sorry the charter so page 59 you talk about the charter it's translated into 16th and currently plain english version of the property alongside the constitutional version which will also be updated i genuinely looked at that and thought why can't it just be one version why do we need we had a meeting about this earlier and we agreed that we will aim to have one okay lovely and then my very last question uh page 75 652 you already look at the corporate complaints process whereas really i thought a lot of the complaints were housing and i'm missing this uh through that as in what select committee i had actually question whether you should expand that just to want that final point the corporate complaints processing includes all the complaints that are made including housing i think the important thing was we wanted to make sure that the same standards applied to all complaints responses uh so that very much includes housing you actually say on there that there's children's and there's adults you don't need to say there's housing oh well yeah they're all they're all included that sorry that's not sufficient yes thank you well um i agree with john it's unfortunate we switch the agenda around because i think you've done the initials a lot of good to listen to these two papers that debate around them um i would like to follow up on claire's point um about change of culture transformational change of culture do you think my question is do you do can you confirm that you have the full support of the leader and the chief executive of the council and the work you're doing on that yes thank you and the specific question page 67 there's the thing about complaints review um and it comes back to this point about the case management system and the message that needs to go out to those providing the case management system because you can't do a complaints review unless you have a case management system and the specific that's a generic one specific case on page 83 housing this can seem to be one of the most enduring problems we need to get to a situation where we have full solution of housing complaints rather than a tick box of a joke that's been put out to be done a pipe that's been mended that still leaks it's not a job done it's a work in progress it doesn't need to be a new job it must be the completion of one job sounds of detail but world's understate is full of those and i think there's a more general point there about deepening our understanding of the data so on complaints for example it's tempted to be to focus just on how many are responded to in time but i think the complaints reviews students to share more thorough qualitative review of what kinds of responses people are getting and whether or not they're demonstrating some of the things that we heard through the inquiry engagement about defensiveness or about not properly investigating or resolving some of the issues and i totally agree that systems are an important part of this picture and i think it's another reminder why these aren't a kind of these aren't a simple list of things to tick off because a lot of the time they do involve the attitude of officers the kinds of systems they're working with the pressures on their time the other demands and so we need to be able to consider those things in the round in order to be able to give residents the kind of that as i told the bank says it's customer service rather than customer services thank you uh submit it thank you just another one quick question in the interest of time uh on page 61 um 5.35 uh the third bullet points down says people call it discrimination by department treatment um and there's a before grateful and six i had a bit of concern about since that would imply that that's continued after grenfell um and on the page afterwards um paragraphs 5.37 and 5.38 first one is in the middle of the it doesn't have line numbers but in the middle of paragraph 537 um this is key metric for the committee and included in the council's annual performance report i want to get a uh a handle on what those words they sent us afterwards that'd be great and then the final one was in 538 there are if once again this is the second sentence the audit report is due to the issue within mid-may um and then the the details will be censored but i think by autumn 20 to 25 i wonder whether we can get those earlier if they're available and i just wanted to ask you a question on that um thank you any discrimination seems seems slightly irregular in fact it's continuing to be slightly concerning and as i think we reported in uh the i think the committee saw a sort of uh a near final version of the response to the inquiry that was a very strong theme of the engagement we did uh in the month uh two months two and a half months after the inquiry report was published and with all we published our response we heard very clearly that um many people felt they were being discriminated against in terms of on the grounds of race and that people felt that people in social housing were not treated equally in terms of not treated the same as our resistance and they felt like second-class citizens and that shows that was some of the feedback that prompted us to consider the independent review of culture and some of the other aspects that were added to the version of the report that you saw so that was very much a challenge that we left with it's also a challenge that has informed the development of the fair action plan which i know the committee has considered those metrics will come back to the committee and the reason we've given october is because that's when we're bringing the that's when we've agreed to scrutiny and that we will bring a report on now we're happy to make the audit available sooner to you so you can see it and see what it says but i hope by october we will not only have the order itself and also have a plan of action in terms of how we respond to the recommendations but that piece of work has looked very comprehensively at the approach to qualities across the council and i think alongside this report will give us a strong mandate and a strong