Agenda and minutes

All Members of the Health and Wellbeing Board introduced themselves. The Chairman welcomed Deputy Michael Wellbank (Chairman of Planning and Transportation), Dr David Vasserman (CCG) and James Williams (Interim Public Health Consultation).

Apologies had been received from Ade Adetosoye, Dr Sohail Bhatti, Superintendent Norma Collicott, Sam Mauger and Dr Gary Marlowe.

There were no declarations of interest by Board Members.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th May 2013

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Health and Wellbeing Board meeting of 7^th May 2013 be agreed as an accurate record.

To receive a presentation from Officers

The Board received a presentation from Lucy Saunders (Public Health Specialist GLA/TfL) regarding the importance of road danger reduction in the context of health and wellbeing. Members were informed that people need 22 minutes of walking each day for good health to prevent many health conditions. Most Londoners didn’t get that activity but people who come into the City do, as the City was the walking capital of Britain and served a huge population from other borough and outside of London in keeping their population healthy.

There were also lots of people in London who cycle into or through the City and this was where there had been a big increase in KSIs (killed or seriously injured). Members were informed that it was a real challenge to accommodate the many people walking, cycling and the vehicles that need to get through plus the digging up needed to access services. The KSIs were an indicator that more needed to be done to make the environment not only safe but also pleasant to walk and cycle in. One simple but highly effective measures was the ‘courtesy crossing’ which served to make it much easier to walk uninterrupted, particularly for those with mobility difficulties, and at the same time they ensure vehicles slow down when approaching junctions.

In response to a query from Members, Officers advised that an education programme would help tackle the problem of anti-social cycling in the City. This could also be tackled by creating a calmer environment. Members queried whether introducing a 20mph limit in the City would impact air pollution. Officers advised that there would not be any significant shift in the level of air pollution if a 20mph limit was introduced, and the introduction could help create a calmer environment in the City. Members noted

Report of Director of Built Environment

The Board received the report of the Director of the Built Environment which advocated the adoption of a 20mph speed limit in all City streets, including those managed by Transport for London.

Members were informed that casualty figures in the City had shown a steady increase over the last three years with some 423 casualties in 2012 including 57 killed or seriously injured (KSI). This was despite continuation of our traditional

programme of road safety measures. The reason for the increase was that

the nature of the usage of City streets is changing. There had been a

dramatic rise in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and with the

advent of Crossrail increasing the number of pedestrians and the

encouragement of cycling generally, these numbers wold only increase.

Compared with the rest of London, in the City these groups were

disproportionately highly represented in the casualty statistics. The

situation could therefore only get worse unless action was taken.

The strategy to reverse the rising casualty numbers is the recently

adopted Road Danger Reduction Plan (RDRP). This set out a whole

range of measures to be undertaken between now and 2020. All of

these had different cost to benefit ratios. The City was already doing the

more straightforward things, with an innovative education, training and

publicity programme (ETP); minor junction improvements; driver

behaviour and vehicle improvement programmes; and even some major

junction improvements, like at Holborn Circus, where the City were spending

£3M on what was our worst casualty location. The City also delivered

schemes like Cheapside, where there had been an average speed

reduction of over 4 mph (and no collisions resulting in casualties),

through narrowing the carriageway. However, measures like these took time

and to achieve City-wide results would be prohibitively expensive.

Officers stated that the main findings of

Report from James Williams, Interim Public Health Consultant, City and Hackney Public Health Team

The Board was informed that workplace health had been highlighted as a national priority by Public Health England. The Director of Public Health was developing an emerging work stream on workplace health. This would aim to improve practice on a

Corporation and City-wide basis and influence others at a national level.

It was important that the City develops its own workplace health policies and

practice, in order to ensure that our efforts to improve practice across the City

are perceived positively.

Within the City of London Corporation, a number of measures had been

identified that could contribute to improved healthy working practices.

It was hoped that offering support to local business and national

profile-raising activities will help the City of London Corporation to advance

this agenda at a broader level.

RESOLVED: That Members:-

• Agreed the three-tiered approach as follows:

·       Improving workplace health within the City of London Corporation

·       Improving healthy working practices amongst businesses in the Square

Mile

·       Establishing the City of London as a leader in workplace health, nationally

and beyond

·       Agreed to sign up to the National Public Health Responsibility Deal.

• Asked Officers to present Members with a paper considering each pledge at the subsequent Board meeting where they would then consider a staff health survey to inform the delivery of the workplace health initiative, and consider establishing a time-limited task and finish group (with agreed terms of reference) comprising officers of the City of London Corporation to oversee the research and if necessary, commission a bespoke workplace health programme that will address the issues identified in the staff survey.

• Noted that the Director of Public Health had written to selected City businesses,

explaining the City’s new role in promoting public health, and setting out

reasons for businesses to engage with workplace health.

•

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services

The Board were informed that minimum pricing per unit had been proposed as a way of reducing harmful drinking and alcohol-related harm. The Government was yet to announce its position in relation to minimum pricing; however, some health leaders had called for local minimum unit pricing schemes to be implemented.

Although alcohol-related health harm, as well as crime and anti-social

behaviour were a key issue for the City of London, it was not clear whether

introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol would have any impact upon City

drinking, as most alcohol served in pubs and bars in the City was already priced

above 50p per unit.

In response to a query from Members, officers advised that it was possible that introducing a minimum unit price may reduce alcohol purchases by problem drinkers with limited means, such as rough sleepers. Adopting a minimum unit price for alcohol may also send a powerful message that the City is in solidarity with local authorities who wish to introduce this measure in areas where it will have a more significant impact.

Members asked Officers to further research the position taken by local authorities in London, and nationwide, to ensure the Board were fully informed before deciding on a way forward. Officers agreed to present a further report at the subsequent Board meeting in September.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children's Services

The Board were informed that smoking created major health, economic and social burdens within the City of London. Comprehensive tobacco control efforts could impact on health inequalities, reduce the economic burden on society and reduce

the death, disease and disability caused by smoking. Effective tobacco

control needed to be driven by local priorities, local action and local

leadership.

The City Tobacco Control Alliance had developed continued strong

leadership which had resulted in a systematic approach to delivering an

effective and comprehensive tobacco control programme. The key projects for this year, as agreed by the Alliance members, which will impact upon City residents and workers included:

- Healthy Workplace Offer

- CoL Smokefree Policy

- Smokefree Outdoor Areas

- Smokefree Homes and Cars

- Fixed Penalty Notice Referral Incentive Initiative

These projects would be implemented during scheduled, staggered times of

the year to ensure capacity to deliver is not compromised. Internal capacity at Alliance level was essential for the sustainability and efficacy of the tobacco control work programme.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services

The Board noted and received the Update Report.

RECEIVED.

To receive information regarding Development Day dates from Neal Hounsell, Head of Strategy and Performance, Community & Children's Services

Members asked Officers to circulate the following dates to Board Members, and the most popular date would be allocated as the Board Development Day:

4 October 2013

9 October 2013

22 October 2013.

RECEIVED.

A Member raised a question regarding the positioning of defibrillators in leisure centres. Officers said they would check that all local leisure centres had defibrillators on site.

To consider any other public business of the Health & Wellbeing Board

There was no other business.

MOTION - That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

MOTION – It was agreed that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 7^th May 2013.

RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 7^th May 2013 be agreed as an accurate record.

To discuss arrangements for the Board dinner

Discussions ensued regarding the annual Board dinner, due to take place later this year.

There were no non public questions.

To consider any other non-public business of the Health & Wellbeing Board

There was no other non-public business of the Board.