Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm attendance, the Chair will perform a roll call. Members will also have the opportunity to declare any interests.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee.

The Chair carried out a roll call to confirm attendance. There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting and discuss any matters arising.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2020 were approved.

The Chair asked for a brief update to be provided on Hammersmith Bridge. In response Bram Kainth (Chief Officer- Public Realm) noted that he sympathised with many people who continued to face challenges as a result of the closure of the Bridge and public safety remained a key priority to the Council. Transport for London (TfL) had received £4m from the Government for urgent stabilisation and repair works. This funding would cover the period up until the end of the financial year. The Council was still waiting for the full funding of £141m to be agreed for a detailed programme of the full stabilisation and strengthening works for the Bridge. Plans for a temporary ferry service to transport school children and residents across the river had been approved. TfL were leading on the procurement process for the ferry service and this should be in place by Spring 2021. Furthermore, a temperature control system would be implemented and would be ready for testing by the end of the month. The Council was also working closely with neighbouring boroughs to ensure that the alternative walking and cycling routes were well lit and as safe as possible for the use of public.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler asked how much the Council had contributed towards restoring the Bridge. Bram Kainth (Chief Officer- Public Realm) explained that the Council was spending approx. £2.7m per annum on a number of measures to keep the Bridge safe. Sharon Lea (Strategic Director of Environment) explained that this expenditure was vital to ensure that the Bridge was kept in a safe condition so that repair works could be carried out.

Councillor David Morton said that he welcomed the plans for a ferry service and asked for further details to be provided on who would be operating this service.  Bram Kainth (Chief Officer- Public Realm) said that TfL were leading on the procurement process and different options were currently being explored.

Councillor Ann Rosenberg asked when details of an accurate timing and the official announcement of the ferry service would be available. Bram Kainth (Chief Officer- Public Realm) noted that the Department for Transport (DfT) taskforce would take this on as an action and release further details when it was available.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler asked for an update to be provided on the temporary road bridge proposals. In response Bram Kainth (Chief Officer- Public Realm) noted that the DfT taskforce was exploring alternative options for the Bridge and the Council was working with them to ensure that this took place as soon as possible.

This meeting is being held remotely via Microsoft Teams. If you would like to make a comment or ask a question about any of the items on the agenda, either via Teams or in writing, please contact: amrita.gill@lbhf.gov.uk

No questions were received from the public.

This report provides an overview of the of LBHF’s new Gangs Violence and Exploitation Unit.

Gideon Springer (Strategic Lead Safer Street), gave a presentation on the work of the Gangs Violence and Exploitation Unit (GVEU). He showed slides that provided an overview of the Council’s progress with resourcing the team, the developing operating model and the work officers intended to undertake within the wider Council and strategic partnerships to reduce the harm caused to young people, who were at risk from gangs, violence and other forms of exploitation. It was noted that the Leader of the Council was instrumental in developing this ground-breaking agreement between the Council and the Metropolitan Police. This new dedicated unit would consist of 11 Council employed officers and 6 Metropolitan Police Officers. The total annual cost of the unit was £983,000. The performance measures which included key performance indicators and qualitive measures were also outlined and explained.

Councillor David Morton, referring to Appendix 1 of the report said that the figures for children and young people sentenced to custody and who were reoffending appeared higher in comparison to last year and asked for further clarification to be provided on these figures.Gideon Springer (Strategic Lead Safer Street) explained that having discussed these figures with the Youth Offending Team (YOT) these figures were based on a small cohort of individuals who were consistent offenders and had been resistant to the interventions put in by the YOT. Therefore, the GVEU was put into place to provide additional support and divert those young people away from crime.

Councillor David Morton asked if officers were working closely with the Prevent Team. Gideon Springer (Strategic Lead Safer Street) said that most of the crime was not counter terrorism related, however the GVEU had close links with the Prevent team to spread the message of the support and interventions that were available through the community group network.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler asked for further clarification to be provided on the funding arrangements for the formation of the GVEU. Gideon Springer (Strategic Lead Safer Street) noted that the finance had been secured through section 106 funding for the team.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank- Fowler noted that the Metropolitan Police had ran a similar scheme in Camden Council which was very successful. The funding was provided by the Mayor’s Violence Unit in April 2019. She asked if this funding was also available to the Council based on the high numbers for crime related activities in the Borough.

Councillor Sue Fennimore (Deputy Leader) explained that this was an entirely bespoke programme set up in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police. In addition, the Police were making a significant investment towards the scheme. It was noted that the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) also released £50,000 towards the programme which was allocated to the Council on a criteria basis.

Mathew Hooper (Chief Officer - Safer Neighbourhood & Regulatory Services) said that the funding released by the VRU was not sufficient to form the GVEU, given the scale of the initiative launched in the Borough. Therefore, the Council financed the programme through section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report is to give Members the opportunity to scrutinise the council’s conduct in relation to directed surveillance, covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) and communications data. 

Matt Hooper (Chief Officer - Safer Neighbourhood & Regulatory Services) provided an overview and noted that the Council must conduct directed surveillance, and use covert human intelligence sources, in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and  the Council policy. The Council’s use of covert surveillance was inspected by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) in April 2020. The outcome of this inspection was positive, and the report detailed the actions the Council would take in response. The inspector made five key recommendations in the report. The Council had created an action plan to address each of these recommendations.

An update was provided on the three separate policies that had been developed since the last inspection and based on the Councils’ previous RIPA policy which covered:

-       Policy for use of directed surveillance and covert human intelligence Sources.

-       Policy for use of direct surveillance (without Judicial Approval/“Non-RIPA”)

-       Policy for accessing communications data

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank- Fowler praised the positive work of the team for the inspection. She was pleased to note that direct surveillance was permitted to an authorising officer for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and disorder and fell under the Licensing Act 2003 (sale of alcohol to children and allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco to children). She felt that this was key in running licensed premises legally in the Borough.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank- Fowler asked for further clarification to be provided on how the Council was complying with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) data retention. Sharon Lea (Strategic Director of Environment) said that data protection and compliance with GDPR was a priority to the Council. GDPR training was provided to all staff through out the Council on a regular basis and attendance was vigorously monitored to ensure this was being completed.

The Chair asked if any members of the public had contacted the Council with regards to any privacy issues. In response Matt Hooper (Chief Officer - Safer Neighbourhood) noted that since his employment at the Council he was only aware of two concerns from members of the public. However, no complaints had been upheld against the Council. If any issues came to light the Council would work with residents to resolve these.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted and commented on the report.