Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2014 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Cllr. Tony Greenwood declared a personal interest in respect of Agenda Item 5 as a member of Blaby District Council (Minute 88 refers).

Colonel Robert Martin declared a personal interest in respect of Agenda Item 9 as the Trustee of “Warning Zone” which was in receipt of some funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner (minute 92 refers).

The Chairman indicated that he had been requested by the Commissioner to allow him the opportunity to make an announcement. The Commissioner had not told the Chairman of the nature of this announcement but stated that he would be unable to answer any questions on the matter at the Panel meeting. Accordingly, the Chairman suggested that the Panel adjourn in order that the request could be discussed in private amongst Panel members.

-The Panel adjourned at 2.05pm and restarted 2.20pm –

The Chairman indicated that, following private deliberation amongst the Panel members, the Commissioner would be given the opportunity to deliver his announcement, however he pointed out that the Panel largely felt that, unless they directly affected the Panel itself, announcements of this kind should be dealt with in a press conference setting rather than via Panel meetings; otherwise

The Commissioner responded by stating that he did not want the Panel to be compromised by learning of developments at his office second hand, but that he accepted the point being made.

Accordingly, the Commissioner delivered the following statement:

“Mr Chair, Panel Members,

I assure you that I won’t keep you for long, for I am very alive to the fact that we have a particularly full Agenda today.

Nonetheless, I felt it extremely important to brief you regarding the Review that I instigated earlier this month – actually on 1^st September, whilst I was on holiday.  That Review is aimed at looking into the action taken by Leicestershire Police following any allegations of abuse relating to children and young people in our police area.

You will appreciate, noting the date on which I acted, that this was done in the immediate aftermath of the Rotherham Report.  It is my firm belief that we need to reassure victims, the public and our local stakeholders that all allegations of abuse, whether these are historic or present-day, have been – and are being – handled appropriately by Leicestershire Police.

I have therefore asked the Force to examine how it managed allegations of suspected child sexual abuse, grooming or exploitation reports to Leicestershire Police from the 1990s onwards.  Whilst final timescales for completion are still to be confirmed- and given that I have made it abundantly clear that quality must not be sacrificed for speed – I expect to receive an outline report by the end of the year.

The Review is, as you would expect, being overseen by a very senior officer who is reporting to me through the Chief Constable.  It will look at the action taken at the time of any allegation and the outcomes reached.  Perhaps most pertinently, given the desperate failures in Rotherham, it will evaluate any decisions not to take further action in order to see whether such action should have been taken, or indeed could be taken now, in response to the original complaint.

The Chief Constable is fully supportive of the approach that has been taken, and we together have worked closely with Force colleagues to agree the extent of the Review.

I am sure that I have no need to highlight the fact that the Leicestershire Police Force has conducted a number of investigations in recent years, with vigour and professionalism, and these efforts have led to the successful prosecution of several individuals for abusing children.  You are probably also aware that several other enquiries are currently active, which of course we cannot discuss.

But the public, quite rightly, will want assurance that we are providing adequate safeguards to the young people of this area.  And victims and those at risk of abuse must  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the Force Change Programme. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 4”, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the item, the Commissioner made the following points:

·         Prior to his arrival, the Force had already made savings of £23 million and, at the time, crime had continued to fall. Further savings of £15.4 million would need to be achieved by the end of 2016/17;

·         Most of the “transactional” changes had already been implemented in order to identify these savings, so it therefore fell to the PCC and the Chief Constable to implement the more “transformational” changes that were required to identify these significant extra savings;

·         The new Force model would be leaner but would retain its focus on neighbourhood policing. It would also provide an improved offer to victims and witnesses;

·         HMIC had assessed the Change Programme and found that it was a good approach;

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

·         Some of the key elements requested by the Panel had not been included in the report. It was important that sufficient detail was included in the report to enable the Panel to scrutinise the role the PCC had played in the Change Programme and in assuring himself that an effective and efficient Force was in place;

·         The audit of the Change Programme conducted by Baker Tilly had not been reported to the Panel. However it had been reported to the Police’s Joint Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, which was held in public. It had not been felt to be normal practice to submit all audit reports to the Panel but this information was available, should the Panel require it;

·         Fear of crime was an important issue. It was felt that the media and indeed the Police’s own communications team had an important role in this in area (see Minute 89 for further details);

·         The PCC was happy with the way in which the Force Change Programme had been communicated to partners and the assessment it had received from HMIC;

·         It was felt that regular communication on the progress of the Plan would be welcomed amongst district and parish partners. The PCC indicated that he was happy for this to happen. A view was expressed that the insight of elected representatives and the independent members of the Panel had been “lost” as part of this process;

·         There were no plans to “regionalise” policing services in order to identify savings, though it was felt that the East Midlands forces led the way in terms of collaborative working;

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning an update on partnership working. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 5”, is filed with these minutes.

