Agenda and minutes

Sir Clive Loader, Police and Crime Commissioner

It was proposed by Mr. Slater and seconded by Mr. Pendleton that Mr. J. T. Orson CC be elected Chairman of the Panel.

Mr. Orson in the Chair

It was proposed by Mr. Orson and seconded by Mr. Coles that Cllr. T. Pendleton be elected Vice-Chairman of the Panel.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 March 2013 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

All members of Community Safety Partnerships declared personal interests in all matters relating to those partnerships.

Mr Orson, Cllr Pendleton and Cllr Russell all declared personal interests as members of the Strategic Partnership Board.

Mr Orson and Cllr Senior declared personal interests as former members of the Police Authority.

Cllr Sood declared personal interests as the Chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths and a member of Sport England.

Miss Kynaston declared a personal, pecuniary interest in the item on allowances for independent co-opted members, as she was an independent co-opted member (minute no. 15 and undertook to leave the room during consideration of that item).

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner on the development of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) from its Police Authority origins to the current state and projecting future requirements.  A copy of the report, together with a supplementary report containing additional detail, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to the meeting.

The PCC explained how his duties and responsibilities exceeded those of the former Police Authority and that therefore he believed that the comparisons of the costs of PCCs and Police Authorities in the Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee were not comparing like with like.

The following points arose from discussion:

·         When compared with the eight Most Similar Force Groups, the costs of Leicestershire’s OPCC were the lowest.  This had not been clear from published information because Leicestershire’s OPCC had provided the full figures for all staffing costs (including on-costs), whereas it appeared that PCCs in other areas had only released information on filled, permanent posts and had not included the costs of interim or contract staff.

·         It was projected that the costs would fall slightly in 2014/15 (due to a reduction in audit costs and the removal of costs associated with establishing the Office in the transition year) and that work would continue to identify efficiencies to prevent costs rising over the PCC’s term of office

·         The PCC and the Chief Constable were two separate, corporate entities, with the former responsible for holding the latter to account.  There needed to be a clear dividing line between the offices that had not been necessary with the former Police Authority.

·         The OPCC and the Force were, however looking at areas (such as HR, training, legal support) where resource could be shared to reduce costs.

·         The Force did not operate a recharge system so there were no ongoing rent liabilities for use of office space at the Force HQ. 

·         The Panel had concerns regarding the workload falling on the PCC; for example, since 25 March, he had completed 103 engagements, several of which had been in the evening.  His ambition to keep costs as low as possible was noted but members suggested that a Deputy PCC could assist with the engagement work of the OPCC and would also provide stability and continuity if required; the PCC responded that he was grateful for the comments and would consider the advice further if he thought it appropriate given the workload involved.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted and that the measured approach being taken by the Police and Crime Commissioner to the development of his Office be supported.

The Police and Crime Commissioner gave a presentation on progress with his Commissioning Framework.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

The following points arose from discussion:

·         CSPs would be given an indicative figure, based on crime figures for their districts, as to the proportion of funding they should bear in mind when bidding for funds.  It was suggested linking the funding to levels of crime could act as a perverse incentive.

·         The PCC should ensure the commissioning work linked in with partnerships and organisations (including schools) that were in a position to contribute funding to increase the overall sums available.  The OPCC was working to develop links with commissioning boards across the area, recognising the importance of issues such as housing and employment, in preventing crime.

·         The troubled families programmes in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland were crucial to the early intervention and prevention agendas for several partners but did not appear to have sufficient prominence in the PCC’s commissioning plans.  The OPCC stated that dialogue on this issue would begin in the autumn.

·         The issues around community safety could not be solved by the police alone: they were part of a much wider landscape, and a clear strategic view  and engagement with Local Strategic Partnerships were required before plans and contracts were made.

·         The PCC was looking for partners and agencies to bring forward new and innovative ideas intended to meet outcomes of the Police and Crime Plan.  Members of the Panel indicated that they would be interested, at a future meeting, to discuss the commissioning framework with representatives of the voluntary sector and learn of their experiences of working with the OPCC in the new community safety landscape.

·         The funding available for each CSP would be known by 1 September 2013.

RESOLVED:

That the information now presented be noted.

The Police and Crime Commissioner gave a presentation on progress with developing change options.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

The following points arose from discussion:

·         The Panel would welcome the opportunity to discuss the change programme further at a future date with the input of the Chief Constable.  It would be helpful to have a brief summary of headline figures relating to crime statistics and trends in the Force area to inform that discussion.

