Minutes:
The Scrutiny Commission considered this matter, the Chairman having decided that it was of an urgent nature as it was important for the Scrutiny Commission as crime and disorder scrutiny committee for the County Council to be made aware of the content of the draft Police and Crime and Plan and the views of the Police and Crime Panel. This would offer the Commission the opportunity to make comments on the Plan if it wished during the consultation process which ends on 10 March.
At the request of the Chairman, the following officers and members attended the meeting to assist the Commission in its deliberations on this matter:-
Mr J B Rhodes CC, Deputy Leader of the Council
John Sinnott, Chief Executive
Phil Hawkins, Head of Youth Justice and Safer Communities
David Morgan, Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel.
The Commission considered the following documents, copies of which are filed with these minutes:-
The draft Police and Crime Plan;
Letter from the Chief Executive considered by the Police and Crime Panel;
Supplementary report to the Panel on Commissioning;
Comments on the draft Plan submitted by Mr S J Galton CC in his personal capacity;
Comments on the draft Plan submitted by Chief Officers in regard to references to partnership working;
Comments and views of the Police and Crime Panel which had been communicated to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) following the Panel meeting.
The Chief Executive, in his introduction to the Commission, outlined his concerns regarding partnership working to date and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC) apparent intention to determine himself the Strategic Partnership Board’s (SPB) role and structure. He advised members that the SPB, which was set up in the last 12 months, was a merger of the previous Community Safety Programme Board and the Local Criminal Justice Board. It had been chaired by the Chief Constable and comprised leading members and officers of local authorities and relevant agencies and provided a strategic oversight and steer to partnership working.
The SPB had agreed that the PCC, when elected, should be offered the opportunity to chair the SPB. A meeting had been held in December which had been badly organised, with the minutes not recognising agreements reached in regard to partner discussions about the future of the SPB, transitional arrangements for commissioning community safety services and the cancellation of a ‘stakeholder event’ previously arranged for the 15 January. An event, organised by the OPCC, had been held on 15 January, with a structure very close to that of the ‘stakeholder event’, after which the PCC appeared to believe that binding decisions had been taken about the role and structure of the SPB and transitional arrangements for commissioning and funding.
The Chief Executive advised that he believed that the establishment, structure and operation of the SPB, on a basis agreed between partners, was critical to ensure that the existing good partnership working arrangements were maintained and enhanced. He hoped that the OPCC would now take steps to ensure this happened, as had been agreed by the SPB in December but not actioned.
It had been announced by the PCC at the end of the event on 15 January, when some partners had left, that he would allocate the equivalent of 50% of the funding received (by the County Council) in 2012/13 for the first six months of 2013/14 (i.e. until 30 September 2013) as a transition arrangement, although subject to conditions, and that during this period the PCC would evaluate and decide to recommission or decommission services as he chose. Whilst acknowledging the right of the PCC to do this, the Chief Executive was of the view that this short timescale was contrary to sound financial planning and that there had been no consultation with partners. Indeed, the agreement reached at the SPB in December was that 2013/14 was to be regarded as a transitional 12 month period.
The Chief Executive noted that this decision of the PCC, now contained in a supplementary report to the Panel, was contrary to a decision the PCC had communicated previously to the Chairman of the Panel that he was withdrawing all funding from the County Council with effect from 1 April 2013 and would not commission any services from the County Council. The Chief Executive did not believe that the questions to the PCC put in his letter, included with the agenda for the Panel, had yet been answered. The Chief Executive stated that concerns about the approach taken by the PCC and the OPCC were shared by the City Council and District Councils. Recent emails received from Health representatives, following the publication of the draft Police and Crime Plan, indicated that they too shared concerns about the Plan and lack of consultation.
The Chairman then invited David Morgan, in his capacity as Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel, to address the Commission. A copy of the comments made by the Police and Crime Plan, which had already been communicated to the PCC, was tabled. The Commission was advised that the comments submitted had been unanimously agreed by the Panel which comprised members of Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Rutland Council and all seven District Councils. The two independent members of the Panel also supported the comments.