sense of how we need to move forward on some of those issues and it shapes the question of humility that i think we we try to embody in this response because although i think we've made progress whether that be on the future growth of support provision or indeed through the broader change the work that we're trying to bring to the council we have continuously heard not just in the inquiry and prosecution but for legacy consultations day-to-day our engagement in the community you hear of experiences where people feel socially or racially discriminated against and that challenge that relationship with the council although we're making progress is set against the history and the challenge that is enormously good and so it is it's horrible to see and think that people still feel like that but it is the reality and our our aspiration has to be to bear down the numbers of people who feel like that by doing better by delivering better and by changing the cultural quality and it's very important to listen to that and to respond to that uh pretty um just to expand further on yanks and um it's again it's the overall thing and in the um the tracker we all get good intentions of our commitments which is absolutely fabulous but we constantly hear that it's not user friendly and inaccessibility um and i even have residents saying that all our case does is bring money at it without actually delivering results so you know and this isn't what us as a fair landlord caring landlord um so you know i mean how confident are you that we can deliver all this uh where residents actually feel no you know they all say they're being heard they're being listened to but it's the delivery it's the delivery the cost effectiveness and the customer services is particularly in housing in your tracker and the customer service so and that's that's very you know that's very worrying thanks and i think that's a really powerful point i think we could we could give you a kind of confident response in terms of where we are and where we're going but i completely agree that the broader challenge is how to ensure that that is make it is making a difference to residents i think one thing we haven't explored in this report but could certainly do moving forward is how we take these commitments and look at what we measure more broadly so as part of the corporate performance reports that the committee considers regularly what what measures is it is it that the committee feels would tell us whether these committees really having making a difference and having the climate effect that we want to see i think in some in some areas like the work on the charter there will be specific metrics set which will kind of give us some indication of that and that's true in housing too almost you know there are some things that we need to measure but we need to bring that work together and show what that kind of outcomes framework looks like but you're right that this report is focused more on the delivery to date and we need now to think about how we measure the process thank you thank you um yeah so i'm going to have to phrase this very carefully because um i just want to be very very clear um um those things um but uh and now you need to let people have their yeah yeah to speak okay i'll get on with it so um uh and the reason i want to be clear is because this just naturally bumped right up against you know where there's a bifurcation between executive political political but their implication and i'm acknowledging that to everybody i want everyone to understand that um uh uh it is not my it's not political motivation um but i do wonder um if with reports like this we're looking at so folks plan fair action plan anyone make services more accessible and sure no one is missing out on services you need right i think um that um there is an in my experience self-evident staffing issue frontline services in this part right i don't um and it is not few to make the budgeting recommendations for the council but you know is it is it something you're even empowered to do i would i would hope this is what i mean about that distinction this is not something i think in terms of secure efficiency delivering services that we are bound to to our people right um it's and to me it's a no-brainer we need more stuff we actually just need more and we're getting less um so my question is is about that and i also don't want to say and i have to ask difficult questions you understand part of the difficulty is that it has implications for your job um uh and i mean that in as prosaic a way as a problem you can so i hope that's clear is there anything you can comment on yeah absolutely so within uh the brief that we're responsible for it includes greenfield delivery it includes the corporate strategy and direction of the council and in that it includes some of the savings transformation work so in other times i come to this committee and we talk about budgets and we talk about the position and i think one of the benefits of grenfell and grenfell legacy being aligned to some of those other areas of focus is because it allows us to try and ensure that where we're making investment and when we're making difficult financial decisions we are doing what we can to protect the type of change we're going to protect the type of services residents need now that is always going to be set against a difficult financial climate so it would always be easier if we probably had a bit more money overall for the council overall for public sectors in the way that the nhs described earlier but i you know the reason why i you know we commit the energy we do to this work though is to try and ensure that we build as many parallels as we can and i think it's positive in a time of financial challenge that we are launching a funded fair action plan to try and drive challenging space so i think it's a fair perspective childhood budgets will always be under stress um but i think one of the things we try to bring to bear is ensuring that we're protecting the services that we need and just to add to that i think the view of culture is a mechanism