Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2014 were taken as read, confirmed and signed subject to the following amendments:

Page 14 – bullet point 4 to be amended to reflect that the PCC became aware that going to Judicial Review was a possibility in early 2014;

Page 14 – bullet point 8 to be amended to reflect that the Blaby District Council had been warned by the OPCC of a possible Judicial Review in February 2014.

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. M. Sood declared a personal interest in respect of all items on the agenda as a member of the Police’s Independent Advisory Panel, as the Chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths and a member of the Bishop’s Faith Forum.

The Panel questioned the Commissioner on his decision to take Blaby District Council to a Judicial Review in regard to a new development in the district at its previous meeting on 9 June.

For reference, a copy of the Panel’s decision on the matter is attached to the agenda.

A copy of the PCC’s response is attached and the PCC will deliver a statement at the meeting in support of his report.

The Panel considered a report and statement of the PCC in respect of his response to the Panel’s recommendations at the previous Panel meeting in June 2014 in regard to the damaged relations between partners as a result of the action taken by the PCC to take Blaby District Council to a Judicial Review over the timing of Section 106 contribution payments for the proposed “New Lubbesthorpe” development. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 4” is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the item, the PCC delivered the following statement:

“Mr Chairman, Panel members. At the last meeting of this panel you asked me to report to you, at our next meeting, on the measures being taken by me and my office to develop and nurture good working relationships with our partners. I fully agree the inference that we now look to the future to identify how we can develop working practices that will enhance our relationship with local authority partners.

Firstly, I would hope that anyone reading the Police and Crime Plan would see the importance that I already place upon Partnership working; the efficacy of those relationships is fundamental to the delivery of the Plan. Together, we have a statutory responsibility for the safety of our communities and I am also sure that we would all agree that nothing is more important than that duty.

So, what steps am I taking?

Since the last Panel meeting, the Chief Constable and I have met with the Leader, Chief Executive and Planners from 3 councils (Blaby, Hinckley & Bosworth, and Oadby & Wigston), and we have arranged similar meetings with representatives from the remaining councils; visits to Charnwood, North-West Leicestershire and Rutland are already in the diary whilst we are still refining dates with Melton, Harborough and the City. The aim of these meetings is to see how we can work more effectively in the future. I remain committed to the protection of policing services in the community – a commitment that I know is shared by us all – and I felt that these meetings would help us all to move forward and plan for the future with a shared understanding of just what is required and how that can be delivered.

Equally, I felt it would be helpful to discuss the community safety issues facing Leicestershire Police with the representatives from the Community Safety Partnerships. These partnerships, comprising representatives from a wide range of agencies, are critical to our – and I do mean ‘our’ – endeavours to reduce low level criminality, acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour. I have therefore pledged to meet the Chair from every Community Safety Partnership within our area, to explain our situation in further detail, and to seek their help in finding a resolution that meets the needs of all parties. These meetings are being set up by my Office now but, somewhat inevitably, the summer holiday period is adding an extra complication.

Specifically regarding Lubbesthorpe, we clearly need to make plans for policing of the new development. While I would like to stress that there is no appetite for further dispute on the issue, we do need to find a workable solution – and we need to find that together.

Accordingly, I have asked my Chief Executive Paul Stock and the Force’s Director of Finance Paul Dawkins to meet with the relevant executives at Blaby District Council at the earliest opportunity to seek a positive way forward. The seniority of these two executives is indicative of our commitment to repairing any damage to our relationship with Blaby District Council and I have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

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 is required to make a report or recommendations on the Annual Report to the Commissioner.

The Panel considered the PCC’s Annual Report. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 6” is filed with these minutes. The Panel was required as part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act to consider and comment on the PCC’s Annual Report.

Arising from a discussion on the contents of the Annual Report, the following comments were noted:

·                The Annual Report was more detailed report than the previous iteration, in response to the comments made by the Panel last year;

·                The geographical spread of resources to the neighbourhood police teams and CSPs aimed to prioritise against risk and ensure a consistent neighbourhood presence was in place across the Force area;

·                The PCC continued to commission outcomes in support of the Police and Crime Plan with his annual budget of between £2.9 and £3.8 million. All commissioning activity was set out on the PCC’s website. It was important to get partners’ views on the new Commissioning Framework to ensure that the right services were being commissioned in the right areas;

·                The strategic priority to achieve a reduction in domestic burglary offences by 13% was not being achieved – crimes had increased by 6.7% (3935 offences to 4199). The PCC was not happy that this situation had not yet been brought under control. He wanted to maintain ambitious targets to increase public confidence. It remained a focus of the Force to target a reduction in this area;

·                The strategic priority to reduce violence against a person with injury by 2% was not being achieved – crime had increased by 15.7% (4365 offences to 5052). Theft from and of vehicles had also seen an increase. Were crimes to rise in these categories again next year, the PCC would regard the upturn in crime as a “trend”;

·                The Chief Constable stated that the British Crime Survey showed a reduction in crime nationally, but that this might not be the case for “recorded crime”. He further stated that it did not include a significant sample from the Leicester Police Force area. However, the Office of Crime and Statistics showed that, last year, there was a national decrease in police recorded crimes and that this was backed up by the statistics in the British Crime Survey. The PCC did not regard Leicestershire’s crime statistics as a “disaster” though he acknowledged that, at present, the figure showed that performance was not going in the right direction. The Chief Constable stated that he had seen more recent statistics that showed that some force areas were seeing an increase in recorded crime, particularly in the north of the country;

·                It was recognised that it might be helpful to include some case studies and statistics in future Annual Reports around substance abuse and how many people had been helped through treatment;

·                The setting of high targets was stressed as a possible demotivating factor for police staff. It was felt that achievable, yet challenging, targets were required;

·                The formal method of measuring crime detection rates had changed nationally because of a perception that the previous measuring method led to some forces “chasing” detections. The new method would hopefully lead to the best outcome for the victim;

·                There was an absence of recognition in the Annual Report for the diversity and complex nature of the City, particularly in regard to engagement. Furthermore, there were specific crimes which affected specific communities which it was felt should be better taken account of. The restructuring of the Police PR and communication function (as referred to in Minute 80) would hopefully enable better engagement with non-English speaking communities and the “hard to reach”;

·                The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

A copy of a letter from the Chief Constable to partners is attached for information.

