Agenda item

Police Tasking Team

Inspector Kevan Baylie attended the meeting and provided Members with details of the role of the Police Tasking Team, which was the Team of Police Officers which the London Borough of Hillingdon funded.

• The Police Tasking Team was based in Hayes and their first priority was to the local authority.
• Most of the Team’s work was on Anti-Social Behaviour and there was an excellent working relationship with the Council’s Community Safety and Anti-Social Behaviour Investigations Service Team.

·           In relation to Anti-Social Behaviour, Police work involved research, preparation and applying for and presenting Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) and Criminal Ant-Social Behaviour Orders at Court.

·           Work also took place on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. These were early intervention measures and a breach of one of these was used as evidence to support an application for an ASBO.

·           The setting up of Dispersal Zones in the Borough.

·           In partnership with Safer London and the Business Intelligence Unit, work took place in the management of information on gangs.

·           Information sharing took place with the local authority and Registered Social Landlords as the Team was the single point of contact.

·           The Police Tasking Team would not be affected by the new Local Policing Model which was to be introduced later this year.

·           Daily intelligence meetings took place where information was shared between the Council and the Team. In addition monthly meetings took place between the Police and the Anti-Social Behaviour Investigation Team (ASBIT).

·           Work took place with ASBIT with troubled families in terms of visits, warrants and liaison with the Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

·           The joint patrols which took place with the Police and Council officers worked very well with out reach workers sometimes involved.

·           Various examples of police operations were provided which involved operations on anti-social behaviour, drugs, street drinking, noise and these were successful in terms of prevention and reduction of crime.

Speed Guns

The Committee was provided with the following information:-

• The Police had currently three speed guns which had been provided by the Council. All three of the speed guns had been recently calibrated.
• There were currently 65 police officers who had been trained to use the equipment.
• There was a regular training programme which ensured the required officers were trained.
• Use of the Speed Guns had been sparse this last year which had been due to the abstractions from the SNT caused by a management decision to bolster the response teams to enable compliance around the “I” and “S” grade calls.
• The MOPAC had also been charged with reducing priority crimes such as domestic burglary and street robbery which had impacted on the use of the Speed Guns.
• Reference was made to the huge impact which the London Olympics had had on local policing, which had been the main priority for the Metropolitan Police during the last summer.
• Reference was made to the positive impact which the new local policing model would have on local policing, with more officers out on the streets.
• Speed guns were deployed at the request of Ward Panel meetings.
• A suggestion was made that a protocol should be put in place whereby the local authority and police work closely together to assess recommendations for the use of Speed Guns where there was a request for the use of the equipment if speeding was suspected. This could include using speed strips to monitor the speed in particular areas of the Borough to ascertain if there was a problem. Speed Guns could then be deployed.
• Speed Guns were an important deterrent against speeding vehicles by means of a visible presence. This in turn provided reassurance to members of the public.                      

CCTV Service

Prior to the meeting, Members visited the CCTV control room at the Civic Centre.

Included in the report was a breakdown of CCTV incidents by the hour, to enable the assessment of the spread of incidents over the hours that the system was operated.

Reference was made to the visibility required for CCTV cameras and Members noted that there required co-operation from other organisations to ensure that the visibility of the cameras were at their optimum. It was noted that this was not always the case.

Members were reminded that at their last meeting they were informed that with regard to the public safety cameras, recording took place 24 hours a day. However, these cameras were only monitored from 5.00pm till 2.00am which would have implications on the number of prosecutions the Council made.

A suggestion was that consideration could be given to being more flexible on the hours monitored i.e. later hours on Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays. Members noted that any suggested changes to the monitoring hours would have resource implications. 

Members were also reminded that at their last meeting discussion took place on the 11 cameras which were coverted for fly tipping hotspots in the Borough. The prosecutions which resulted as a result of fly tipping offences did not result in any fines coming to the Council. A suggestion was that the Council could apply for compensation due to the costs to the Council of removing fly tipping.

CCTV Vehicles

For the next meeting, Members asked that a written report be provided on the position with regard to the two CCTV Vehicles which the Council had purchased.

The Committee thanked Inspector Kevan Baylie for the information he had provided for the review.  

RESOLVED –

1.   That information received from the witness be noted and form part of the evidence for the review.

2.  That officers be asked to undertake the actions outlined above and a draft final report be provided at the Committee’s next meeting, to enable suggestions for recommendations.