Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

Any apologies for absence. [BLANKAUDIO] I sent you an email, I wonder if you had the opportunity. We'll get to it. You're gonna get to that. We'll get to it, okay, we'll get to it. I saw your email. [BLANKAUDIO] Are there any declaration of interest from any members? No, thank you. We have the minutes of the meeting on the 9th of April and the 16th of May. We're all happy that I signed these minutes? Thank you. There are no public questions that I'm aware of. There are no petitions that I'm aware of. Any petitions from any member? No? And nor are there any references from council or cabinet. Before we get to the next item, which is the information report for the Youth Justice Plan, there has been a representation from Councillor Henson where he registered his discomfort that the report was late. I believe it was only published yesterday. I must say that I share his discomfort, considering that this meeting was delayed. And before we look into it, I would appreciate, I see that we have the Assistant Director for Children's Safeguarding, if the Assistant Director might help us in understanding why the report was submitted late. [BLANKAUDIO] Good evening, members. My name is Priscilla. I'm the Interim Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Youth Justice Service. Apologies for the late submission of the report and the paperwork. There have been some changes in the running of the service. We have an officer, who is the one I'm representing currently, who is on off-seek and has been on off-seek for some time. So I came in in April to pick up the piece of work that needed to be done. There's been some delays in doing that information gathering and preparing for the report. And I do apologize for the delay. [BLANKAUDIO] Chair, thank you so much for, I would endorse that. One of Priscilla's predecessor, who's sadly off on sick leave, has resulted in some pushback in terms of some of the work that was being done. And I know he'd done a reasonable amount of work to try and progress this. So I think there are some mitigating elements. But nevertheless, I understand the committee's point. And I think it is unfortunate, and I do apologize for that. But there are some mitigating elements around that. And I would also reiterate, and I think it's been pointed out in the cabinet paper on 1.8, in terms of the risk management, there is some important work that needs to be done, which I feel is fairly apolitical. And it's important that this work is allowed to progress. And I will try and highlight, in conjunction with officers, I've got Kunshu and Jaleja online, as well as Priscilla, to try and help you understand that and hope the committee can actually see through that. And I'm more than happy to take any questions based on that as well. But that's the reasons behind. Hopefully that's given some kind of context as well. Thank you. I expect that because of the delay you'll be able to present at length on the report and give members opportunity for perhaps exploring more because they've not had a lot of time to read the report. Thank you, Chair. I would say that, look, I've got myself as well as two officers. Priscilla's been instrumental in putting the document together, so she's around as well as Kunshu, who's extremely experienced and able to also help in elaborating on areas that may be of -- areas that they need further details from any member. I'm more than happy to kind of furnish you with those details. If there is anything that's specific that we may not be able to present, we're more than happy to make sure that that's provided to members as required. But hopefully we can deal with most of the areas as we work through this document today. Thank you. Given that we have the portfolio holder and the assistant director, personally I don't mind progressing. However, I will put it to a vote for the members. Of course. The point is I accept that sometimes there's mitigation around reasons why people can't -- why reports are delayed. And sometimes staff seek sickness is one that could be a problem. But you said it had to be rewritten, which gives me one level of concern. And also last year when this came to us, we had a lot of questions around the financing of it, in the sense there was a lot of policy area and structure that you wanted to deliver, but then it didn't match in with the budget. So as we haven't had time to read the report, I haven't been able to understand where it has moved since last year, when we came through. And the second point, I think, is -- I welcome you coming this evening, but it's -- you know, we have got time because it doesn't go to cabinet until July, and it doesn't go to -- it has to be endorsed by the full council, which is not until September. So I just don't want -- I don't think able of asking questions around the report itself, although I probably might from the presentation. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have further questions once I've read the report, and I think other people may be the same. But that's my concern around the report tonight. Thank you. And I'm sure you will be able to present the differences from last year? We can certainly try and, you know, do our best to try and alleviate kind of any concerns that might be there, and subject to what those issues that may be, then we can try and sort of see how best we can deal with that. But I've made sure that I'm here today as well, and I absolutely am mindful of the point being made, and I'm not, you know, disassociating from that. And I think things do need to be put in a timely manner. But I would genuinely say that, you know, it's a very unfortunate situation in terms of the person that was leading this. And we've also had to make decisions around recruiting Priscilla. We're lucky to have her with her experience as well. But I think they're the mitigating factors. Unfortunately, it's one of those areas that wasn't planned in that sense as well, but more than happy to try and provide as much information. Hence, I've got two offices that are here that can help with that as well, if need be. And we can always go and provide further information if that's required, to try and help alleviate those issues. Thank you. So with that, all those in favor of taking this agenda item today? Against? Thank you. It is carried then. Thank you. And if you don't mind presenting the report. And please, when you do, try and refer to the differences that were made since last year so that members are fully aware of what they should be looking at. Thank you. Chair, if I may, I may work in collaboration with the offices. I may do some of the presentation. If it's okay for the committee, then I can -- if that's acceptable to you. But I'm more than happy for the offices to lead. By all means, as much information as you can give us. Okay. Have you got the -- yeah. Do you want to just put that -- are we able to share that document? Can everybody see that document? I'm a little bit further away from you so I'm assuming everybody can hear as well. If members want to change seats and find someone more comfortable to see the screen, I see Councillor Anderson is -- are you okay? Very good. If not, take -- really, wherever is comfortable. Thank you. Okay. Can everybody see? Is that clear or -- yeah. So I just want to give a quick -- a synopsis that will give you a little bit of background and, you know, context to this document as well. As it says, it provides an outline for the local authority and how it will deliver and finance use justice services and how we're in line with expectations of legal duty under the Crime and Disorder Act. Our strategy is actually over a period of three years, between '24 and '27, and it will lay out our plan as well as our priorities. And further down, we'll elaborate on those areas. It endorses the vision of the Youth Justice Board that is made up of a statutory and wider partners. And I think that's a key element in terms of where we need to be in terms of delivering an effective service, in terms of, you know, a collaborative approach and a multifaceted approach is what I'd emphasize. And also, I think I'll elaborate on some of the key areas that I think we also need to look at in terms of the voice of the victim as well as involving parents as part of this journey. But I'll reiterate that it's very much around a collaborative and involving wider partners, including those within the voluntary sector. The Harrow Youth Justice Partnership vision is for a youth justice system that treats children as children, and I think that's an important point to reiterate. The vision lies at the heart of who we are and what we stand for as a partnership. Our vision calls for a systemic response to meet the challenges facing our children and young people through partnership working where all organizations contributing to the Harrow Youth Justice Partnership operate according to the child-first approach. And I'll try and elaborate in conjunction with the officers with me in terms of some of the areas which I think are prevalent in ensuring that we try and reflect on that. I'll give a very quick summary of what we do know about our young people in Harrow, and I'm sure some of you may be versed with this, but we have a population around 261K, of which 24% just over, equating to about 63,000, are children aged between 0 to 19. Of these, around 3,500 are known to social care over the year. And within the youth justice system, there are 98 people that have been involved, and as at the year-end, which is a fiscal year-end, in March, we have 43 active cases. There is a breakdown on that page, which is self-explanatory in terms of between male and female, ethnicity, as well as those under the age of 16. So that gives you just a little bit of background. On the 43 cases known, obviously the youth justice services are involved in all of them, but where Harrow's officers are more engaged are what's highlighted there in terms of the 7% in those young people that I looked after. Similarly, Child Protection Plan, both equating to about 3 children each, and those around 9 are classified as children in need, with the balance of around 28 are those which are managed predominantly by the Youth Justice Service in terms of the work that's been done. In active census 43, so in the context of the total population of children, compared to what, you know, generally in Harrow, to give you further context in who's involved within the youth justice system. And as it says, generally there are between 1 and 2 people on average that are within the sexual exploitation case, or where there's child criminal exploitation between 2 and 4 children, and where there is a low number but there's one person affected with harmful sexual behaviour as well. So that just gives you a bit of a background again, further background in terms of who's involved in the system. So need is basically not, for those that may not be familiar, is not in education or any kind of training. So a snapshot at the end of March, again, 18 are above the statute of school age, and 8 of those are need, so they're not in any form of education or training. And again, in terms of who are our children furthermore, I would reiterate, as I'm sure most of you are aware of who are familiar with this area, in terms of the complexity, of those, the youngest are 3 young boys aged 12, subject to out of court disposals, 2 of are offensive possession of an offensive weapon on school premises, and 1 for common assault on a member of staff. What I would also reiterate is that in terms of general numbers, we have seen the number of children coming into our attention decreasing, and this is actually a trend that's prevalent more London-wide and on a national level. And I think further down, we try to give you some indication as to the causes of that. One is possible around the fact that there's less resourcing in police, which could equate to, you know, less arrests. And in conjunction with this, there's an element around the backlog from court orders and the court system. And there's a more diversional process where there is intervention. So engaged workers in police stations where we have seen an increase in out of court disposals. But I'd say on a positive level, there is what I would call early intervention, and schools are undertaking more restorative processes with the police who are based in schools. And this sort of early intervention process can actually help in preventing escalation. And this also fits in on a wider strategy we have around early intervention, which is important in terms of collaborative working, as well as ensuring that we prevent where possible an escalation of cases. And that also has a plausible reason why the number of cases could be decreasing. But I think it's important to put that in context so that you're aware. And I think we're just on next slide, we're trying to give you an indication in terms of a snapshot, which, again, it's fairly well laid out. So it gives you an indication of where those children are in terms of court orders, custody, etc. So we have one custodial element which is one person, not one child. There have been a total, as it's indicated in the last fiscal year, a total of 10 with five new custodial sentences starting in the current year. The current number, however, is one. So as emphasized there, this has slightly gone down. There's been a reduction in that. And part of it, some have ended up transferred to probation because they turned 18. So I think it's important to emphasize in terms of the stats as to how that's transpired in the way it has. And again, in terms of remand, the figures are there. The performance indicators, which I think is worth looking at, that the use justice system, the board, the use justice system generally has introduced new performance indicators which are laid out on your left, as you'll see. And I want to