The PCC introduced the item by making the following points:

·         A Chief Superintendent would lead and advise the Force on partnership working;

·         A new “Partnership Co-ordination” role would be recruited to in order to strengthen this area in the OPCC;

·         The PCC would be recruiting Policy Advisors in the areas of victims and witnesses and communities and partnerships. These were personal appointments by the PCC reporting directly to him which had not been publicly advertised. The Policy Advisors would work for one day per week for around £250 per day and would be fixed term appointments for the duration that the Commissioner held office. The OPCC was happy to share the protocol on which these posts would engage, with the Panel;

·         The views of the Panel had been central to the approach taken.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were noted:

·         The Resources Manager post would report to the PCC. It was a renamed post, previously known as an “Accountant”. The post would now be widened to look at issues such as planning and estates;

·         Compensatory savings would be made in order to make the appointments from within existing budgets;

·         The stakeholder event which was stated in the report to take place in October had now been postponed to 3 November;

·         Blaby District Council had been informed that that Leicestershire Police had commissioned QC advice in regard to the S106 protocol which Blaby was leading on in the County. Blaby hoped that Leicestershire Police would commit to this process and work with the protocol rather than challenge it. If it did not, Blaby would strongly question the benefit of a joint approach to S106. The PCC was not aware of this document and asked to be given some time to investigate the matter with the Chief Constable.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the report be noted;

(b)       That a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Panel setting out the structure and cost of the OPCC.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning a review of the Police’s communication and public engagement function. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 6”, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the item, the PCC made the following points:

·         Engagement with communities was essential to the success of the Change Programme. Change of public behaviours was also important in order to reduce the demand on policing. There was scope to carry out these activities in a better way than they had been carried out previously, not least because of the need to now serve a Chief Constable and a PCC;

·         Following a review and staff consultation, a new shared business unit would be created which would provide media services, behavioural change and digital media. This would be operational by the beginning of the new financial year. It would be delivered within the previous staffing budget and would be dually accountable to the PCC and the Chief Constable;

The Chairman indicated that a submission had been tabled from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) making some comments on the proposed structure and function of the new shared communication and engagement unit. A copy of the submission is filed with these minutes. The PCC indicated that he would like to be given time to take the submission away and consider it before answering any questions on it.

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

·         The PCC assured the Panel that the Chief Constable would continue to be able to issue his own comments via the new unit. The PCC was clear that there would be sufficient operational independence to ensure that each party was served effectively. The PCC hoped that the goodwill between himself and the Chief Constable would continue to enable this service to function effectively and efficiently;

·         Staff would report to the CEO on the OPCC side and the Deputy Chief Constable on the Leicestershire Police side of the new unit. The long-term employment status of the shared service had not yet been decided. Some concerns were expressed by the Panel about the dual accountability of the service and how this would work on a line management basis for members of staff. The PCC accordingly stressed the importance of the personalities of the staff which would ensure the success of the service. The Panel emphasised the importance of a structure being credible and sustainable beyond the personalities involved. The PCC responded that detailed job descriptions, policies and procedures would ensure that responsibilities were clearly set out;

·         The PCC assured members of the Panel that the outcome of the Leveson Enquiry had been heeded as part of the development of this new service;

·         The Chairman indicated his concern that the cost of the PCC’s office was not publicly available. A report would be submitted to the next meeting of the Panel on this issue (as referenced in Minute 88);

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Chairman sought and obtained the consent of the Panel to vary the order of business from that set out in the agenda.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the Commissioning Framework. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 9” is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman enquired as to whether the contingency fund of 10% was sufficient in order to tackle any emerging threats. It was explained that the 10% was an option for CSPs to request funding as and when when required. This figure was arrived at following consultation with the CSPs. In 2014/15 only two CSPs had requested access to the contingency fund.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted and that the support to the Supporting Leicestershire Families Service be welcomed.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning an update on the work carried out by the OPCC in regard to victim and witness support. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 7” is filed with these minutes. In support of the report, a presentation was delivered, the slides to which are filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the report and presentation be noted and that the work carried out in respect of victims and witnesses be welcomed.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the First Quarter Performance Report. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 8” is filed with these minutes. In support of the report, a presentation was delivered, the slides to which are filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted and that the move away from statistical targets and toward “outcomes” be particularly welcomed.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 4 November at 2.00 pm.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on 4 November at 1.00pm and that all future meetings of the Panel would commence at 1.00pm rather than 2.00pm.