Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at http://council.webcast.vualto.com/leicestershire-county-council/home?EventId=16157.

A Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2017.

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 2017.

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

A Vice-Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2017.

It was resolved that Cllr. T. J. Pendleton be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel for the period up to June 2017.

The Chairman opened the meeting by formally welcoming the new Police and Crime Commissioner, Lord Willy Bach, to his first Police and Crime Panel meeting. He made the following statement:

“I am sure all members will join me today in welcoming Lord Bach to his first meeting of the Police and Crime Panel today following his election as Police and Crime Commissioner in May. We hope you find the Panel process valuable to your work and that through support and challenge we are able to add value to the work of your office.”

Following the statement the Chairman asked Panel members to introduce themselves to the Commissioner. The Chairman then made the following comments:

“Thank you. I would like to refer now to the fact that papers were circulated to members one day after the legal deadline. The Commissioner has already apologised to me for this oversight, but I would stress for the benefit of officers in the OPCC that it is very important that papers are forwarded on to Sam in good time to ensure circulation to the legal deadline for public meetings.”

In response, the Commissioner indicated that he would ensure that papers for future Panel meetings were submitted to the secretariat on time.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no questions submitted.

The Chairman advised that he had agreed to consider the following two urgent items:

·         Hate Crime following the EU Referendum (Minute 12 refers)

·         Arrangements for future meetings of the Panel (Minute 13 refers)

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 all substantive items as the Trustee of “Warning Zone” which was in receipt of some funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

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 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 considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning his Annual Report covering the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 7”, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, it was noted that the Annual Report reflected the former Commissioner’s time in office and therefore it was not appropriate for the new Commissioner to present the report. The Chief Executive of the OPCC therefore introduced the report and offered to reflect some of the comments the former Commissioner had left with him to take members through the report.

The following points were noted:

·                The former Commissioner felt that he had overseen a substantial drop in re-offending of over 50%;

·                The Commissioning Framework had been developed into a detailed document, focused around producing outcomes;

·                Despite overseeing the strategic side of the Force during a period of budget reductions, significant investment had been made in high profile but hard to reach crimes such as child sexual exploitation, cyber-crime and sexual offences;

·                The new PCC wished continue his predecessor’s work to engage young people and intended to continue operation of the Youth Commission.

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

·                The new PCC had retained his membership in the House of Lords as a means of remaining informed of legislation coming through the system and to enable comments to be made from his new perspective as a PCC. He had resigned from the front bench;

·                The PCC had not made a decision on whether he intended to appoint a Deputy PCC though he felt this was likely to be the case. No decision on this would be made until the Autumn. He was intending to make some personal appointments in an advisory capacity on short contracts. Whilst these would be his personal appointments, he would ensure that the Panel was kept informed of who was appointed and their role;

·                The PCC intended to continue his predecessor’s “outcome-based” approach to commissioning though he felt that his approach would be based around “results”. If there was any intended change to this approach, the PCC indicated that he would inform the Panel first;

·                The PCC indicated that it was his wish to have “no less than 1764 police officers and 251 PCSOs" by the end of his term. He added this this wish would inevitably be affected by any change in government funding, but that retaining police officer/PCSO numbers was a very high priority. The reference on page 12 to “35” police officers was incorrect, the figure should read “38”;

·                The Blueprint 2020 project had been based around a predicted significant cut in government funding for the police. Because police funding had been retained at the same level via the Government’s most recent Corporate Spending Review, the project was not as relevant as it was once felt to be and a review of this was planned. The Panel stressed the need to be innovative in looking at any further cuts to the Police should there be any future reductions in government funding;

·                The PCC wished to bolster the Police’s approach to consultation and engagement. It was his view that there remained a lack of understanding for the role of PCCs;

·                The PCC encouraged increased reporting of “hidden crimes” such as domestic abuse and hate crime. It was felt that more needed to be done to tackle these crimes and the result of a recent evaluation of Project 360 (to tackle domestic violence) would be circulated to Panel members. Regarding hate crime, the PCC and the Chief Constable had recently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner updating on the PCC’s priorities covering his four term of office, subject to public consultation and the production of the Police and Crime Plan. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 8”, is field with these minutes.