reiterate that we've already been reporting on this since March of last year. But the use justice board would not be in a position to analyze that data and judge us on those criteria because that data is being processed by them as we speak. Can you see what's happened there? One second. Sorry, I think it's just gone off screen for some reason. Excellent, thank you. So on the left, I'll just reiterate there are new criteria in terms of new KPIs that's been introduced. And so we have been reporting, but we are not going to be judged on that, mainly because the data is being assessed by the use justice board and that will transpire in the following periods. But to the right are four criteria that we have, the local indicators, and that gives you some indication as to what we're being judged on currently. If I just go back to the left in that new criteria, I think it's worth emphasizing to members so it makes it easier. The first three in terms of our criteria that's been introduced and it's around suitable accommodation. How many children who are in the system do have suitable accommodation? It's again a priority in terms of how we would address that. Similarly, point two in terms of education, training and employment link back to the needs element as well. So kind of picking up that data and how we how we try and deal with that. And the third is around special needs and special educational needs. And again, that's a criteria that can affect. And I think all of these I actually welcome all of these three areas. I think it fits in with the strategy and in terms of what we want to do as our corporate priorities in terms of being there for those most in need. I think some of the work that's been doing, as you probably be aware, in terms of special needs is kind of fitting in with that. And for us, we welcome that criteria. In terms of education and training, again, I'm a big passionate believer in trying to get engagement and ensuring that our young people have the best opportunities as possible. So any which way, including around employment and how we can support them. So again, it's a criteria that we absolutely welcome. And in terms of suitable accommodation, that's something we are also looking at in terms of how we can address that. It is an issue. It's a nationwide issue, I'd emphasise, but it's an issue and how we can try and address that. So what I would reiterate, and I think it's important, is that this is work that is work in progress. There is work still to be done. But it's giving you a direction in terms of how that fits in with the use justice board's new criteria and what we're trying to do to address those as well. The rest of it, I think, is self-explanatory. I'm more than happy for you to come back on that. I'm happy to take questions as we go along, Chair, or I can go through that. I think there's a couple more pages, if I may, and then I'm more than happy to work through that and it gives you a full context. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. I think I've got officers who have been very, very working extremely hard in the background. I've got Priscilla on my left. I've got Kanchen Jodeja, who is extremely experienced on the line. I'm going to leave them to present some of the areas of our kind of focus around the local offending profile as well as key areas of focus around knife brands. So if I may welcome Priscilla and Kanchen as well. Thank you, Kanchen. The common offense types we work with for our young people are mainly to do with violence against the person. So there's 24 percent of the cases we work with. There's an element of violence against the person. Then carrying offensive weapons and drug possession, which is class B mainly. Then there is theft and handling. So those are the type of offenses we work with. We are currently not receiving any intelligence around the spike in gang activity. We are aware that in Harrow our gang influence was coming from neighboring areas, especially Hounslow and Ealing. So you would see that they when things are quieter in those areas, it impacts us less. But we are not currently receiving any intelligence about concerns around gang activity. We can say that geographically we are one of the safest boroughs in London. So our crime levels are low and we concentrate a lot on restorative work with schools, with partners, and that makes a difference to the work we do. However, there are some water spots that we know of which include Harrow Bus Station, Harrow-on-the-Yule Tube Station, and also parts of Harrow and Widdlestone Train Station, South Harrow Tube Station, and Rock-Subbury-Yule area. So those are our water spots. We are working together in partnership with police and voluntary organizations to keep an eye on the activities that are happening there. I will hand you over to Kanchan to talk about the key area of knife crime. Thank you, Priscilla. Thank you, Councillor Caria. So in terms of knife crime, it's one of the particularly important areas for us and for London generally. And it's ones that we are determined to deal with within Harrow and look at different methods of how we can do that and to support children, which is our youth offending cohort, our children. And as Councillor Caria said, that's how we want to treat them. So we have various programmes to address knife crime. And one of them is about mental toughness programmes. So as Councillor Caria suggested, the percentage, high percentage of the children open to us are either looked after children on child protection plans or on child in need plans. And therefore, their parenting would have sometimes not been so that they had the kind of mental toughness that they need in order to take crime. And a lot of children who carry knives are to protect themselves. So the mental toughness programme supports them to make sure that their internal kind of strength is built up. And it takes place at Wilstone Youth Hub, which is the link between the youth justice work and our early help work is very important to us. Street Doctors is a very, very excellent programme where doctors, predominantly junior medical professionals, this is a group knife awareness programme delivered by those doctors about the physical impact of knife crime. So we've, on the one hand, got the mental health side to support children to build their own inner strength and then to really understand the long term consequences medically for them and for those because a lot of life crime is young person on young person or children on children. And this has been recommissioned by us and the groups are currently running and running well. The evidence based programmes as the one to one programmes are designed to address knife crime and is carried out with young people on court orders, so that's our higher end of our cohort. And we also deliver a group work programme in terms of knife crime, and it's integrated, as I said previously, with our youth services work. I think it's important to say that Harrow is one of the few areas that has this link between youth work and youth offending, so we can provide a more holistic offer. The No Knives Better Lives programme continues to address our service and in the last event was held on the 23rd and dates have already been set for this last quarter was on the 21st of May, and the next one is on the 8th of July next month. And what they do is outlined as follows kind of sentencing presentation trauma surgeon presentation. And increasingly, we are working to ensure that parents become part of the work that we do with the children. There's a barrister presentation and ex gang member presentation as my colleague Priscilla has suggested, we need to know more about gang culture and how it presents in Harrow, but to have an ex gang member actually say how important it is not to have knife crime is a really positive step forward. Next slide please. So, we're really keen that children, the work that we do with our youth offending work kind of sits within the community and also has an eye on the importance of working with victims and for our children and young people to understand that their crimes have an impact on the victim. As I said previously, a lot of these are children on children crimes, and we had an example of about an 18 year old who was so traumatized that he couldn't write his statement. His victim impact statement and we did some very good work with him, to the point that he was able to then go to court, present his statement, and it's built up his confidence and we were aware of the impact that this has and we've got some good case examples of work and voices of victims. So as I said it's important that we have an eye on victims, and the community as a whole, and that children understand the impact that they have on creating fear predominantly in the community, and how we can work with them to understand the impact of that on others. And these are building life skills as they go through life hopefully in this service. We work with young people for them to understand that kind of impact on victims so we've got some projects where young people go into food banks, and they help to put food together in boxes. They can understand what it's like for people who need to use the food bank so we're trying to develop empathy for them and that's what we mean by the impact. Restorative work is also important for us, and we've brought these issues into our revised improvement plan that we're working on currently. As I said, there are some very good news stories. I mentioned the food bank and there's another one about the kitchen so we try and bring young people into the community wherever it's safe for them and the community to do so. I think, Councillor Caria, over to you. Thank you so much, Kanchan. I know the amount of work that certainly you've assisted together, Priscilla and the team, so thank you for that. I'd also just reiterate, I think the voice of the victim I think is really important to understand and ensure that there is awareness of that, and I think that's part of the strategy around de-escalation, around preventative approach and early intervention. I think that's important to reiterate and I think Kanchan has very kindly highlighted, I think that's probably just the surface of some of the work and the impact it has, especially on the positive stories where young people are able to see the impact in terms of what it has on victims and what can come out of that. And I think there's some great stories in terms of rehabilitation in that sense as well, so I think it's important to emphasise that. I think leading on from this is what we call our next steps really in terms of, first of all to reiterate that this is, we're seeking your approval for a health use justice plan for three years between 24 and 27. Again, just emphasising that the last board-less assessment was in summer 2019. Obviously, we've had various factors in terms of pandemic, et cetera, so we want to create a self-assessment and a standards review for 2024. And again, review the progress of the current improvement plan and work around, you know, we're working, as I said, I think it's really important to emphasise the collaborative working because this is a multifaceted structure that supports this particular area. So we're working with our education colleagues for them to have conversations with us before around exclusions and offending because, again, this is preventative approach, de-escalation before it gets too far and excluding children where that could be prevented with additional supports. I think that's important to emphasise to you. Reiterating that last section was in 2021, again, there's a process already in place which I support in terms of inspection readiness work. Again, this is proactive work. I think it's important to emphasise and, you know, picking up on lessons we can learn because it should be a self-improvement process and that's what we're looking to aim for. And earlier we can start with that preparation. It helps our young people as well as improving what we consider to be improvement in standards in preventative and part of it will be reactive in terms of what has been learnt so we can learn from that and apply that as we go forward. And in that context, we've taken a three-pronged approach, adjusting disproportionality. Part of it is, and again, I will get Priscilla to elaborate in conjunction with the country, but it's impacted how, as we said, upskilling impacted elements in terms of impacting children. A key area is upskilling our workforce as well and, again, challenging and supporting development of wider systems and structures and that includes working with both the police as well as wider sort of partners and also the voluntary sector. And again, we are noticing a reduction in some disproportionality in local data that we've seen, but we want to seek to build on this work and include young people and families in their strategic development of this work. And I would reiterate, and it's important to kind of bring this to your attention, is that we do want to engage with the families and further down the line, we've emphasised in terms of improving our parent engagement. I think that's really important to ensure that there is awareness by parents and supporting the parents. And taking into account the child, and that goes back to the child first in all aspects of our strategy. I think that's a key element. I'm a big believer in that, listening to the child, listening to their journey, ensuring that where we can, we try and address that. As a kind of further awareness, obviously, we've had a procurement in terms of the use justice system, IT system, again, that's just to bring that to your attention. CAPTA's contract comes to an end in March 25. Again, Office is going to elaborate on, but there's a new software from September, ChildView, which is, again, the reason for that is it's a popular software that's used by other local