which will help us get to the bottom of whether that is what's getting in the way of service delivery i think sometimes it is a question about staffing or resourcing or kind of moving things around the systems which then free staff up to do if they're efficient free staff up to do the job that really they're there to do to serve residents but i think that's not always the case and sometimes there are other things going on which need unlocking and i guess it looks a bit different in different areas so uh so i think that's that's what we need to probe further through that okay i appreciate it and i will go with my 101 follow-ups i have to that and uh i do want to just also ask quickly um about m4 and i think this is actually made out a a bit more in the uh document itself but when we talk about okay taking discrimination selecting diversity this means we will celebrate the diversity of our residents through education cultural awareness support we need to build possible relations with each other i don't know what that looks like i don't know what it looks like literally camera one of the seeds yeah we've so i will send you council that's okay that what the section of the bear act that describes that but also we will bring when it comes to the committee in october we'll bring an update on kind of progress against that that would give you a much stronger idea of what we have to do yeah i like to say i had a look but i do like to have these things very very explicitly uh thank you chair it's very kind uh thank you for this uh first report um that's we are expecting everything every six uh six months as i like in the point one point two in the executive summary i am a bit concerned if this is going to set a strategy of the development of this function in term of future alignment i'm just trying to seek some clarification chair on the 45 commitments being highlighted in the executive summary 1.2 in the opening statement on page 59 um 3.2 how these two are aligned regarding the recommendation and that's for me uh with them chair it's a very worrying opening statement regarding the 58 recommendation being highlighted there that we are not blaming the council and so on and then yet um it has a quite serious implication on the council future operation in terms of aligning learning on the column what you said regarding the legacy of this council the council and the lean operation regarding where we are in terms of budget um before we look for more money let's look for how we can save money in a very optimized way reduce waste because there are so much waste and the granful because of 200 000 saving it costs us hundreds of millions for the future um so i would just uh chair if we just make the alignment between that point from the executive 45 commitments to the sd i'm happy to address that 58 recommendations are the recommendations made by the public inquiries to a range of organizations they didn't make any recommendations directly to the council but there were there was a lot of evidence in the report about serious failings by the council before during and after the fire and so in response to the findings of the inquiry and i know we brought a number of reports to this committee and we set out what we thought the implications of the report were for the council and then on the back of that made our 45 commitments which are about how we take forward and respond to some of the findings that the inquiry report made so you're right there isn't an absolute alignment because the recommendations were mostly for the government and the government have responded and accepted most of the recommendations but not all of them uh so that's where the difference between those two figures comes and uh chair can i see uh just further uh like if we can have a table um to outline the commitments and the recommendation is it possible i mean we must have the the i mean it's a combination of the inquiry yeah thank you thank you ellen sorry you're posted and then and then um yes thank you chair um this of course is the for people out there and this is the report this is what people are asking this is what mps are asking they you know come to me and say how's it going or whatever um councillors around the country who have got issues with their buildings and they they all want to know what what we are doing and how we're dealing with it so this is you know this is something that we're all discussing and it's really good that we have a uh a very um you know people are listening to all the councillors and so on uh there's a lot of that tonight but as far as a lot of people out there are concerned this is it this is the the huge the huge response to the atrocity which happened so this is getting this right is massive um there are a few things uh which i wanted to point out and there'll be obviously there'll be more over time um and as we get into more detail but um there are two things which um may seem minded um to you but i did bring them up in the uh the uh full council meeting in november uh when we were looking at a previous iteration of this report and one of them was and this is also something that outside people are listening to um the comments about building control there's a huge amount of blame laid on building control and particular and an officer um which is grossly unfair because the budget there was cut by half and there was no acknowledgement of that and i think that's quite wrong and the fact that the council is remediating that by increasing the budget by four i see it's a kind of sign we should acknowledge somewhere that whatever the findings of the inquiry which were quite correct that actually the council should should be accountable for for cutting that budget in half and for the person who has was responsible for that and leaving the council for all the fun so that i think that's i think it's it's inaccurate it comes across as inaccurate that particular thing and the other thing i know it's come up a couple of times already is how we work with the council it's what each creature and i i'm so happy to see people actually listening to work especially