Prior to introducing the report, the Chairman indicated that as a result of Panel questioning many of the PCC’s priorities had been discussed under the previous item and so it was felt appropriate not to question the Commissioner further on this report.

The following points of the PCC were therefore noted:

·                The report comprised some of the PCC’s early thoughts as to where his priorities would lie arising from his first weeks in office. They reflected his manifesto commitments, of which a key theme was maintaining a visible police presence in communities. He acknowledged that this view might change through experience in the role but he intended to pursue this aim at this stage;

·                The PCC felt that Project Eddison (also known as the “Force Change Programme”) had been well organised though it was felt that this had on occasion stretched resources across the Force area. The PCC wished to strengthen the valuable connection between the Force and the public in an effort to improve the arrangements;

·                A recent spike in ASB incidents in Countesthorpe had alerted the PCC to the need to act fast on a localised basis, as he had done by quickly arranging a meeting in Countesthorpe to hear the views of the public;

·                The PCC wished not to pursue taking on responsibility for the Fire Service, as this had been a manifesto commitment. He was now being invited to attend Combined Fire Authority meetings. He would welcome the Panel’s views on this issue in the future.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Panel considered a joint report of the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning an update on the current status of the Force Change Programme, Blueprint 2020 and the proposed Strategic Alliance. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 9”, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

·                The Strategic Alliance had thus far been guided by a programme board consisting of the PCCs and Chief Constables of the relevant 3 forces - Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. Two programme Board meetings had taken place. 10 recommendations had been agreed thus far around the issues of IT, HR and finance services, contract management and software optimisation. A “single operating model” had not been agreed. It was hoped that any new arrangements born out of the Alliance would enable the forces to meet their financial challenges;

·                The PCC suggested that work on the Alliance or the “tri-force collaboration” as he now wished it to be known had slowed as a result in the changes in leadership at two of the three forces. It would however remain a key focus, though an equal focus would remain on the Leicestershire force area;

·                It was regrettable that Derbyshire were not part of the arrangements, though it was noted that talks with them were ongoing about their involvement;

·                The NICHE system was now in place across five force areas and was already producing significant gains in respect of data intelligence sharing. Options were being reviewed to ascertain whether the system could be further optimised and its use therefore extended. The Panel welcomed the opportunity presented by the NICHE system to eradicate cross-border crime.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the update be noted;

(b)       That further information be circulated to Panel members at the appropriate time regarding the structure and timeline for the tri-force collaboration arrangements.

It was noted that, as this issue had been covered as part of previous items on the agenda, it would require no further discussion.

Hate Crimes following the EU Referendum

Cllr. Sood had raised the issue of a reported spike in hate crimes following the EU Referendum. In response, DCC Roger Bannister reported that there had been no rise in reported incidents thus far. He specifically reported the following crime rates in this area:

The figures were felt to be representative of the usual levels of this crime and did not represent a spike though it was acknowledged that some incidents may have gone unreported.

Two particular hate crime incidents were highlighted which had attracted media interest, including an incident where a man had had a banana thrown at his vehicle and a poster for a Muslim Prayer Festival which had been defaced. Both incidents were in the Victoria Park area.

The police were aiming to increase a presence in the Leicester South area which was known to be a hotspot for this type of crime. It was noted that local police teams would be relied on to make an impact on the ground.

In summing up, the Chairman suggested that an update on this position be provided at the Panel’s next meeting in July and that a more detailed analysis of the position be presented in September.

Members of the Panel representing Leicester City Council had raised the issue of whether some future meetings of the Panel could be held at Leicester City Council.

In acknowledging this suggestion, the Chairman indicated that a report on the merits of this suggestion would be considered at the Panel’s meeting on 26 September.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 19 July at 1.00pm.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Panel had been moved from 19 to 26 July at 10.00am.