The Panel considered a letter from the Chief Constable highlighting a number of high level changes to be made to the structure of Leicestershire Police. A copy of the letter, marked “Agenda Item 5”, and a supplementary high level briefing note from the Chief Constable, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman introduced the item by highlighting that the PCC had previously made several comments in regard to the significant forthcoming changes, including the references made to this in the Police and Crime Plan. Reference was made by the Chairman to some of the concerns made by partners about a perceived lack of consultation on the changes.

In support of the Chief Constable’s letter, the PCC delivered a brief statement, as follows:

“In order to remain within ever decreasing budgets for policing, and to ensure that the police continue to provide the best possible service to the public, the Chief Constable has been working hard with his colleagues in developing a new model for policing for the coming years.

I should stress that this is but the latest phase in a re-engineering of how policing is delivered in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, a process that began some four years ago. I do fully accept that the City Mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby’s concerns and indeed the media coverage that has ensued has led to some anxiety about the possible impact the new policing model may have had on communities, on neighbourhood policing and indeed on the well-established partnership links. For my part, I have tried to address some of those concerns publicly in media interviews and privately in a meeting with Sir Peter that happened last week. Whilst the design of policing services, the configuration of structures and the allocation of resources are indeed matters solely for the Chief Constable, I clearly have a very significant interest in what the model will look like and the impact that it will have. To be fair to Simon, he had only just completed the work in agreeing the general structure of the new model with his senior colleagues when Sir Peter made his concerns public. The intention had always been that, once agreed, he and his colleagues would then begin the next stage – sharing the general overview of the model with internal staff who will be affected, then with partners and key stakeholders and finally with the public at large. Central to this process is seeking the help of partners in designing the detail to ensure that the new target operating policing model is fit for purpose.

Much of last week was spent therefore unsurprisingly fast-forwarding to share those proposals with staff and partners and this important piece of work is underway at the moment. As part of that process, Simon will now present the overview of the model to this Panel and he will leave you all with a copy of the slide pack that he’s about to give. Whilst the Chief Constable and his team plan to be speaking to you and your colleagues in the near future to share with you those details I would wish to take this opportunity to reassure you that the impact on local areas will be positive. Neighbourhood, local policing will remain the cornerstone of all of our communities. There will be no separation of local policing and the crime investigation parts of policing and our response to 999 incidents will be strengthened, our approach to non-emergencies will be more consistent and, I believe, appropriate.

I would like to hand over to Simon to give you some more flesh to hang on those bones  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the Review of the Police’s Communication and Public Engagement function. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 7”, is field with these minutes.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to report on the Review. The following points were noted:

·                The report was written prior to a consultation exercise with staff groups and for that reason was vague;

·                The formal “shared service” being proposed was innovative. It would be jointly accountable to the Chief Constable and the PCC;

·                It was hoped that the new arrangements would be in place by early 2015;

·                The shared service would increase resilience and capacity to enable the Chief Constable and his officers to engage at the appropriate level and for the Chief Constable and the PCC to engage the many communities in what was an increasingly diverse force area;

·                It was suggested that more detail could be reported at the Panel’s meeting in September.

The PCC reported the following:

·                The success of the new shared service was of the utmost importance;

·                The current PR and engagement function was not adequately equipped to deal with the requirements of the new governance structure of a PCC (strategic matters) and a Chief Constable (operational matters);

·                It would be lean and accountable – a single team able to service two corporation souls with differential levels of detail;

·                There would be issues that would need to be clarified in relation to promotional work in the lead up to elections.

The Chief Constable reported the following:

·                Engagement at neighbourhood level was increasingly complex given the diversity of the Force area. The new structure would enable this to happen in a more consistent way;

·                There would need to be an operational/political “firewall”;

·                The new structure would enable the Force to do more work on insecurities and the positive influence of public behaviours.

Arising from the information provided, the point was made that the report had insufficient detail to enable a useful debate to take place. If necessary, the Panel would be able to receive exempt reports.

RESOLVED:

That the matter be deferred to the Panel’s meeting on 29 September for a full update on the detail on the progress of the Review of Communication and Public Engagement.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the Performance Reporting Framework 2014/15.  A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 8”, is field with these minutes.

In introducing the Framework, the Chief Executive reported the following:

·                The Performance Reporting Framework would be taken forward in a more partnership focused way;

·                The new Framework was a response to the Public Affairs Select Committee’s report entitled “Caught Red Handed” which suggested a move away from targets, which were felt to be demoralising.

In response to questioning by the Panel, the following comments were noted:

·                The Framework stated that there would be quarterly reporting from CSPs to suggest what they had done to support the Police and Crime Plan. A suggestion was made that the Force could in future report back on what it had done to support the priorities of the CSPs;

·                It was felt that the partnership emphasis should be better reflected in the content of the Framework. Work was ongoing on this issue;

·                Crest Advisory had appraised the Framework and commented that it was one of the few in the country that had received data contributions from all partners and CSPs;

·                Female Genital Mutilation had not been raised as an issue in the current Plan, though it would be acknowledged in the next iteration of the Plan.

RESOLVED:

That the Performance Reporting Framework be noted.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 29 September at 2.00pm.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 29 September 2014 at 2.00pm.