Agenda item

This report outlines plans for further scrutiny of Medway Commercial Group Ltd.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report outlining plans for further scrutiny of Medway Commercial Group Ltd.

The Chairman welcomed Chris White, Interim Chief Executive of MCG to the meeting to answer any outstanding questions.

The Committee discussed the following:

·         The level of funding paid to MCG Ltd by the Council – A Member sought clarification as to why the level of funding paid to MCG by the Council had remained the same in 2019/20, despite the significant reduction in the number of CCTV cameras provided across Medway following a review of the service over the past year.

The Interim Chief Executive of MCG advised that funding received from the Council met the cost of staffing the CCTV monitoring service. This included CCTV cameras located at other Council sites in addition to street cameras and involved approximately 400 cameras in total. Therefore, although there had been a reduction in the number of street CCTV cameras across Medway, this had not been sufficient to result in a reduction in the number of operatives monitoring the service.

The Member then referred to the acquisition of new cameras in the past year and suggested that as this new stock would likely require less maintenance the level of funding from the Council should have been reduced.

·         Other partners within the CCTV partnership – A Member asked for information as to who was involved in the CCTV partnership. The Interim Chief Executive advised that Medway Council was the lead partner in the CCTV partnership along with Gravesham, Swale and Maidstone Councils. MCG provided the camera monitoring service to the Partnership.

He advised that both Swale and Maidstone Councils would be leaving the Partnership on 31 March 2020 to set up their own CCTV operations and the loss of these partners and their income would be challenging for the Council and for MCG.

MCG provided a range of services other than CCTV such as Telecare, education services etc. MCG’s Business Plan would be considered by its Board in the near future and this would then be reported to the Council’s Business Support O&S Committee and subsequently Cabinet in November. MCG also had a number of smaller CCTV contracts with a school, a healthy living centre, Rochester Riverside Development, civic amenity sites and the Innovation Park Medway.

·         Consultation with Ward Councillors on the removal of CCTV cameras – A Member sought an assurance that Ward Councillors would be consulted upon proposals to remove CCTV cameras in their Wards in the future.

The Interim Chief Executive explained that under its contract, MCG fulfilled instructions from the Council as to the locations of specific cameras.

The Head of Regulatory Services informed the Committee that the placement and removal of CCTV cameras would be determined by the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) as being a multi-agency partnership, best placed to determine suitable locations for CCTV cameras.

He also confirmed that those areas where cameras were removed would continue to be monitored and 2 new rapid deployment cameras had been acquired which could assist in determining whether permanent cameras were required.

Members expressed concern that Ward Councillors would not be included in consultations prior to the removal of individual CCTV cameras in their Wards.

The Head of Regulatory Services stated he was willing to notify Ward Councillors when there were proposals affecting CCTV cameras in their Wards but whilst there may be instances when CCTV cameras needed to be relocated, no further reductions were planned.

A Member referred to the Information Commissioner’s Guidance on the

circumstances under which a CCTV camera should be removed and he questioned whether, as guidance, it had to be rigorously followed. He expressed a view that the existence of CCTV acted as a deterrent and once removed could result in the problems recurring. He requested that further discussions be held as to the application of the guidance and the involvement of Ward Councillors in any decisions to remove CCTV cameras.

In response, the Director Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive reiterated that there was no intention to further reduce the number of CCTV cameras in Medway and that it would be the professional bodies involved in the CSP that would determine any cameras to be removed. However, it was not unreasonable for Ward Councillors to be notified in such instances. He also suggested that officers discuss further with the Member concerned the application of the Information Commissioner’s Guidance.

The Director Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive also reminded the Committee that the CSP was due to attend the meeting of this Committee on 5 December 2019 and therefore the Committee could raise these issues with the CSP at that time.

·         Governance of MCG  - The Interim Chief Executive confirmed that MCG was implementing all recommendations from Cabinet on 6 August 2019 and plans were in place for the appointment of new Non-Executive Directors. The Assistant Director was now the Client Representative from the Council, attending MCG Board meetings.

He informed the Committee that MCG employed loyal and motivated staff who worked closely with the Police and in particular helping with real time incidents.

To improve service and to get an external perspective on the service, two external studies had recently been commissioned to review MCG’s policies and procedures for managing CCTV and of the Company’s technical infrastructure to ensure it could inform the Council about changes, improvements and possible cost savings.

He considered that there was a great opportunity for MCG to contribute to the delivery of public services across Medway.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            noted the report.

b)            requested that Ward Councillors be notified by Council officers before any CCTV cameras are removed.

c)            noted that officers will meet with the Member concerned to discuss the interpretation of the Information Commission Guidance and its relationship with the CSP.