the expert councillors are sloshed up in north ken because we are the experts we deal with this every single day and as um a couple of people have said and joined that the councillors aren't in there we are dealing with it we're on the clear face many of us are dealing with it every day as soon as we stand outside our door um and uh you know we should be working together more and i've i did find and i mentioned this in in in november um that there are things happening in our ward and so unless that we're kept out of now is that is that just an omission is it just you know is it complex it's a mission it's a cultural issue that we should know or is it actually a political issue but they don't want us to know what's going on because we have to wonder that sometimes so that is is it's the transparency we aren't told what's going on in our ward or what the future of certain buildings and certain sites and so on and that is very wrong and if that's so there's people that call it cultural issue but we are really the experts as i say dealing with it day-to-day um and i think there should be more acknowledgement of that and we can work better if we do that so um those are my points and yes we could have had all of this in a committee as class of the groundwork coverage committee um and it should be this is something that some of us are asking the current government um to to have a look at that so um there is um i think there are questions from one other points i could come but this is the public facing report that we want to know about how we're dealing with it so i think it may not be a work uh you may not notice it here but that's how the perceptions are there and i have two other contributors at least the death of the front braces hand and then i'll come to you can't say i just quickly sorry sorry yeah no i haven't forgotten you i just wanted to say that this is the first report this find uh and i certainly appreciate the kind of attention that it will come on both within the council and without but i think uh the more feedback we can have in the committee about how to improve it how to make the day on progress more accessible to residents and and as council had said how to measure the impacts of this happening better so i hope that this report will will improve and and that we will have uh we will get to the point where actually we have a different kind of update which speaks to some of the concerns that have been laid tonight thank you very much yeah thank you very much i'm just i'm going to quote from page 57 and it said that the inquiries on consistent failure by the finance of and to take their concerns seriously that is very strong statement and one of the things that we have asked and we spoke to the leader also to others about conducting an independent discrimination constitutional discrimination or racial discrimination and investigation same way that the fire brigade or another organization have done and that's what we would like to see rather than saying oh we are doing cultural change yeah yeah so just to say that that wasn't partly in response to some of the uh comments we've heard the feedback we heard through the engagement on the inquiry report we heard very clearly that people didn't feel it was sufficient for us to be holding ourselves to account or marking our own homework and that's where the commitment to the independent review of culture came from and and that is exactly the fire brigade was a good model and we had conversations with the fire brigade about that process what's included in the committee report tonight is some suggestions about what that review might look like and indeed a process for establishing the independent advisory panel to help us set the terms of that review to make sure that it includes the things that were most important to residents we did make an explicit commitment that that would include racial and social discrimination but there were other cultural issues that we could also want to see addressed so hopefully that provided some assurance that that is something that's going to happen and we've set out a timetable in the paper for appointing that person by the end of the year but first we need to make sure partly reflecting the comments of the committee tonight that we get the specification for that piece of work right so that they're looking in the right places well i think chair if i'm if i may you already have the community and they're telling you this is what we want and i think you should go to them and ask them how they would like this job done because that's the only assurance we did them by being part of the process they already mentioned that in the review of the charter for public participation and citizen panel and i quote we will work with the resident to conduct full review of the charter for public participation and the citizens panel reflecting on sharing power in decision making seeking to move towards more participatory approaches and considering mechanism for ongoing monitoring and oversight will you hold yourself to that to what you you just rated because you're saying we will experiment with more cool design and participatory approach to engagement and more uh robust engagement with the communities yeah i i think yes and i think that it's interesting you're quoting from there i think section six um first sort of 20 pages from section six set out how we'll try and apply that standards of work both the appointment of the panels and then the process of the end-to-end culture of the so yes both the gentleman here yeah it's really uh appropriate that i follow on actually because um i'm looking at the the same section which is uh 3.4 and uh the the calling about the charter on on the face of it and the charter just looks like another piece of apparatus from the council but actually the council is very proud to say that they were the first um organization council in the country to adopt such a charter but right from the off and i've said this before i'll keep saying it there is a floor with us because there is no framework that sits below the charter and what that means is