Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Deputy Catherine McGuinness and Deputy Henry Pollard.

There were none.

To receive the Order of the Court of Common Council dated 21 April 2016, appointing the Committee and setting its Terms of Reference.

The Committee received the Order of the Court of Common Council dated 21 April 2016 appointing the Committee and setting its Terms of Reference.

RECEIVED.

To elect a Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 29.

In accordance with Standing Order No.29, the Board proceeded to elect a Chairman for the year ensuing. The Town Clerk read a list of Members eligible to stand and Marianne Fredericks, being the only Member expressing her willingness to serve, was duly elected as Chairman.

To elect a Deputy Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 30.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 30, the Board proceeded to elect a Deputy Chairman for the ensuing year. The Town Clerk read out a list of Members eligible to stand and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark, being the only Member expressing his willingness to serve, was duly elected as Deputy Chairman.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk outlining the role and remit of the Safer City Partnership (SCP), its areas of activity in recent years, and suggesting potential areas the Committee might wish to scrutinise in more detail.

Members noted that the role of this Committee was atypical of City Corporation Committees, as the Corporation did not operate the scrutiny system employed by most local authorities. In order to assist Members in this potentially unfamiliar role, the Town Clerk would be organising scrutiny training for the Committee in due course; it was also observed that the role of the Committee would be to act as a critical friend to the SCP.

The Committee discussed the role and composition of the Safer City Partnership, asking a number of questions with a view to developing a greater understanding of its work and identifying where Members’ scrutiny efforts might prove most efficacious. It was noted that limited funding was available for direct action, although some monies were occasionally made available through the Proceeds of Crime Act, and that the SCP tended to work through its partners (for instance the Christmas Campaign set out in paragraph 16 of the report, which the London Ambulance Service had led on to great effect).

In the process of debate, Members expressed a particular interest in understanding the SCP’s channels of communication and the way in which it was able to disseminate advice and information, either directly or through partners. Members noted the use of Twitter feeds and the City of London Police’s text messaging services but sought clarity as to the full suite of alternative communication methods which might be used. It was suggested that a report be prepared for the next meeting on this subject, thereby allowing the Committee to scrutinise the arrangements in

There were no questions.

There were no urgent items.