The Panel had asked the PCC to have regard to its comments and those that had been submitted to him by other agencies and report back to it in early March, indicating how he proposed to address the comments received.
The Panel was concerned that the Police and Crime Plan was a key strategic document and it was therefore important that the Plan reflected and recognised the structure, inter-relationships and complexity of partnership working arrangements aimed at reducing crime and disorder in the Force area. It was also important that the Plan could be supported by all partners. Failing to do so would, in the Panel’s view, seriously undermine the existing good working relationships.
The Chairman then invited Phil Hawkins, Head of Youth Justice and Safer Communities, to advise the Commission on current funding received by the County Council which had transferred to the PCC. There had been three main Home Office funding streams (2012/13), as follows:-
(i) Community Safety fund of £312,000;
(ii) Youth Justice Grant (part) of £79,000;
(iii) Drug Intervention Programme, £138,000.
With regard to the Community Safety Fund, this was supplemented by other funding from partners giving a total of approximately £450,000 which was allocated as follows:-
(i) Local Community Safety Partnerships, £98,000;
(ii) Integrated Offender Management, £200,000;
(iii) Twenty:Twenty Mentoring, £66,000;
(iv) Domestic Abuse Outreach, £25,000;
(v) Safe Inside, Safe Outside, £26,000;
(vi) Evaluation, £11,000;
(vii) Children and Young People’s Substance Misuse, £32,000.
The Youth Justice Grant of £79,000 contributed to the funding of two Youth Offending Service Substance Misuse workers who worked to reduce substance misuse in young people at risk of offending and reoffending. The County Council’s Children and Young People’s Service provided a top-up to this funding.
The contribution to the Drugs Intervention Programme, at £138,000, represented approximately 18% of the total pooled budget. If this element of funding were to be removed, it would have a significant impact on staffing levels and service provision with a consequent impact on reoffending and overdose and drug related deaths.
The Deputy Leader of the County Council, Mr J B Rhodes CC, echoed the concerns that had been expressed by officers. He was concerned that the PCC and the OPCC appeared to have a limited understanding of the range and complexity of partnership arrangements. In particular, the proposal for a six month transition period would, in his view, have significant risks and might adversely impact on the on-going sustainability of existing schemes.
At this point the Chairman invited comments and questions from members of the Commission. In the ensuing debate the following key points were made:-
(i) A number of members were aware of local initiatives that were currently being undertaken through partnership working and/or funding and sought assurances that such work would continue. Officers indicated that this would be subject to the review and re-evaluation undertaken by the PCC and the OPCC and it was impossible to provide such assurance.
(ii) With regard to the PCC and the OPCC having a clear understanding of partnership working, it was noted that a considerable amount of work had been undertaken by officers of local councils to map partnership activity and its effectiveness, and information had been provided earlier in 2012 to the OPCC. It was unclear as to how this had been taken into account by the PCC and the OPCC in producing the draft Police and Crime Plan but misunderstandings, errors and omissions suggested that the information had not been adequately assessed and understood.
(iii) A number of schemes were delivered by small voluntary and community groups and members expressed concern that the current uncertainty regarding funding would cause problems for such groups and might undermine their overall financial viability.
(iv) Concern was expressed that statements made by the PCC to the media earlier that morning implied that he might not be willing to change direction. A number of members queried whether such a stance would be contrary to the requirements placed on the PCC to work collaboratively with partners who retain some statutory responsibilities for crime and disorder matters and therefore the PCC could be open to challenge.
It was moved by the Chairman, seconded and carried unanimously:-
(a) That this Commission is extremely concerned at the tone and content of the draft Police and Crime Plan and believes that it needs to be rewritten to reflect the concerns expressed by partners and the Police and Crime Panel;
(b) That the comments made by the Police and Crime Panel to the PCC be strongly supported;
(c) That the matter and concerns now expressed be brought to the attention of the County Council at its next meeting.