authorities, and it's something that will help us to improve in our data collection, data analysis, as well as help staff manage cases as well. So that gives you an overview. I'm more than happy in conjunction with our officers here to take any questions or certainly thoughts that you may have. I just want to give an opportunity to the officers if in case there's anything they wish to add, Priscilla or Kanchen, in terms of what we presented, so that you have a full synopsis as best as we can. Thank you. Just to highlight that the work we do with the young people, even though they are 43 currently known to Youth Justice Service, most of the work is done in the community, taking them to the community. It's rarely office-based, so there is a commitment from our workers who, of the 23 workers we have, 22 are permanent workers who are committed to these young people, so that there is stability and consistency offered for them. That's why we keep an eye on staffing so that the young people are not experiencing too many changes, because it makes a difference when they build a relationship with the worker they are working with, and then move the young person into adulthood. So there is a very good working relationship with the probation. When they turn 18, the planning would have happened earlier for them to be picked up so that no young person is left hanging around without being handed over to probation. And there is also an understanding that some of the cases, when they turn 18, if their case is still in court, we may hang on to them and then hand over the sentencing, because the sentencing will tell us where the child may end up in. So there is a very good transition process that ensures that, even if it's a small number, they are well attended, and with a good, solid group of workers, we look after them well. Chair, if I may, the importance of that is that there is a process of ensuring that transition is managed, and I think there's support there. I think it's important to emphasize that, again, putting that child first in their views is important, because they're issues that can arise through their journey. And again, I would say it's work in progress, but it ensures that we have a strategy in terms of ensuring that we do focus on that, and they don't fall by the wayside as much as we are able to support that. It's a preventative approach, and I think it's a logical approach in terms of where we need to be. But I would reiterate, in fairness, that what I think is important is we have 22 offices that are full-time devoted to that, but I would say it's still work in progress, and that's important to reiterate. So it is a complex area. I would also want to emphasize that. And as I said, we are interdependent on other parties and other collaborative working. So I think part of it is, you know, that's what we want to encourage. And again, reiterating the early intervention strategy that we have on a broader level will help in terms of the direction of travel that we want to take this in. And as I said, that's a three-year strategy, but that's the progress that we want to have. I'm happy for that to be scrutinized, actually, because I would welcome, you know, thoughts as well, because it's about the outcomes for us and ensuring that those children get the best support that we can possibly give them. But that is a multifaceted approach, and that requires input from other sources, sometimes outside of our control, but I think that's a challenge that we're trying to address as well. I think it's important to emphasize that to members and making sure there's an awareness and understanding of that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Before we go to questions, I just note that there is a section in the report looking at the update on previous year, given the limited time that we had to review the report. Would you like to walk us through on the differences from the previous year, so on this section? [inaudible] So I'll start. Okay, Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, yeah. I think that there are three or four key elements of this that we've progressed with. The first one is about the work with the community, family, community and parents in particular. So our new approach is children that are on child protection plans because the children's social care teams already know them. If there are children in our care, then we'll have the independent reviewing officer who looks out for them, and we've got a child in need, we've got a social worker. So that partnership between the two, because they are more engaged with parents, then we can draw the parents into the youth justice work, which as we've identified in our presentation is an important part of our work. I think broadening out into the work within the community, we mentioned the food bank, but there are other projects that we're looking at currently to broaden out and widen and make it more child focused. So what is that child, what is that child interested in, etc. And one of the key things that our Director of Children's Services is very keen on is that no child is excluded from school. It's one of the areas where we've generally it's known that if a child is excluded from school they're more likely to get into the criminal justice system and we're doing some work with head teachers and others to address that. We have a new system of performance within the service where the top 10 children that we're most concerned about, there's a report every Monday to the Service Director, Director of Children's Services, who they are, what's happened, if it's happened over the weekend, what we're doing, what we need other partners to do. So that's a system that's newly formed within the last few weeks. And our performance data, as Councillor Caria has suggested, we need to understand the new system and to work on that. Chair, I'll also emphasise, although the Director of Children's Services was not able to be here today for good reasons, the fact that she's ensured that all of these 42 cases are reviewed because there was an absence in terms of the illness of the Associate Director. So all of those are reviewed and again, as Countryman has highlighted, there's a report going back every Monday to make sure these are monitored and I think that's a proactive approach in terms of what we want to do to ensure that we try and de-escalate where that's possible and we ensure that there's an early intervention and I think that exclusion policy is something that's really important to reiterate because there's data that supports that so that we don't want that escalating for the wrong reasons and that leads to less outcomes for those children but also importantly, that ensures that we are dealing with problems and making sure those children get the support they need before it gets to a point where it's pseudo-irrevocable, if I can put it that way. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Are there any questions for members? Councillor Anderson. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, thanks to Councillor Correa for coming to this committee and fronting up the report. I think it shows the right level of respect for the work that the committee does, so I appreciate that. I just had a few questions on performance indicators and outcomes. I know they've come up sporadically in your presentation. So, first question is just around the KPIs that have been collected since March and are with the Youth Justice Board. When would you expect those to be processed and figures kind of presentable to us? Thank you, Councillor. This issue is brought up every time there is a meeting with the Youth Justice Board because they are in control of what they analyse and share. So, we can't tell when they will be able to share, but what we can only do is continue to provide the information as they need it. We understand it's nationwide. So, they have a lot to consider for them to reach their point where they can analyse to the point of how we are performing against London, against nationally, against our statistical neighbours. So, my understanding is it also depends on how others are contributing to the new 10 indicators. Not everyone is contributing to that, so there are discrepancies they are trying to work through, but we are 100% doing our part. So, we are doing our part, but ballpark figure, are you expecting them to be published within the next six months or this financial year? I know we keep on putting in our information into them, but are we expecting them in this calendar year, for example? It will be difficult for me to give an answer because we also want them to start to use them, but it's beyond what we can influence, but we can continue to talk about it. First of all, I think it's a very important point because I'm mindful that I want to know where we sit as well in terms of new criteria, so I think it's a valid point to raise. I think this is what I was saying, that this is, as I'm sure you're fully aware, it's a complex area, it's multifaceted and we're interdependent, sadly, in terms of other organisations as well as other partners, I'd say, as well, in terms of how we deliver. So, I think this is one area that, as I've emphasised, we do welcome the new criteria because I think there are some important measures in there which are useful and it will ensure that we kind of go in a direction around, you know, from accommodation to special needs. As you probably know, the work that's been done, I'm extremely passionate about making sure that if there's areas of special needs we can improve, we want to do that. And I think that together with, you know, education, training and employment. Employment is something I want to try and emphasise in terms of how we create opportunities for those beyond, you know, adult age and how we take that forward so that they get the support and that doesn't, you know, it is complex, I would reiterate that. I would also reiterate what's been highlighted, the fact that it is work in progress, but I was also acknowledged, I think it's important, that's a valid point to raise and I think that's something that we want to also, as Priscilla said, each opportunity we have with the Youth Justice Board, we try and bring that to their attention for the very reasons that you're raising now. So I absolutely welcome that point, but I'd say that it's also, I'm on the same page on this one, it's partly, sadly, outside of our control. We're hoping, because there's a new KPI system, as Priscilla said, it's a nationwide issue, it's not unique to Harrow, but I think because it's a new KPI structure, I think there are challenges around some of those areas as well, if I'm being honest. So I suspect that hopefully within the next few months we should do that, but it would be wrong, I think, for us to kind of give a definitive answer on that because we're not in a position to do so, it's not one of not wanting to or not being the position that we would want to know that as well, because we want to know where we sit in terms of judgement. And as I said, I do welcome scrutiny, I do welcome, you know, areas of concerns, because that's how we can look to improve our services as well, and that's in the interest of our children, that's why I look at it. Hope that helps you to put some context into it. I mean, yeah, it's just tough, I understand what you're saying, it's tough to kind of judge the performance when they're not there. If I can just ask one quick question, just around outcomes more generally. When this report last came to this committee, one of the pieces of feedback was that it didn't represent, it didn't include kind of in-depth outcome data on some of the programs, for example. So, I just wondered whether, I noticed from quickly reading the report when I had the opportunity that some work is just started and that there's the correct tools being utilised in terms of mental resilience, etc. But I just wondered whether, for some of the programs that were mentioned on the slide and seen in the report, when we're saying that it's successful, is there the evidence base behind those two, those judgments, and could I encourage it to be included in the report in the future? Because I think if we're looking at kind of how certainly the finances are dealing with and appreciating how complex some of the cases are and multifaceted they are, I think it's useful to know exactly what impact they're having. I would let officers interject but I personally have no objection to that in terms of, what I would reiterate, it is work in progress and I appreciate the fact that you have acknowledged that it is a complex area and the fact that it's multifaceted and we are interdependent. I would reiterate that on other partners as well as other, either the justice board itself, but in terms of providing that data, I don't think there's an issue in terms of trying to emphasise that if it enhances understanding as well as in direction in terms of impact, so I'm sure that won't be an issue. I'm more than happy for officers to interject on that basis. The work we do, we normally get involved in programmes like Turn Around, Chances and Engage, so they are national pilots and they are results led, so if that information is needed we can make efforts to provide, because they are measurements we have to meet within those programmes for them to be funded also. I personally welcome that, given the serious nature and the potential benefits, I think in terms of providing oversight and scrutiny it would be really good to see that information in more depth, thank you. I would also emphasize sometimes the data as Priscilla alluded to, it is like the projects are interdependent with others, but I think it's a welcome suggestion, I have no objection to that. Before we move to Councillor Weiss, Councillor Anderson, would you like to help us phrase it for the recommendations that we are expected to make? The more