everything that happens with the charter is done to the community because the council determine when something is a letter through the letterbox or a piece of consultation or heaven forbid a piece of proper community-led uh work so until that is resolved it's fine words and the charter is is actually a misnomer it's a charter for interaction by the council with the community not for public participation and and i really i really hoped that the council would own that and start to see the power to the community that's what it suggests i know there's a review i've spoken to olivia i know that everybody is is talking about but that's still not on the table thank you that's a point clearly made it's a point clearly made it's a point well made i think the charter in its inception took us from a standard of no engagement residence to a minimum threshold of the six weeks which we do meet do we always meet it in areas that people are interested in i think that's a fair challenge do we consult on things that people are actually okay with us getting on with but equally do we not then create enough time to actually explore really detailed issues in partnership with people end to end but i'm overseeing that work with olivia i'm i'm very keen that we get as close as we can to what you set out in that position in terms of you know trying to ensure we push the boundaries of engagement properly whilst also countering this point to be here and was raised by the committee before about the reality that we do too much consultation people feel fatigued whilst also not being able to take the trial and learn the leadership of what's happening it's a fair challenge and i hope you will address it and i appreciate the chance to talk to you once we've conducted the revised approach thank you claire thank you chair i haven't forgotten you don't thank you um so um i'm being contacted by um some residents during the meeting who are watching at home and they have asked me to make the following contribution uh which is that not in delvis and especially and people um speak for themselves and they do not wish to be engaged they do wish to be engaged with directly and not by proxy um and they are fed up as we are fed up with people trying to use the growth and agenda for personal gain it's becoming a real issue it impacts upon engagement it reminds some residents of the early days when people attach themselves to the community um so the question from the residents is how do you manage this to ensure that it is the immediate community that is engaged with on the matters that affect them and that the process is not influenced by um the aforementioned and um also how do you check the claims made by groups who jump on the bandwagon claims made about residents a trenchant challenge yeah thank you that is it is fundamentally a challenge our desire is to engage with everybody individually that is our hope and aspiration that's what we try to achieve through the future program for support consultation by reaching out directly to children young people um it is an issue that is prevalent not only with children it's prevalent with adults um you know we need to make the right balance between engaging with groups and people who are taking the time to become community leaders who need to work positively for people whilst also making sure we're engaging directly with individuals at their heart and most of the ways that we try and undertake that is direct engagement so whether that be direct emails going to schools doing door knocking actually reaching people directly rather than depending on people um but i i would love to meet with those individuals i'm sure there's things they can teach us to continue to do better um it's definitely we're not a better position and just to say we we did some uh i thought for me was very powerful engagement with children and young people around the publication of the inquiry response and those conversations will stay with me and indeed kind of shape some of the work that we then did to build that response and i think we could do more often there's an assumption that children young people aren't interested in this work that's absolutely not the case they are and they are they are particularly interested in both what the council has done and holding the council account for the commitments that it's made so i think i think we can think about when we do the next round of engagement on this work we have to talk to people i think specifically about how we involve children and young people and the only thing i'd say is that one other way of doing this is to set up panels and steering groups which aren't reliant on individual stakeholder groups or people volunteering or going to represent others and actually we build kind of new constituents which are which which are different and represent a wider range of views and i think we'll continue to try and do that through these different programs i think it's also about protecting residents a resident's voice from others from perhaps elsewhere that may wish to appear to be speaking for them when they may not be i think that's quite understood i'm going to draw this conclusion to close but i think there's some uh several uh well there's one particularly uh strong or several stories one is the inclusion of councillors in in these and elected representatives in all considerations i think there have been some suggestions about what the next paper looks like um and i think there's also been a request to have some of the information that's germane to all of this issued to the committee as soon as possible uh even if that's a chance of um meeting so thank you very much everybody for your discussions on that i'm going to move on to pay grace someone but i'm going to suggest that we do pay grace in my email that we don't uh detain ourselves any longer it's about five past ten um and that anybody who thinks that you have to um take any of these um items please email jackie you'll deal with it and make sure to get safe and similarly uh we could work third round there's potential look at that uh thank you but Thank you.