Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:  To note that no Reserve Members had been nominated to attend the meeting.

The law requires English local authorities to appoint representatives of the diocesan authorities of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England to committees which deal with matters relating to schools and education in the Borough.  This does not apply to a local authority’s Cabinet in councils which operate executive arrangements (as is the case with Harrow) – for these authorities, the appointments must be made to any relevant overview and scrutiny committee.

Mrs Julia Rammelt, who has been the representative of the Roman Catholic Church diocesan education authority, has resigned, and Mr Neville Ransley has been nominated to replace her.  The Committee is therefore asked to approve the appointment of Mr Neville Ransley as a co-opted member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee representing the Roman Catholic Church diocesan education authority.

RESOLVED:  To approve the appointment of Mr Neville Ransley as a co?opted member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee representing the Roman Catholic Church diocesan education authority.

No declarations were made.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2017 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2017 be taken as read and signed as a correct record

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm on Thursday, 22 June 2017. Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions, petitions or deputations were received at this meeting.

There were none.

Report of the Divisional Director, Strategic Commissioning

The Committee considered a report setting out the strategic vision of Harrow’s Community Safety Partnership in the Annual Community Safety, Violence, Vulnerability and Exploitation Strategy for 2017-2020.  In discussion, the following principal points were made:

a)            The information in the strategy related to the year October 2015 to September 2017, and it was therefore not reflecting the current position in the Borough, but rather the circumstances more than 9 months previously.  Some more recent information was made available at the meeting, and it was acknowledged that reporting comprehensive, up-to-date information was challenging, but the Committee nevertheless considered it difficult to engage with the issues raised in the report when circumstances could have altered significantly in the interim period.  It was suggested that arrangements be made for the Committee’s consideration of the data to be brought forward to February while retaining the approval of the annual strategy in June.

b)            The strategy had been influenced by the new approach to policing and crime taken by the Mayor of London elected in May 2016.  The previous Mayor had established seven key areas of priority across the capital based on the outcome of public consultation, yet some of these were not prevalent issues in Harrow borough and there had therefore been a mismatch between regional and local priorities. 

c)            One of the themes of the new strategy was the value of focusing on some low volume, but high impact crimes rather than simply targeting the high volume crimes.  There had also been efforts to coordinate with other separate strategies, for example, by integrating the domestic violence strategy. 

d)            There was reference to instances of people coming from other boroughs to commit crime locally, for example, the recent case of someone stabbed to death in South Harrow.  There were a number of cross-borough initiatives, including on knife crime, designed to mount a more effective response to these situations. Meetings on crime and community safety were held with Ealing, Brent, Barnet and Watford.  Superintendent Claire Clark confirmed that there were also discussions about the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) moving towards a “merger” of their policing resources across groups of boroughs.

e)            There had been growing concerns over the number of young people caught carrying knives; there were some links to gang activity, but also many young people were mistakenly doing so for reasons of self-defence.  Young people were increasingly worried over the issue as there were predominantly the victims of knife attacks.  A considerable amount of time and effort was devoted to trying to engage young people.  By comparison with other areas of London, Harrow did not have high numbers of these crimes, but they were on the increase and were often associated with perpetrators from other areas. Superintendent Clark confirmed that regular weapons sweeps were carried out and there was good community support for spreading the message about the dangers involved.

f)             The Harrow Youth Parliament had produced very helpful cards for young people on the subject of knife crime; it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225.

Richard Le Brun, Head of Community and Public Protection, introduced the report explaining the delay in the implementation of a new policy due to operational and enforcement issues which had arisen.  It would have been possible for the Council to introduce fees and charges from as early as 2000, but it had waited many years before judging it to be appropriate for Harrow.  A number of businesses had become concerned about its impact and there were uncertainties about how to deal with private land on the margins of public highway.  The Council were trying to adopt a gradual and practical approach to implementation, working with local businesses to determine appropriate arrangements for particular locations.  This involved treating some areas of private land which had been maintained by the Council as public highway for the purposes of street trading.  The Council was working with the West London Alliance to try to achieve greater consistency in the charges to businesses and to coordinate licensing schemes across the sub-region.  Efforts were made to underline the benefits, including to local businesses, arising from the removal of clutter and obstructions from pavements. 

A Member suggested that the Council need to adopt a clearer statement about whether certain types of street trading such as food markets were favoured and would be supported.  The enforced reduction of the trading area available to a business could threaten its viability, so it would be important for the Council to consider such factors as shop vacancy rates in particular areas. 

The Head of Community and Public Protection confirmed that the Council was monitoring the position in relation to business viability and economic development more broadly.  He acknowledged the value of working with ward councillors and local businesses to develop a balanced approach in the relevant areas which considered both commercial needs and the importance of clear highways for pedestrian and vehicle movements.  The Council had issues 72 licences to date and there was a phased and considered approach to enforcement involving discussions with business owners before any more formal action was considered.  A review would take place later in the year to include business opinion and gauge the appetite for further street trading licences; depending on the level of interest, it might be possible to reduce fees as the volume increased.  The value of food markets was recognised, though it would be important to select the right locations in terms of space and footfall.

In response to a Member’s query about developing a package to offer businesses which would include, say, advertising for the street trading activity, the Head of Community and Public Protection advised that the banner and advertising policy was being reviewed and this proposal considered in that context; of course, road safety issues might come into play if advertisements were unsuitably located.

A Member asked about the income expectations for this policy in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and whether that would need to be adjusted in the light of performance to date.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

Councillor Janet Mote, the Chair of the Health Visiting Scrutiny Challenge Panel, introduced the report focusing on its recommendations which were partly for the Council and partly for the London North West NHS Trust.  The results of the review would be fed into the reprocurement of the service which would be aimed at ages 0-19 in future and would incorporate school nursing services. 

In discussion of the report, the following issues were raised:

a)            Language barriers were a problem for the service, leading to misinformation and misinterpretation.  Five main languages were covered, but there were still challenges in a borough as diverse as Harrow.  The review had even revealed that some health visitors were unaware of the availability of translation services.  Also, the issues went beyond language into areas of cultural differences and practices. 

b)            The performance data had revealed an unacceptable level of no-shows by the age of two and a half.  In the reprocurement exercise, efforts would be made to evaluate the readiness of prospective providers to offer innovative solutions to the performance issues.  It was suggested that best practice in other areas be carefully researched and that benchmarks be incorporated in the new contract to incentivise better performance. 

c)            The Harrow Youth Parliament representative raised the question of mental health issues for young people, particularly in the teenage years, and also how the review would deal with the caseload problems identified.  It was confirmed that the extension of the new service to the age of 19 would provide for mental health of teenagers to be addressed.  Mental health issues were also very relevant to mothers and fathers who could suffer from depression and isolation.   The review included recommendations on staffing and caseloads, and these would need to be reflected in the contract specification in future. 

Resolved to RECOMMEND: 

To refer the review’s recommendations to Cabinet and to the London North West NHS Trust for consideration, as appropriate.

RESOLVED:   That

(1)          to endorse the findings and recommendations of the Health Visiting Service Review; and

(2)          to acknowledge that the substantive Cabinet response will be available in   September.