detailed outcome data is provided on the programmes. Chair, if I can emphasize one point if I may, I think the important thing is that the data is collected on the criteria laid out by the adjusted board and I think generally it's captured on that basis. I think if there are some elements we can elaborate on from a local level, I think it's important as Priscilla mentioned that we do capture the data because that's a statutory requirement on the basis of what's on that left hand side of that ten criteria. But obviously if there's ways we can elaborate to improve the understanding and improve the scrutiny, we have no objection to that. I'll put a caveat to say the data is generally captured around the ten criteria, that's there. And then we can always elaborate on that based on specific projects as required and we can always bring that to your attention whether it's at the committee meeting or outside and I'm more than happy to support that even if it's offline to try and give you the information. So are we saying detailed data on outcome is provided if available? Specifically the programmes, the individual interventions, where I imagine wider information is being captured on the increase in the child's wellbeing or resilience, things like that. Thank you. Councillor Weiss. Thank you. I noted it's a question around the IT issue so I was just conscious of how much of a risk you think that is. So I note the plan to procure in June or at least a decision for June and to have the system live but it goes basically as end of life by March. Effectively those timescales sound fine but I think they're probably quite ambitious so I just wanted to understand how much of a handle you have on that as an issue because I assume there's a huge amount of very sensitive data held on the system currently and there will need to be a transition which is never that easy. Thank you, Councillor. There is a team of IT support that is supporting this so there are meetings, there are assurance processes within that takes us to the timescale we are working towards. So we are assured that we are moving towards the expected date of launch and we are confident that the support is there. Okay, great. Thank you. And I assume the risk is managed through your appropriate risk management. Yeah, thank you. There will be testing before the actual going live so the testing process is already agreed because we are looking at September. Between September and March it's also testing period and the team is ready to take on the challenge, yes. Thank you. Chair, if I may just add very quickly I think it's a very valid question actually in terms of transition and managing that. I think as you're probably aware I'm sure in terms of the procurement process there's always a consideration in terms of transition also in terms of any new training or data migration as well. I think it's an extremely valid question actually and I think that one of the key concerns I often have is around data sharing from other parties. You mentioned very, you know, absolutely agree with that. There's a lot of data sensitive elements as well. Often our actual struggles are the fact that often we don't get the data from other sources. So if I take an example around mental health for example, you know, there are assessments being done by for example comms and they may not be shared with the police because of data sharing. So part of the early intervention, this is a wider element but it fits in very, you know, it's important to give you kind of context again. The early intervention criteria encourages multifaceted working, collaborative working. That involves different parties actually coming together to share that data so that, you know, it prevents duplication for example and that around mental health is a classic example where the police may, comms may do an assessment for example. They may release a person into the community. Police are not aware. They then intervene again and refer it back to comms as a simple example. So it's an extremely valid question. I think there are considerations put in there. There are risks inevitably but that transition period should enable, because it's extremely sensitive, to try and mitigate that risk but it's not completely risk-free. But I appreciate the question and welcome it. Thank you. Councillor Baxter and then Councillor Hanson. Thank you, Chair. So on page 28 and 29 of the report under Policing 7.2, it states that since January 2024 the service is now fully staffed with two full-time police officers. Now if I recollect correctly, when this report came to us last year, I think you had one person and maybe someone else on loan from Brent. I'm not exactly sure. But I just wondered what difference has two full-time police officers made. And the second point is, it was also under the same section, it mentions that Harrow no longer has a local gangs unit. And I wondered when we stopped having that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. The work we do with the police is key to reduce offending and reoffending. So that additional capacity is going into working with us in the community and around schools to raise awareness around youth offending and reoffending. There is a huge difference that the police addition brings when you are working with families and they know this officer is visiting with a police officer. The youth offending worker is visiting with a police officer. That alone makes a huge impact because of the position that the police officers have in the community. And we have seen also the interest in schools needing to engage with those police officers in addressing issues such as threats. Sometimes there are threats from young people who have been in school before or around the fact that they can bring an officer for a session at the school. It gives some confidence to the school. So they are really in the community. They are really sitting on the desk doing the office work. So they are more community-based and they work with us where we find difficulties or where we want to approach a family with a strength-based, systemic way to say we are working together with the police on this. And also working with the victims, trying to reach out to victims to engage with them. The presence of police officers makes a huge difference. Chair, if I may just add, actually, because I just want the full, you know, as much information we can provide. First of all, Councillor Blackside, I welcome that question because I think it's a really important point around the fact that there was a gap from the police last year and the fact that that's a criteria that they had committed to, which they hadn't sadly met. So that feeling of that capacity is important in terms of addressing what was expected as part of, again, the collaborative agreement in terms of what they would put to the equation. And I would also, again, it's a really valid point in terms of the fact that the impact and the involvement of the police officers, again, it's linked to the early intervention. Because as we saw in the data around the number of cases and the contributory factor could be the fact that there is police intervention at schools, which then allows a de-escalation of a situation rather than for this to be in a position where we then have a young person being misled in a different direction. So again, that's a really important aspect of that extra capacity. Furthermore, I think the work, as Priscilla has highlighted, to have the police officers present gives an extra bit of credence to how we're trying to approach that. And it also gives support to victims, because I think, you know, I will try and reiterate as much as possible the importance of child first aspect of this strategy and the importance of learning from the victim and how that can help in terms of preventative approach. So I think I really thought about some of the things that are going in here, and I think I'll absolutely welcome these questions, because it's important to give us an opportunity to try and explain how we want to try and deal with that. And I would reiterate, it is work in progress, because it is a complex area. Anybody that has kind of engagement with this area will know it is complex and the fact that it is multi-faceted. So we are interdependent, sadly, on other people and other partners, but it's a really important point. And the fact that there was a gap in terms of improvements we've made from last year, that hasn't come about just from, you know, the proactive elements and the police. We've emphasized the need for that. We've emphasized the importance of that gap being filled. And I think I absolutely welcome their response in terms of ensuring that that capacity has been filled. So I think that's important for the borough in terms of making sure that we can get what's needed as a support structure from different partners, and the police being quite an important partner. That's why I think it's a really important question, and I'm glad you asked that. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Hanson. Mr.? To everyone's surprise. And then we have Councillor Perotti. Chair, I thought you were going to get buy one, get one free, so I'm more than happy to get two questions, not a problem. Your balance is mine. So I can think of two questions. I'd also like to thank you for coming along this evening, you know, because it's nice to see Councillors who are responsible for the report, but also the officers as well who constructed the report. And people from the team who are actually doing the work, because it makes a big difference. And it is a pity we haven't had the chance to read the report, because I was chair of the Safe Harrow Board for a number of years, and we prioritised a lot of work around the justice systems to make it fit in with Harrow, rather than the wider sort of London context, where they have a more challenging environment at times. But I wouldn't underestimate, Harrow does have a challenging problem, it's just issues around youth justice, particularly for the numbers we have, when we got a low crime rate, it's disproportionate. And really, I praise the work the teams do, because it's a challenging environment, and it's really the last line of defence really before they come into adulthood, and it's the time, the last chance you've got to change their lives around. Before getting a real criminal record that would sort of affect their lives for good. Which is why, really, at the beginning, I was asking around two questions, probably three you could make out of it if you wanted to. Partly it's about the budget. We've seen the budget for 23/24, you don't know what the budget is for 24/25 going forward. With the police gangs unit closing, that was it, they called it in-kind work, it does leave, if there's a gap in the budgeting, will the council fill that gap? Because what we have seen is other services being wound down, which used to support a lot of the work that was taking place here. There was also a question around social workers in schools, which seems to have, since they've gone, that we're starting to see a rise in support around mental health. But those are the most vulnerable people who could get drawn into crime, not everyone, but there is a draw to come through. But there's also the risk around sexual exploitation at that age group, and social workers in schools have done a lot of work in those teams to ensure that there was support there. So they didn't get drawn into the police system, really, or through the Youth Justice team to try and deal with that. So I wouldn't mind your thoughts around that, because it's quite key that the priorities that are coming in, probably on balance, most of them are quite good for Harrow, but I think you recognise there's a few others that are specific to Harrow. Especially because we're quite a diverse community, we have a low crime rate, we don't attract those big grant budgets that other councils get. So you've got to make sure your pennies are spent in the right order, but I can't see how that works when other support services are being closed down or being withdrawn. I wouldn't mind your thoughts on that. I have some comments I'm more than happy to share with you to try and address, so I'll let the officers have the introduction first. I think the social workers in schools, it has been evidenced everywhere else that it works to have them in schools, and the amount of work they carry in terms of avoiding escalation into children's services is a lot. But unfortunately for now, they are not there. This has meant that we are relying on our partners, especially CAMS, so CAMS is a key part in the Youth Justice Board, and they are represented. And at the last meeting this week, we were talking about that gap where children and young people with mental health difficulties are not identified earlier on. And there is a task and finish group that has been put together to try and bring all interested parties together and see what we can do, because CAMS is also saying they are limited in what they can do. So this calls for partnership working, in the true sense of partnership working, in terms of who is contributing what, and what capacity are we contributing. And it doesn't rest with children's services only, so it's a shared responsibility we are looking at. And that task and finish group, there was an interest in having that group and making it task and finish, so that they can produce the results as a partnership. Can I just, I think again, Councillor Henson, I actually welcome a lot of the questions, and I absolutely welcome the fact that you've acknowledged, and I'll respect that, and I know the work you've done historically as well around safety. And the fact that it's a complex area, I first of all welcome the fact that there's acknowledgement of that, and I think these are perfectly valid questions, and I'm happy to try and address those as best as I can in