·         The public would be concerned about changes that might affect the presence or visibility of the police in their neighbourhood and elected members would find it useful to be made aware of these.

·         It appeared that decisions on moving beat officers into shared or community based offices were being taken locally, without any apaprent strategic overview.

·         Equality Impact Assessments would need to be carried out on specific plans as they emerged: it was noted that certain faith groups in the area were feeling particularly vulnerable at the moment; and that certain issues affected some communities more than others.

·         It was hoped that contributions from the work being done to commission services would serve to reduce pressures on the policing budget.

·         83.2% of the Force budget was staffing costs and it was inevitable that staffing levels would be reduced: it was noted that this could lead to a loss of expertise.  The PCC would seek to protect frontline services and maintain a police presence in neighbourhoods so far as that was compatible with a prudent use of public resources. 

RESOLVED:

a)    That the information now presented be noted;

b)    That the Police and Crime Commissioner be requested to provide a further update to a future meeting of the Panel and that the Chief Constable be invited to that meeting;

c)    That the Police and Crime Commissioner be requested to provide a short, high-level summary of crime statistics in the County to members of the Panel.

The Police and Crime Commissioner gave a presentation on the work being done to refresh the Police and Crime Plan.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the information now presented be noted;

b)    That the Police and Crime Commissioner be requested to provide a report on the refresh of the Police and Crime Plan to the next meeting of the Panel in early October and that the Chief Constable be invited to attend for that item.

The Police and Crime Commissioner gave a presentation informing the Panel on progress with the Stage 2 Transfers of people and assets between the PCC and the Chief Constable.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

It was noted that the Transfer Scheme would be agreed over the summer and an update on the final position could be provided after then. 

RESOLVED:

a)    That the information now presented be noted;

b)    That the Police and Crime Commissioner be requested to provide a further update on the scheme for Stage 2 Transfers to the next meeting of the Panel in early October.

The Panel considered the Annual Report of the Police and Crime Commissioner.  A copy of the Report is filed with these minutes.

It was noted that future Annual Reports would provide more detail and include information on performance against the outcomes and targets in the Police and Crime Plan.

RESOLVED:

That the Annual Report of the Police and Crime Commissioner be noted.

The Panel considered a report of the County Solicitor, the purpose of which was to: advise the Panel of action taken to produce further procedures in relation to the operation of arrangements for dealing with complaints against the PCC; facilitate discussion with a view to clarifying issues relating to declarations of interests by members of the Panel; and seek the agreement of the Panel on two issues relating to constitutional governance arrangements, the relationship with the Joint Audit Risk and Assurance Panel (JARAP) for the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable, and the payment of allowances to independent members.  A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the County Solicitor be given authority, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Panel to make amendments to Guidance on conducting Confirmation Hearings, Protocols for working with other authorities and procedures relating to complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner;

b)    That the general principles relating to Codes of Conduct for elected members and declarations of interest as a starting point to assist members be noted;

c)    That the Leicestershire County Council Code of Conduct be applied to the independent members of the Panel;

d)    That the County Solicitor be requested to undertake further discussions to develop appropriate arrangements for liaison, sharing of information and consultation with the Joint Audit Risk and Assurance Panel for the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable.

The Panel considered a draft timetable for future meetings, with suggested items for consideration at those meetings, a copy of which is filed with these minutes.

The following suggestions arose from discussion:

·         Representatives of the voluntary sector should be invited to discuss the PCC’s commissioning arrangements to provide a broader perspective on how the OPCC is interacting with and impacting on other organisations.

·         The Ministry of Justice reforms would have a significant impact on the Police and Crime and the Panel would benefit from a briefing on these.

RESOLVED:

That the draft timetable, amended in the light of discussion, be approved.

The Panel considered a report of the County Solicitor on the consequences of the elections to Leicestershire County Council on the political balance of the Panel.  A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the composition of the Panel remain as agreed at its meeting on 23 November 2012.

(Note: Miss. H Kynaston left the meeting at this point – minute 5 above refers.)

The Panel considered a report of the County Solicitor seeking the Panel’s views as to whether or not allowances should be paid to the two co-opted members of the Panel who were independent of the local authorities which constitute the Panel.  A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the principle of paying an allowance to the independent co-opted members of the Panel be approved and that the Leicestershire County Council Independent Remuneration Panel be asked to make a recommendation as the level of any such allowance, for the Panel’s approval at a future meeting.

(Note: Miss. H Kynaston returned to the meeting at this point.)

The Panel requested that the officers arrange dates for future meetings, in accordance with the timetable mentioned above (see minute 13).