Agenda and minutes

A Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2016.

It was resolved that Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC be elected Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel for the period up to June 2016.

Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC - in the Chair

A Vice-Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2016.

It was resolved that Cllr. T. J. Pendleton be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel for the period up to June 2016.

The Chairman drew members’ attention to a letter which had been sent to him from the Police and Crime Commissioner on 24 June. The PCC had requested that the matter remain confidential, though it had been agreed that the letter be shared with members of the Panel thirty minutes prior to the start of the meeting. A copy of the letter is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman read out the letter for the benefit of those in attendance and viewers of the webcast. The letter read as follows:

“Dear Joe,

Please accept my very sincere apologies for being unable to attend today’s meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.

As you are aware, I have for some months been suffering from very severe back pain. Despite having seen several different consultants and undergone medical procedures, I remain in constant pain.

Whilst I have sought to fulfil my duties to the best of my ability, the pain I am experiencing has become increasingly compromising to the point that I am unable to drive, or to stand or sit for any period of time.

I have now reached the point that I do not feel able to fulfil my role in the way that you, the Force, or, most importantly, the public would expect, and in order to address my on-going health issues and, I hope, to make a full and speedy recovery, I feel compelled to take a period of extended absence due to incapacitating ill-health.

Having sought legal advice, the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2012 cater for this eventuality, and invite you as a Panel to appoint an Acting Police and Crime Commissioner to undertake all the statutory responsibilities of the role during my absence.

Furthermore, the Act requires that the individual chosen for this role must be a member of my staff and that the Panel should consider any recommendation I may make about the identity of that individual.

I would wish, for the duration of my absence, that my Chief Executive Officer Paul Stock is appointed by you to undertake the role of Acting Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

I have spoken to Paul, and to my senior management team, and Paul is willing to undertake this role. If approved by the Panel, Paul’s team will absorb his monitoring responsibilities.

Needless to say, Simon Cole and his Chief Officer team are aware of my decision and will be supportive of the new arrangements to achieve the shared goal of crime reduction and community safety.

I bitterly regret that my ill-health requires me to take this decision, and it is one that I take only after considerable soul-searching. My overriding concern is that a Police and Crime Commissioner should undertake the entirety of his or her responsibilities on behalf of the public they serve, and I must accept that my health currently prevents me from so doing.

I very much hope that a period away from work will allow me access to the necessary medical interventions and to return to my role as swiftly as possible.

With my warmest wishes,

Sir Clive Loader

Police and Crime Commissioner”

The Chairman gave the Chief Executive of the OPCC the opportunity to provide any update on the PCC’s position. The Chief Executive and the Director of Human Resources of Leicestershire Police stated that the Occupational Health service for the Police Force had confirmed that the Commissioner was currently recuperating and had been certified as being unfit for work. They further stated that medical conditions could change quickly and therefore his condition was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2015 were taken as read, confirmed and signed, subject to the first sentence of bullet 5 on page 4 being amended to read as follows:

“The PCC could not attend hearing for officers, however as of May new legislation would mean hearings would have to be held in public.”

The following question(s) were put to the Police and Crime Commissioner:

“Given that the contract for support to victims and witnesses has been awarded to an organisation with a background of supporting youth offenders, rather than victims or witnesses and has little or no history of providing services in the force area, could the Police and Crime Commissioner please explain:

(a)       How it was decided during the procurement process that this body would have the ability, expertise or experience to deliver that service;

(b)       Why you did not take the opportunity to interview bidders; and

(c)       How you will now ensure that it is delivered to an appropriately high standard without any reduction in the quality or level of service?”

Reply by the Police and Crime Commissioner:

“(a)    A tender assessment score card was issued with the Invitation to Tender (ITT). The member of the public asking this question will have seen this as they were involved in the tender process, supporting a bid. The scorecard included weightings which clearly outlined the areas the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) believed to be those requiring the greatest strengths. The OPCC’s decision to score and weight these areas was based on officers’ understanding of the requirements for the new Victim First service. As the original intention was to build the service in- house, the OPCC had a clear understanding of the skills, expertise and experience needed.

This was further developed through research and analysis of existing provision, the identification of gaps and opportunities as well as consideration from experiences of the ‘early adopters’, namely Cambridgeshire and Avon and Somerset.

Advice was also taken from the Leicestershire Police Procurement Team to ensure the market opportunity was fair and equal. The tenders received (of which there were two) were scored by a number of individuals, prior to being standardised by moderation panels.”

(b)     The decision not to interview bidders was based on advice from the Procurement Team. As the Victim First specification was detailed and the tender assessment score card explicit, it was felt that interviewing bidders would not add any value to the evaluation process. However, a series of clarification questions were emailed to both bidders, prior to final scoring being undertaken;

(c)     As already stated, we issued a detailed specification for the Victim First service. The contract being put in place has a performance framework that covers a broader range of metrics, with higher quality demands, than the previous Ministry of Justice (MoJ) contract with Victim Support. The OPCC therefore has a greater degree of leverage and control over underperformance than previously existed. Regular contract management meetings will take place and reports on performance and customer satisfaction levels will be discussed at the Victim and Witness Partnership Assurance Group who will maintain oversight of the new Victim First service. There will also be an independent Victim Board set up, where regular performance reports will be presented. This Board will be made up of local experts, including academics, criminal justice leads and victim ambassadors.”

The following supplementary question was asked in relation to the answer to question (a):

“The answer sets out the principles of the tender process and in some ways why the OPCC had confidence in it. For the process to enable an organisation who are young offender focused and with no victim support experience to be successful in the bidding process surely gives cause for concern. To give the experience of Cambridgeshire and Avon and Somerset is also misleading in that both did not utilise an outside agency to deliver the victim services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

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.

Col. Robert Martin declared a personal interest in respect of Agenda Item 8 as the Trustee of “Warning Zone” which was in receipt of some funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner (Minute 141 refers).

Cllr. O. O’ Shea declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items as a civilian at Leicestershire Police.

Cllr. M. Sood declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items 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 considered a report of the Secretariat concerning the revised membership and political balance of the Panel following the May 2015 local elections. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 7”, is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the revised composition of the Panel as set in out in paragraph 7 of the report, be approved.

(b)       That a letter be sent to all outgoing members of the Panel thanking them for their service over the last three years.

The Panel is required in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to “review and make a report or recommendations on the PCC’s Annual Report to the Commissioner”.

The Panel had been due to consider the Commissioner’s Annual Report 2014/15, however as no Acting Police and Crime Commissioner had been appointed, officers indicated that they would retire from the meeting as they felt that the Act was clear that it was the Commissioner who should present the Annual Report to the Panel and respond to any questions it had. They further clarified that they would not be willing to remain for the other items of business set out in the agenda.

At this point, the Chief Constable confirmed that he would continue to refer to the Chief Executive on day-to-day business until such time as an Acting Commissioner had been appointed.

The Chairman indicated that there was little alternative but to defer the remaining substantive items on the agenda to a meeting yet to be scheduled in July, at which it was hoped that an Acting Police and Crime Commissioner could be appointed and Panel business could therefore resume.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

The remaining meetings of the Panel scheduled to take place in 2015 are:

·         Wednesday 16 September at 1.00pm; and

·         Wednesday 16 December at 1.00pm

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on a day to be established in July and that further meetings of the Panel would be held on:

Wednesday 16 September at 1.00pm

Wednesday 16 December at 1.00pm