conjunction with officers. I think, one of the points that you've raised is around mental health, and I think Kanchen earlier on highlighted around the key areas of focus as an example, in terms of other mental health toughness program, as one aspect of what we're trying to do, again, around street doctors and how that adds to that kind of complex area as well, because that's a big contributor in terms of where issues can arise. I would say in terms of, I would come onto the budget as well, because what I, well in fact I would deal with the budget, because if I look at the breakdown in terms of the local authorities commitment, and I will put this in context, so we have the largest commitment from the local authorities, around 850K. If I look at the context of the police it's about 108K, if I look at the probation services around 38K, and health, again, a lot of this is around preventative, it's 55K. So one of the things we've been trying to emphasize, it is a partnership based approach, and I'm sorry to be sort of reiterating this, but that early intervention strategy and criteria, is about making the point about the importance of collaborative working, and purely not just the budgets, I just want to bring some other context to your question, which I think is an extremely valid one, is that first of all there's been, the numbers that we are seeing is going down, and there are various reasons around that. I'm actually mindful that it can be demand led, it could get skewed in one direction or another, but part of that strategy I think is, and I'll reiterate it's work in progress, but part of that strategy is around early intervention, and ensuring that there is the support from the police to be involved in schools, which then creates an area around de-escalation, rather than escalation, then we're having a reactive approach. I think that's important to put in context, in conjunction with other early intervention criteria that we are seeing, and we're trying to implement, and I think Kunchen elaborated in conjunction with Priscilla, we also have as part of this strategy, as explained, around the three prong approach that the council has, and one of those is around staff development and staff training around some of these areas as well. So again, that's more not reactive, but preventative, proactive work to try and ensure de-escalation. The policy around exclusion is a good example to illustrate how this work can transpire into better outcomes, because as I'm sure you'd appreciate, the last thing is to get children who are already in a position that they're precarious to be excluded. Rather than that, it's better to have a preventative approach, logically, in terms of interventions that the police can bring by being involved with schools, and we welcome the resource that they're able to commit. In conjunction with the early intervention that we're looking at with partners, CALMS is one of them, but other partners in the voluntary sector who are working with us. What I would also reiterate, and I think it's really important to understand this, and I hope, and again, I absolutely welcome any scrutiny on this, but the voice of the victim is part of that preventative strategy. The engagement of parents is important. If I look at the headlines in the last two or three days, there's been headlines around 12-year-old sadly committing a crime, which is unheard of in terms of the stabbing and in terms of using a machete. So again, if I look at the context of what we're trying to do as a three-year strategy, I'm sure you'd be able to see, and I absolutely welcome the scrutiny on this, because there's a lot of thought being put into this, and I'm engaged in that process as well, but I absolutely welcome the scrutiny because it's about improving the outcomes for our children. But if you look at the detail of that strategy, that three-prong approach in conjunction with the voice of the victim, in conjunction with the work we're doing in the community for these children to be engaged in services that ensure that they get better awareness. So they have a stronger chance of rehabilitation, if I can put it that way. They have a stronger chance of coming through the system with a better outcome. That's the preventative strategy. That also has an impact on cost in terms of positively, not just for the sake of cost, but in terms of how we can use the resources to ensure that we're not creating an escalation where we have a reaction, a reactive approach which is more expensive. But I also think it's important to put these strategies, because it's a better use of resource. If you speak to, if you come, and I'm sure some of you probably have as well in fairness, come to the early intervention sort of forums that we've had, this kind of strategy is something that's been unanimously agreed as being beneficial to the outcomes, and I'm sure you can get feedback from the minutes of those meetings or the feedback from those meetings and so on. And if you speak to the voluntary sector, as I mentioned comms as an example, it's preventing duplication. So I hope you can see the context of where we want to go over the next three years with a lot of thought, but I would have to emphasize it, be irresponsible not to do so, to say this is a complex area which requires a multifaceted approach, and the fact that we're looking at an early intervention criteria which is a more effective use of the resource for the outcomes and better outcomes. Now, that's work in progress. There is work to be done. There will be still things that are learning aspects, which again comes from all parties and partners. But also, you know, offices as well. You know, we have some fantastic people doing, as you quite rightly said, some great work, which I absolutely endorse. But it's work that needs, you know, improving in terms of the development, and that's why we're trying to put that resource. But in terms of the contribution of the local authority, it's the largest one of that, so it shows our commitment to that. And hopefully, you know, other areas that are ensuring that there are role models. If we can create employment opportunities and create strategies around that, that means engaging with the community in a different way. And I'm a big believer in inclusion to ensure that, you know, if communities, including employers, can look at opportunities that can be created, if we get good examples of that, which is why I welcome the fact that if there are projects, I don't have an objection because we want that to speak for itself. Not just for the work being done by officers, but for us as a borough to say that that's what we're able to do. And special needs, you know, some of the strategies, as you probably know from the public domain, is what you can see for yourself. We, you know, it's a proactive approach that will interlink with what we're trying to do in this area as well. So, I hope with that we can give you some, you know, reasonable context in terms of the direction of travel, the strategies that are embedded in there, and ensuring that they help to deliver and address the questions, which I think are extremely valid questions. And I absolutely welcome that, Councillor Henson, because I think they're important to ask that. But there are elements within our strategy, quite a number of them, which will help to hopefully address some of the, you know, valid points that you're trying to raise. Can I just add that as part of our establishment, we have 0.5 seconded workers from CAMS. So, they are just dedicated to these 43 we work with, meeting their mental health needs, which is part of the partnership working. Thank you. I think my main concern is around early intervention before they end up within the Youth Justice Board's work anyway. And I know it's not within your portfolio, but it is within your wider cabinet responsibility, collective responsibility. It's around some of the changes that have taken place. There was an intervention team for not just children, but for young adults and older adults in Wildstone, and there was one in South Harrow, and there's building one in Reynolds Lane. And since they've been withdrawn, I think about 18 months ago, we've now seen the rise in crime in those three hotspot areas. And it's also going back to a point you were saying on the presentation, I think it was on slide eight when you were talking about the role of gangs in Harrow, where you said it's gone down. The police meetings we've been going to say there's an escalation of gang activity of encouraging people to join in those hotspot areas. So the work, what I'm saying about intervention is the collective sort of work across the board. Since that intervention has been withdrawn, the social work has been withdrawn, we're starting to see a rise of youth violence, I think, especially in South Harrow. They attacked a bus, about ten of them, there's videos of it on social media. They ransacked the station, and they ransacked in the shops, walking in helping themselves. And all of that has happened since that intervention work has been taken away. So if we want to maintain, this is a high-cost area, but it's needed. But if we carry on the way it's going, it's going to be escalating, and the costs will be going up much more than the other interventions. Because the intervention, where you used the intervention, that's the highest used phrase within the policy about intervention work, but most of that has been taken away, and that's the point I was trying to get to. I let the officers come in, but I think one thing I would reiterate is the fact that I think the context of some of this is generally over a number of years. And the police, for example, last year, as I'm sure you know, in terms of mental health, they changed their strategy in terms of how they want to deal with that. And I think that's why we are having to adapt to look at services and how we can still try and support them. And the point five involvement from COMS is a good example of how we've reassessed that. The work being done on the mental toughness program, as well as street doctors, as well as the work around disproportionality as well, it also helps to try and look at that. So once I absolutely understand your question in terms of variations to services, I think there's been other services that are trying to help support that as best as we can. The point five of COMS is a good example of where something has been withdrawn because of a policy that's not controlled by us around the police having a different strategy in terms of resources they're using for mental health where they've actually withdrawn from some members. You know, just to highlight from last October, they withdraw support in terms of how they deal with mental health. So they don't actually intervene, they leave it to other organizations. That creates a gap of how we try to address that is creating a point five resource from COMS, which is again a good use of that resource. But in fairness to the police, they've actually helped us by being involved in schools, so that creates an early intervention strategy. Now some of this is work in progress because if I take the police, that strategy took place in October last year. This is a three year strategy in terms of what we're proposing and that will ensure that some of these things will start to come through. Hence, I go back to your councilor earlier question in terms of providing additional data for specific projects, which will help to scrutinize that. And again, I'm not adverse to that scrutiny because I think it's a valid suggestion for those reasons. But again, it is a complex area as you acknowledge, so there is work in progress to be done. It's not complete and I think that this strategy is clear in that because ensuring that the things that we need to address to try and help us get to that same direction positively are the things that we're trying to adopt. Especially in our staff development and that staff development entails changes in the services, changes in things that how we address. Early intervention, again councilor Henson, I'll reiterate, is something that in the last year or so we've actually taken that in our hand and trying to develop that more importantly. Even the family hubs is a good example of what we're trying to do to bring that service into encapsulating. And I can't emphasize the importance of parent engagement in this as well, which I think you'd appreciate as well. It's not about criticizing the parents, it's about supporting the parents and that family hub structure, the early intervention structure, again ties in with that aspect as well. Because often parents may not be aware of that full activity and that's I think the importance. And then the dedicated staff, full-time staff dedicated to having that engagement with the children themselves as well, is part of this strategy as well. And I think we're fortunate to have the skilled staff, but at the same time it also requires the intervention from other areas. And so we're encouraging that engagement through what we're doing with early intervention. And I hope that again puts some context into where we want to go, how we want to go about it, but the fact that it is work in progress and it's the three year strategy to try and get to where we need to be. I think that's important to highlight. I really welcome those questions, I think they're really good points as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Perotti. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned quite a lot the police visiting schools and so on. Can you tell me how often does this happen? Is it annually? Is it every quarter? Do they have a session with the whole school, selected groups? And what impact has this intervention had? Thank you, Councillor. So this is part of their business as usual day to day work. So if an allocated worker is working with a young person linked to a school and there are issues to do with how that young person is impacting or how schools in the region, in the area are impacted on the behaviours and challenges of young people. So the allocated worker and the police can visit, engage with school and understand. This is besides the police officers who are already allocated to schools. We were talking about who have resulted in the reduction of referrals, who are doing restorative work on the ground separate from Youth Justice Service. These are police officers who are allocated to schools who intervene where there is need to intervene and encourage that there is work undertaken before things escalate. So there is work happening as and when that is needed. It's not programmed to say they visit once in a year or it's actually ongoing where there is need. There are no regular sessions other than that visit that you mentioned. Sessions can be offered where they are requested. Yeah, they can be offered where they are. Join head teachers forums if there is need or safeguarding leads forums where there is need just for awareness raising, education and so on and so forth. So schools are mostly where the work happens because we target them earlier and educate them about knife crime, about CSC, child sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation. It happens in schools so it goes into contextual safeguarding. There are schools that are known as also hotspot schools but they work with Youth Justice more like Helix School, very very popular and active in working with Youth Justice and the police. Chair, if I can just intervene to help further elaborate on that because I think it's important to give as much information as possible. Again, Councillor Bright, it's a very very valid question in terms of the impact and how often there is engagement. I think with a limited resource, I think what's worth reiterating is that police have reassessed, they have taken the support away from mental health in terms of their intervention. That resource is allocated here and I think as Priscilla has quite rightly emphasised, it's targeted to where the hotspots might be because that's the best use of resource. But also there's some proactive work being done in terms of engaging with the heads and teachers and I think to be fair we have some fantastic heads and teachers as I'm sure you know. And they are proactive as well because if they see an escalation of an issue, that is the resource that we can turn to in conjunction with what we're doing with Youth Justice Board. And I would also emphasise that in terms of the extra capacity that we've had from the police with that gap that was there from last year, as Councillor Baxter quite rightly pointed out. If that's addressed as well in conjunction with this support, that fits into the early intervention. And emphasising that we are fortunate that there is an issue, which I agree is complex and we have challenges, but the numbers are still reasonably small compared to other boroughs. But despite that, there is criteria, there is support and the idea is to not try and increase that numbers, which then creates more issues for us as we go forward. And I think the important thing to highlight is the impact on children's lives because these children, once they get into adulthood without the support, that becomes an issue and that's what we're trying to prevent. So again, work in progress is not where we want to be at the moment, that's a three year strategy. Thank you. I have Councillor Hanson and then Councillor Samaria and I'm just reminded of time that we do have another item on the agenda. Mine is quick. Take all the time you need. Yeah, I just wanted to ask about the outcomes once they've moved on to the probation service at 18, because usually with a lot of these services, when they're in children's, there's a lot more intervention. But once they get to adulthood, it starts to fall off and, you know, that's not a good thing if they've had a load of support and then it's taken away. And also wanted to ask about young people that have been through the care system. Do they stay with you longer? Because I know that they are supported by the local authority like Wellington, their mid 20s. So does that happen here as well? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Regarding the work with probation, there is, unfortunately, a difference in how the services are offered. And that's why we try to catch them whilst they are still young, so that once they cross that 18, there's literally that can be done as much as we want to. But also, we try to plan the transition earlier. We have a dedicated probation officer who sits with us in youth justice service, who will manage the transition so that by the time they are transferred, everything is in place. So we understand the risk there is in terms of transition, and you can imagine these young people will wake up to their world having changed because of something they did earlier on. So transition is a big focus area for us, but luckily for us in Harrow, because of our low numbers, we have a very good working relationship with probation. Even though they are facing their own pressures, we still have that capacity to use an officer to help us with the transitions. The other question was on whether we continue to support children who are looked after as care leavers, is what you want to understand, yes. So that's where the systems are different, because as care leavers, we will continue to support them, but there will be 18 in the world of youth offending. Thank you. If I may come in there, I think it's worth pointing out that for children who are care leavers up until the age of 25, they'll go on to the care leaver service, so they'll have continuation of support. But I think what you're saying, Councillor, is right, that there is children who do go on to probation service who are not children in care or have been. It's a different service, and that's where the involvement of the voluntary sector and others that we know about can be put in place so that they've got a package of support going forward. Thank you, Councillor Samaria. Thank you for a lovely presentation. Just a question around the violent crimes. How much percentage of violent crimes are non-gang related? That's the first question. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. It will need some analysis to separate that specific information. Currently we don't have that. It's something that Councillor Henson said, but I was thinking the same thing around the local gang units. Is there something that can be replaced, more offices or in these areas, really just to keep the gangs at bay, and obviously the drug dealings and so on and so forth? Thank you, Councillor. I think the challenge that you are giving us is for us to go and understand it better, because as far as our intelligence is telling us, it's telling us the activity is lower. But Councillor Henson is of the view that it has increased because of the removal of social workers in schools. So we will take it to go back and understand it better so that we can have a better response to whether that impact of removing social workers in schools has increased the activity. It's more around the gangs and the drugs taken around near the stations and stuff like that. And maybe we can, I don't know if there's something in the policy where we can interact with the transport, the train stations where they've got the cameras and so on and so forth, because I've seen quite a lot of it in Harrow bus station this way. I think, Chair, if I may very quickly, I think it's a valid question to raise again, and I welcome that. I think, Councillor, what I would say is that part of that, even the data, I think this is why Priscilla is quite rightly saying that the data we get is from the police, which is the best source of data. Their assessment is slightly different to what might be empirical evidence. I think in fairness, we need to corroborate that to be fair. But we are interdependent on that data, which is obviously from the right source, which is the police, because they analyse that. And obviously, the crime is committed at the point where criminality occurs from a legal perspective. So they would endorse that in terms of putting it as part of the data. So we have to rely on that. And that's slightly different to what might be on the ground. And also, we may look at an isolated incident, which I think is still valid to look at. But in the context of a wider picture, it's still a reasonably safe bar in terms of where we sit. But having said that, we welcome if there's other methods we can use. I think the police do have their own strategies around drug gangs, as you know, and it's a wider nationwide problem as well. So they have inter-boro working as well, so that there's an element of collaboration with other boroughs, because actually, the problem might be with other boroughs more than us. If you look at the data, if you analyse the data, it's actually sitting elsewhere. But there can always be splashes coming across to this part, because there could be a recruitment drive or other aspects. So we're mindful of that. But again, I would say we're kind of interdependent with our partners, and that control has to be with them. Similarly with health, it's a similar issue, because again, what we can do is put in strategies around knife crime, what we're trying to do there, around street doctors, for example. But again, that's health-led as well, so we need that sort of support from them. So again, I think it's important to highlight the context of that in terms of where we sit, but I think it's a valid suggestion, but it's how we try and work with that. I think things that we take on board as part of a three-year strategy, we can reiterate to our partners when we have forums with officers as well as our education staff. There's a lot of good work being done by our educational leads as well in schools. So that preventative approach, as we've highlighted around education, to emphasise, with the police actually going there, around drug-related activities, around sexually-related activities, and how that can be a preventative approach, is an example of how we can address that. And there's an intervention process which you may have seen at the stations that you talk about, and they're highlighted in here as well. They're hot spots, and the police target those as best as they can based on resources available. So I hope that helps to give some context and detail in terms of how we want to deal with that. Thank you. Councillor Henson, please be mindful of time. One request, if you could send some data through, not now, but later on, is around CAMS, what the waiting list is at the moment. And once they're seen, are they ending up in the system of criminal justice? I'm just looking back through my notes of last November when we had it on the scrutiny agenda in November. And one of the problems that was coming through was the restructure, where you reduced the number of managers from two and a half to one and a half, around access to court on weekends and evenings, or covering the weekend duty. Did that materialise, or did you put the post back in? And I understand that you've just come into the role, so you might not be on your radar. Thank you, Councillor. The arrangements for weekend cover are adequate currently. There is good cover. We haven't had any difficulties, yes. Can I just point out, Chair, I think it's important, whilst I would say on this particular question, I appreciate the question, I think the narrative needs to be somewhat corrected. I think one of the key things, any of these decisions, I've emphasised several times before and I'll reiterate again, the impact is not on frontline services. Our intention is not on frontline services. And I think that's important to reiterate, as has been done on record before as well. So I think that whilst on this occasion, I would just acknowledge the question, but I'd say I'd need to put a caveat around that and say, if there are impacts on services, its intention is not on frontline services. And as my colleague, as an officer has quite rightly pointed out, that according to the officers as well, and there's an agreement with them, the fact that it is adequate to meet the needs. I only raised it tonight because you raised it last year as one of your key risks and issues. I think it's important to put the risks there. But I think what I would reiterate is that there is some context to that and the fact that it's a balanced approach and we don't want frontline services affected. Thank you councillors and thank you councillor Kerry and officers for presenting the report and for your detailed answers. We are asked to note the report and raise any comments to cabinet. I've recorded one comment that we wanted to raise with regards to requesting that in the future more detailed data on outcomes is provided if available. And data into waiting times into key services, which is a new one we're adding like counts. So if we can add that data around waiting time for key services such as camps. I think we just need to be mindful if we're going to be specific. I think I'd rather be specific if it's camps and we can make sure that data is provided because if it's generic it's very difficult to get all waiting lists. So let's be specific. I accept that. Let's keep it specific for camps now if there are any other services that we want in the future we can always request that. Okay, thank you very much. We now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the housing improvement and regulatory changes report. We have with us. David, would you like to present yourself and the report. Good evening. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, my apologies that I can't be there in person today. If it's okay Chair, I've prepared some slides that just give a quick overview of the report that was submitted with the agenda pack, which just gives some context for the new regulatory changes. So with your permission, is it okay if I just share and run through those quickly if that's helpful for the committee? Of course. Yeah, thank you. So, just one second. So, yeah. So, this, as I said, Chair provides the committee with an overview of the new regulatory changes that have taken place with regards to social housing. So, last July, the Social Housing Regulation Act received Royal Assent, and that set out a whole new kind of suite of regulation that will apply to all providers of social housing only. So, it doesn't apply to private rented sector landlords or other type of accommodation providers. So, it is just focused in terms of social housing providers and, of course, Harrow Council being one of those providers. This regulation applies to us. So, we now have to, as a result of that, provide information periodically through to the regulator of social housing, and that's set out in the report. It applies to our landlord services, so it just applies to kind of services essentially in relation to tenants. It doesn't apply to our homelessness or leasehold services. So, this regulation is very specific to our landlord services, to our permanent secure tenants that we have living in our homes. So, this just is purely in relation to kind of our landlord functions. So, there is the regulator for social housing that's responsible for developing this regulatory framework. So, the emphasis is very much on kind of co-regulation and working with social housing providers. And also alongside the regulator of social housing is the housing ombudsman. And again, I'll talk about that a little bit in terms of the role of the housing ombudsman and how that is also kind of influencing kind of regulation across kind of social housing sector. There is also another regulator, which is the building safety regulator, and that is primarily concerned with building safety cases in relation to buildings that are over 18 metres. Harrow, we have two such properties that fall under the purview of that regulation. But the main emphasis of this presentation and this report is really in terms of the social housing regulation and the housing ombudsman. So, the next slide. Moving on. So, the regulator of social housing sets, monitors and enforces new regulatory standards. So, another key aspect of this is around tenants understanding their rights and how they are able to complain and also be involved in kind of decisions and things that impact on them. Also, part of this is there is essentially a removal. So, previously, the regulator of social housing would only become involved if there was a serious detriment, a possible serious detriment to tenants, and that has now been removed. So, essentially, the new regime, which we've entered, is more proactive in terms of the regulator involving itself in the affairs of different kind of social housing providers. So, there are new consumer standards, which I'll talk about in a minute. And then there's also a code of practice that sits alongside those consumer standards and provides information. Essentially, it's not a prescriptive code, but it essentially is there to assist us in terms of how it's envisaged that those standards will be applied and how it will be kind of tested against our compliance of those standards with a new inspection regime, which has started from April of this year. So, there is now a new inspection regime as part of the new regulation. Again, I'll talk about that in a second in a moment. There are a suite of tenant satisfaction measures, and we have to submit these by the 30th of June. So, those tenant satisfaction measures, they cover satisfaction in terms of us testing and asking people for their views and their perception of the services that we provide. And then also as part of the tenant satisfaction measures, there are a number of management information or key performance indicators, essentially, that are also provided to the regulator. So, the idea of both the perception and then the management measures is to obviously provide greater visibility to tenants in terms of performance, and then also gives the regulator greater insight in terms of our performance, and that is submitted through to the regulator every year. In terms of this new regime, there are fees that we essentially have to pay now, and the calculation of that is based on a per property cost. So, the number of homes you have equals the amount that you pay per property. The new consumer standards, so they were published in February this year. There was consultation at the back end of last year, and they've been published in February of this year. And as I say, they apply from the first of April of this year. There hasn't been a kind of radical change of those standards. There's been kind of an evolution of the four standards that were there previously. So, the four standards that are there are the new safety and quality standard, transparency standard, and then influence and accountability standard. So, quite a key driver really is around that kind of transparency, influence, and how residents are engaged and involved in kind of the services that are provided. There's a big emphasis in terms of neighbourhood and community standard, and then there's also the tenancy standard that kind of sets out in terms of tenancy arrangements. There is a fifth standard, which is due to come online in April of next year, and that relates to the competency and conduct standard. So, there's a fairly clear direction of travel as to kind of how that will impact, but that will be from next year. So, the main emphasis really is around that these standards are kind of very much outcome focused. There's not a kind of prescriptive checklist as to how we're kind of meeting these standards. It's very much about how we are kind of working towards the spirit and the outcome that is set out in the kind of broad standards, and how we are working with our residents to ensure there's an effective kind of provision of services and quality. And the kind of key emphasis really is, you know, that it's not a coincidence that the safety and quality standard is number one because that very much relates to kind of safe homes in terms of health and safety compliance. So, just to clarify, in terms of the standards, tenants is tenants and other occupiers of social housing. So, that also includes licensees and shared owners. So, we have some properties in the council which are on a kind of shared ownership basis. So, this also applies to them. There's quite a big emphasis around kind of shared spaces. So, kind of essentially communal areas and then also estates are also kind of part of the new standards. So, as I said, there's new, there's inspections essentially as part of this new regulatory framework. So, there's the information that I've just talked about that we have to submit. And then there are also inspections which have started from April the 1st. So, each register of social housing will be inspected over a four year period. We haven't been told when we might be inspected over the course of that four year period. But providers will essentially be kind of told on a kind of quarterly basis as to kind of when the inspection will take place, if it's taking place in that quarter. So, six weeks notice will be provided and, you know, be a kind of fairly standard-ish kind of inspection regime and the information will be provided ahead of that. And then we will, you know, there'll be the kind of field work which will include a combination of on-site meetings, meetings with officers and then also councillors. But then also, because of the area that we're talking about, there will also be engagement with tenants and tenant bodies that are involved. The outcome will be a kind of judgment and that will be based on a range of C1 to C4 will be the four judgments possible, C1 being the best and then C4 being kind of the worst. And there is a range of kind of criteria as to what would compromise those different judgments. As I said, there is also, alongside the regulator changes, there are also changes which have been ushered in in terms of the housing ombudsman's role. So, housing ombudsman is separate from the regulator of social housing and there's been a new complaint handling code and monitoring of compliance. The housing ombudsman is also separate from the local government ombudsman. So, the local government ombudsman obviously covers kind of other areas of social care, for example, and also housing needs. So, the housing ombudsman is just focused on, again, social housing. That's just what it's focused on. So, what's the housing ombudsman looking for? So, its prime thing really is around a strong and effective kind of arrangements in terms of complaint handling policy and also a kind of demonstration of that working in practice and then a positive complaint handling culture. So, there's a new complaint handling code that's come into effect at the same time, so from the 1st of April, and there are very kind of clear and specific elements to that in terms of a clear definition of what constitutes a complaint and then also clear kind of requirement in terms of the different stages that are required and also the kind of expected performance and response times for those complaints. So, for example, on that, the expectation from the housing ombudsman is different to Harrow's corporate complaint handling timeframes. So, in housing, we have moved to kind of make sure that we are aligned with the housing ombudsman's timeframes for complaints, and that's set out in our policy. Again, that we just recently reviewed. We have to complete an annual self-assessment against the code, the complaint handling code, so that's in the appendix that's been shared with the committee. And then the second thing that's been shared with the committee is that we have to produce an annual report on complaint performance and service improvement. And so that sets out really over the last 12 months, you know, the kind of volumes of complaints, how we've responded in terms of performance, and then also to give a kind of clear understanding of how we are using that complaint information to kind of inform our understanding of what our residents are saying and then kind of plan effective strategies to improve kind of services in response to complaints. So, just quickly, how we're kind of preparing for this new framework. So, there's a new housing improvement board, which we've established. And so we've developed an action plan that responds both to the new regulatory standards and then also the housing ombudsman's role. We've briefed our portfolio holder, Councillor Palmer, on this and kind of wider cabinet and the corporate leadership team. We are also engaging because of the new standard in relation to qualifications. We've also had conversations with the new apprenticeship manager in HR to start to gear ourselves towards that new requirement. We've started having bite-sized sessions for staff and housing feedback and team meetings. We're also looking to see what we can learn from other colleagues across the council that also have inspection regimes, so particularly children's colleagues and then also colleagues and adults because there's obviously Ofsted and CQC inspections. And then we are also reporting regularly now through across the tenant satisfaction measures. And we've been doing that now for some time. There are just some key dates there for the committee to be aware of. There is the, as I say, the new regulatory approach started in April of this year. By the end of this month, we need to submit our tenant satisfaction measures and then we also need to submit our annual complaints report that's appended. And that there has to be a response from the executive, so from cabinet to that complaints annual complaints report. But Councillor Palmer specifically asked that overview and scrutiny have visibility and an opportunity to comment on the annual report prior to the approval. So there's not a prescriptive means by which we gain approval for this in terms of the regulator or the housing ombudsman. But Councillor Palmer was very keen that it come to this committee for any comments ahead of it being approved by cabinet. Just very quickly, in terms of the actual annual complaint report, which is in one of the appendix. I think it's the second appendix that's been presented to the committee. There is there's been an increase in terms of the number of stage one and stage two complaints over the last 12 months. And then there's also been an increase in the number of MP inquiries and council inquiries. Although that's been that's been higher amongst actually kind of MP inquiries. So but that is also consistent with the direction of travel of complaints more kind of widely across across the council. Our performance in terms of responsiveness to those complaints is also set out in the report and is broadly acceptable. There's always kind of room for improvement in particular with regards to the stage two performance, which we are keen to kind of put in place and see that improve. And hopefully when we when we present in 12 months time again, our report for this current year, again, hopefully we'll be able to kind of report to this committee, kind of improve performance. The key thing, though, for us is in terms of what we learn from the complaints that do come through. So with with that in mind, we've undertaken recently a kind of quality assurance piece of work where we've rung back over 715 complainants and sought feedback in terms of how we've responded to complaints that have been submitted. And the information is kind of set out in the report in terms of some of the areas that have been identified there and we're very keen to kind of take that learning on now to to make sure that informs kind of improvement in terms of our complaint handling. But then also more widely in terms of service provision in housing. So that's that's what I was going to cover chair. So happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. And my colleague Megan is also here who also help answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for the detailed presentation. Are there any questions? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, David. I'm just looking at the headline figures from the complaints, the tenants satisfactory measures survey in the infographic. They're all ranging between 50 and 60 percent. How satisfied are you and your team with those levels or do you expect them to improve as we do this year on year? Yes. Thank you for that, Councillor Anderson. So we've bench part of this will be that we will be benchmarked with other local authorities and other registered providers. So in the autumn of this year, we will be able to compare our performance with peers, particularly kind of in London. So in terms of the comparative performance and coincidentally, I was at a West London housing directors meeting this morning and we were all sharing our kind of scores. There is definitely a kind of London, a difference in London in terms of satisfaction and satisfaction being on the whole slightly lower than the rest of the countries. So there is definitely a kind of London effect that does play into the figures that we see there. This is the second time that we've actually run the satisfaction survey. And there are I think there are three of those 12 measures that deteriorated or got slightly worse over over the last 12 months. And then the rest actually improved in terms of the overall satisfaction. Last year we were at 60 percent and this year it was 59 percent. So that's within the kind of statistical margin of errors. So it's broadly a kind of stable picture. So I guess we would always want them to improve. And that's what we're very much focused on. The one that we are very disappointed with and do want to see improvement is in terms of complaint handling. And there is some information that is set out in the appendix of the report around the complaint handling performance. What is interesting about that score, though, is that actually the question is very specific to the handling of complaints and people feeling satisfied with how we've done that. And the satisfaction is very low. And as I say, we're disappointed with that. But actually, when we've looked at those people that have responded to the satisfaction survey, there's actually a small percentage that have actually followed a formal complaint through the system. So I think what is being represented there is not necessarily kind of people having kind of had a complaint and had a response. It's more a kind of perception than actually kind of people who have had a complaint. So what I'm trying to say is that that is very much an area that we need to explore further and understand why there is that perception there about our complaints handling performance and what we can do to kind of improve that. Because, as I say, the majority of people have actually answered that question haven't actually had a kind of complaint go through the system. So what's interesting from my conversation this morning at the West London Alliance was is that's a consistent theme coming out of these questions. Is that actually that's a kind of or a performing question for most other providers and in West London. And also there's the same issue that actually people are responding to that haven't actually had a kind of complaint. So it is a kind of perception thing. So we are doing some more work to understand that. And then more importantly, think about how we can improve that score going forward. And in terms of the benchmarking with other London boroughs and also nationwide, when is that information presented? So that will be in the autumn. So we, as I say, we've been informally sharing information with colleagues and gleaning what we can. And we also have some benchmarking data and information from the survey company that undertook the survey for us, because it's obviously independently done. So we've been able to get some information through that means. But in terms of the full list of every single housing provider, social housing provider in the country, that won't be until the autumn that that's published. And also the regulator is not going to produce a ranked kind of version of it. It will just simply be kind of alphabetical order, but no doubt kind of trade magazine homing in, not homing in, sorry, inside housing will no doubt produce one or so on. But yeah, so the emphasis will be to kind of publish all of that information. And we indeed will be publishing that before the regulator publishes that information in the autumn, but we'll be able to see that kind of later in the year. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Yeah, thank you. This additional competency and conduct standard is going to be introduced 25 to 26. It requires specific postholders to hold or be working towards housing management qualifications. Can you tell me how many people will have to work towards those if they don't already hold them? Or is that too hard to say at the moment? Yeah, we can't say at the moment. There is some information as to who we think that will apply to. It's basically officers who will have kind of broadly kind of management responsibility and oversight of housing services. And then I think there'll be some specific posts that are identified through that. But our expectation is that it will be certainly myself, heads of service and kind of managers who will be required to hold different levels of qualifications as a result of that. Some officers already hold those kind of required levels of qualifications and then it will be about obviously identifying kind of who else does need to either hold or be working towards that qualification. And also there will be, as I understand it, a transition period of two years for us to actually kind of work towards and kind of implement that. So we'll look to obviously phase people undertaking the kind of those qualifications over a period of time. So not the entire kind of housing management team are all off kind of training. So there'll be a kind of phased introduction of that requirement over a couple of years from next April. Can I just add to that, is that OK? Can I come in on that? Yeah. So central government recently carried out some consultation on this particular standard and the requirements, but the outcome hasn't been published yet. So, you know, all registered providers were invited as well as anyone else who was kind of interested in responding to respond to some consultation. So we expect that further detail will come quite soon when they publish the outcome of that consultation. And the kind of level of qualification that we're talking about is level four and level five. So hopefully we'll get that further detail very soon once they publish the outcome of that exercise. I don't think there'll be a prescriptive list because obviously everyone's structures and management posts are different depending on kind of how different registered providers social animals are structured. So I think there'll be an element of broadly, as I say, a kind of management supervisory kind of role will be required to have kind of the varying levels that we're talking about. So, as I say, at this stage, we've not got the exact figure, but we've got a kind of rough idea as to kind of who this will apply to. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Yes, thank you. It's an interesting report, so I've only got four questions there. Following on from Dan's question around the satisfaction measures, particularly around repairs, is there a breakdown of the standard of repairs? So what I mean is something that's urgent, like a gas leak, if that wasn't, I think they have to respond within four hours, and if they don't, people get a bit nervous, but a fence could take like a few weeks to be responded, to be repaired. So I just wondered if you could break that down into the three categories, one, two, and three, just to ensure that the priority repairs, people are satisfied with that response. I'd be more concerned there than probably the lower category sort of repairs that you undertake. So we don't have that breakdown, I'm afraid, Councillor Hanson, because, as I say, it very much is a perception and is about satisfaction, and indeed, when the questions are paused and asked, we can't essentially kind of lead people. So it's given the questions asked without context per se, it's generally about people's perception across all repairs, as opposed to breaking it down by specific priorities. We do nonetheless, though, have on the kind of management information side of things, and the information that we have anyway, in terms of our different contractors, we do have that information in terms of responding to priorities, different priority repairs within timescales, and kind of making sure that we get that done. This is always testing kind of the perception rather than the kind of specific priorities.

• Okay, the other one was how do you deal with referred complaints? I see on, I can't remember, page 17 of the report, that you break it down into landlord services and leaseholders at stage one and two, and then you total that. And you do it for MPs, but you don't do it for councillors. But I wonder if you get other referred complaints, like from resident associations or from agencies or charities, where a resident goes via a third party to submit a complaint.
• We can look to provide the information in terms of councillors and the breakdown there, but in terms of third parties, I don't think we track that separately, unless, Megan, you know differently, I don't think that we would track that in that way, I'm afraid.
• The councillor breakdown is on the next page, on page 18, I think, so there's MPs at the bottom of 17, and councillors are at the top of 18, I think.
• I was meaning, sorry, Megan, more in terms of the third parties.
• Yeah, so in terms of third party, I mean, certainly we are happy to take complaints from third parties on behalf of complainants, but I believe those would be logged as being from the complainant, even if they have somebody advocating on their behalf, but we can double check that with financial, yeah.
• That's okay, thank you. And the final one, well, was about the engagement with the tenants and residents associations. There's a lot of engagement with other people, but I didn't really see them, unless I missed it, of them particularly being engaged with. We've found when a team come down to the resident associations after the first meeting, when they come to the second meeting, they get a much better response because they see things moving. And I just wonder if you could put that into your system as your part of engagement.
• Yeah, I mean, I think we'll take that way, Councillor Hanson, and think as to how that can kind of be presented. I mean, as I think I've said, we'll obviously be taking this to the kind of broader Harrow resident board as a report. But yeah, in terms of how different residents associations are kind of fed through to this will be something we'll think about.
• Councillor Par down.
• Thank you, just one quick one on the risk management implications. You have quite a few bullet points with the red status. Is this ever likely to turn green?
• Only housing do not deliver on health and safety status.
• Page 23. - Sorry, page 23, thank you. - 23, 24.
• Sorry, I'm looking at the online version, I'm afraid.
• Section eight. - Yeah, section eight. Section eight, yes. Page 23.
• Ah, yes. So that's the inherent risk. So, I mean, it depends how we wish to kind of monitor these things. But I mean, that's the key one is obviously around the health and safety compliance is kind of obviously a critical area to make sure that we are on top of that. So I think there's probably a kind of wider learning point for us here to think about how this is presented, because I think that's the corporate template for these types of reports. So in the background, we do have our own departmental and indeed the corporate risk register, I think, has a more sophisticated presentation of risk counselor that sets out the inherent risk and then post mitigation, how that kind of will minimize the kind of risk going forward. So certainly in regards to health and safety compliance, we've got a number of different initiatives and things in play that do mean we are proactively kind of managing that risk in order to kind of minimize it down as much as possible. And across all of the kind of five areas that are included in tenant satisfaction measures that relate to health and safety compliance, we will be reporting at the end of June a very good and robust kind of arrangement for making sure that we are properly assessing kind of risks across all of those areas of compliance and minimizing down the risks to the council in relation to those areas of compliance. Would it be in the future meetings be possible to have that with that so that we can read it, see how it's being managed and so on? Yeah, so that's correct, Chair, that it's reported through to GAMS. What I was jumping in to say was more than happy once we published the tenant satisfaction measure indicators that do relate to health and safety performance. If that's something that the committee wishes to look at, more than happy to kind of bring that back, if that's what the committee wishes. Thank you. We are asked to note the report. Thank you. I'm not being advised of any other business. And in this case, our next meeting is on the 9th of July where we'll have a special meeting with the leader and the managing director. And I'm sure Councillor Hanson is already sharpening his keyboard for questions. The meeting is therefore closed at 849. [BLANK_AUDIO]