Following the death of Councillor Antony Lillis, Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council Stephen Greenhalgh took over the role as Cabinet Member with responsibility for the voluntary sector. In his first major interview in this position he spoke to Hammersmith and Fulham Refugee Forum's Media Officer Phil Cooper.

Although he is gone, the spirit of Councillor Antony Lillis and his approach to the borough’s voluntary sector still pervades Hammersmith Town Hall.

 “Antony and I were close colleagues and he was a fellow councillor of mine for over ten years. He and I designed what our approach was going to be to the voluntary sector together,” says leader of the council Stephen Greenhalgh.

 In the view of many throughout the voluntary sector and the local community, Cllr Lillis’s sudden and untimely death this summer left a significant gap to be filled in the local corridors of power. At a time when public sector budgets are under pressure, in the midst of a recession and with external funding much harder to come by, many have feared what the future holds for voluntary groups throughout Hammersmith and Fulham.

“We took great pride in the fact that we were able to allay the fears and concerns of the voluntary sector when we took power in 2006,” says Cllr Greenhalgh. “A sign of how important we see the sector is that I have taken over the responsibility that Antony had with the Third Sector.”

And what is his view of that sector? “It is incredibly important,” he says, adding: “There are many areas where the market doesn’t work. The public sector has failed as well. Social enterprise, community and voluntary enterprise step in to help Hammersmith and Fulham residents in a way that as a council we cannot.”

At Hammersmith and Fulham Refugee Forum we were keen to learn how he views that part of the sector whose interests we represent. Cllr Greenhalgh describes his own personal situation by way of explanation: “I’ve been brought up by my mother who was a refugee,” he says and goes on to explain that, at the age of seven, his mother and her mother were turned out of their home in what was then Czechoslovakia and had to fend for themselves begging for food. She developed an intolerance for all forms of extremism and these attitudes had shaped his life.

“So I have a personal affinity for people who have lost everything and need to start again,” he says. “And my view is that of course what we want from people that come to Britain as refugees is that they are able to get the helping hand of organisations around them to get on with their lives and to be full and active citizens in this country.”

This leads onto his views on what he refers to as infrastructure organisations - the second-tier or umbrella bodies such as the Refugee Forum, or CaVSA. How does he view their role? “I think they play a role because without infrastructure you can’t organise anything,” he says, but he nevertheless regards them as an “overhead” or, in business terms, an additional cost.

“What we want to have is an overhead that is lean and appropriate so we can get the best out of the front-line organisations.” The balance, between front-line and second tier has got to be right, he adds. “What we don’t want is to have layer upon layer of overhead. I have no problem working with infrastructure groups that deliver a lean overhead so that the other groups can thrive.”

Which brings us onto the thorny question of funding for the voluntary sector. How does he square the circle of voluntary bodies being asked to do more by central and local government but funding being cut?

“I can’t do anything in my business that I can’t fund and as a council we can’t do anything without having strong finances,” he says. But he wants voluntary groups to judge the council not so much on its pronouncements but on the evidence of how it has funded the sector since the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

“We said we wouldn’t cut voluntary sector budgets and the answer is that we haven’t done,” he says, producing figures that show that in its first year the Conservative administration provided £4.2 million to the voluntary sector, in 2007/8 the figure was £4.3 million, in 2008/9 £4.5 million and in the current financial year a further £4.5 million.

This, he says, compares very favourably with other London boroughs putting  Hammersmith and Fulham in the top quartile of funders being about the same as Westminster, a much larger borough while Tower Hamlets stands at around £3.5 million and Haringey and Hackney at £2.5 million. These last three boroughs are run by Labour and Cllr Greenhalgh is at pains to point out that, although the Labour administration that ran Hammersmith and Fulham before him could quote similar figures to his own, they did not spend all the money that was budgeted falling short by several hundred thousands. “We spend every penny,” he says.

But, he goes on, “What we don’t want to do is just hand cash over without a service that comes with it. And that does mean filling in reports to say what you’ve done, it does mean you’re not given a blank cheque,” adding “the duty for the voluntary sector is to run itself on business-like lines.” Among other things, this meant securing funding from other sources in addition to the council.

Thus far, says Cllr Greenhalgh, he and Cllr Lillis had protected the money set aside for the voluntary sector by removing it from individual departmental budgets to create a centralised ring-fenced pot. He also emphasises that the Conservatives had added new voluntary organisations – 16 in total – to those receiving funding. This had been achieved by doing away with what he calls the previous “closed shop” of organisations receiving funds. “That meant there were losers as well as gainers … you fund the best, you fund the groups you believe have got the priorities of the administration that you believe are right for the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham.”

Looking to the future, however, the picture is less than clear and less than rosy. “But, he says, “my commitment to the voluntary sector is that the pain will be shared. I will not make easy cuts in the voluntary sector. I don’t want to cut the voluntary sector budgets but I’m afraid if we get, say, a nought percent budget settlement or even a minus settlement then that has a consequence for council services and for the voluntary sector.”

Anticipating a question about where this leaves Palingswick House he says “I don’t know what the future of Palingswick House is but I can give you a generalisation. We are shrinking our council footprint substantially. The biggest area of saving is going to be the use of office space. If we are going to have community hubs, we are going to have to ask the voluntary sector to rethink their use of premises as well. It is easier than making frontline service cuts if we can shrink our use of office accommodation.”

Expressing the wish that a future Conservative government leaves Hammersmith and Fulham Council alone to do the job in the way it considers best for local people. Cllr Greenhalgh characterises himself as “a passionate localist.”

“You want to be proud of what your group does in this part of West London. I want to be proud of what this council achieves in this part of West London,” he says. And suddenly we are back to the subject of Antony Lillis.

“When he died, everyone mourned and we saw the pride that he had had in Hammersmith and Fulham, “he says. “He is irreplaceable and I had to split his job up. I’ve taken over a bit of it. I want the voluntary sector to know and get the message out through this interview that I’m passionate that we get this right and don’t undo what Antony achieved and that we build on the solid foundation that he left us with.”

Ends