Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on performance for quarter 4. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

The Panel welcomed Deputy Chief Constable Roger Bannister to the meeting for this item.

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

(i)            Since the report had been written there had been further technical problems with the 101 telephone service and these were being taken very seriously by the Force.

(ii)          Whilst no formal target had been set for the time it took the Force to respond to Emergency Calls there was an aspirational target for Emergency Calls to be responded to within 15 minutes.  Incidents which could potentially have an impact on roads and traffic were prioritised. In response to a question from a Member it was confirmed that the chart on page 14 of the report did show that response times for Emergency Calls were getting longer. This was believed to be due to a number of reasons such as the reduction in Police Officers, the use of regional colleagues for traffic policing and armed incidents, and increased traffic volumes. In response to a question from a Member regarding the language problems of some people making calls to the Police and whether those that did not speak English as a first language got a longer response time the PCC offered to provide information on this to Panel members before the next meeting.

(iii)         In response to a question from a Member the PCC stated that he was not completely satisfied with the performance of call handling by the Force and had particular concerns regarding the 101 phoneline. The PCC stated that he attended monthly performance meetings with the Force which were chaired by the Deputy Chief Constable and at those meetings he asked questions and scrutinised progress with the 101 service. The PCC emphasised however that the performance of the 101 phoneline service had to be viewed in the context of the reduced amount of funding that the Force received.

(iv)         Clarification was given that the offence of malicious communications could involve the sending of abusive or threatening messages online or the sharing of indecent photographs.

(v)          In response to questions from Members regarding whether there were any targets for sickness levels amongst police staff it was noted that the Performance Delivery Group looked at the data and there were metrics in place. Members further questioned the PCC on what he was doing to improve sickness levels and the impact Project Edison had on the amount of staff suffering from stress. It was agreed that the PCC would obtain further information from the Force regarding how sickness levels were tackled and provide it to Panel Members.

(vi)         The Chairman noted that the report made no reference to knife crime and that there had been some recent high profile knife crime incidents in Leicestershire. In response the PCC submitted that knife crime in Leicestershire should be viewed in the wider context that knife crime was going up nationally and he stated that a large amount of work was going on in Leicestershire in order to tackle knife crime including early intervention with schools and using sporting organisations to promote the issue. Consideration would also be given by the Force to working with retailers, trading standards and test purchasers to look at who knives were being sold to. There was also an initiative entitled ‘Lives Not Knives’ which worked with the families of victims of knife crime. The PCC offered to submit a paper to a future meeting of the Panel on knife crime.

A Member requested that stakeholder meetings take place in individual council wards to brief on knife crime issues in those localities. Deputy Chief Constable Bannister agreed to this request. The Chairman asked that the stakeholder meetings take place after the report on knife crime had been considered by the Panel.

(vii)        In response to a question from a Member regarding whether crimes such as rape and domestic violence were increasing or whether levels had stayed the same but reporting of those crimes had increased the PCC stated that it was not possible to be certain which it was and it could be both. The PCC urged caution with regard to crime figures and stated that he was of the view that there was a lot of crime which went unreported. It was emphasised however that there was anecdotal evidence that victims now found it easier to report crime than previously. The example of hate crime was given where victims could now report it via third parties rather than directly to the Police.

(viii)      It was noted that rape offences increased around the September/October period of each year and this might have a connection with Freshers’ Week at the universities. The PCC acknowledged that more work could be done to liaise with universities on crimes that may occur during Freshers’ Week but pointed out that Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) had a role to play as well particularly in Charnwood and Leicester City where the largest universities were located. The approach of the Crown Prosecution Service had changed with regard to rape offences and they were more prepared to prosecute without witnesses or CCTV evidence and the lawyers they allocated to rape cases were specially trained in the subject.

(ix)         In answer to a question it was clarified that some Child Grooming related offences were included in the figures in the report under the rape and buggery categories.

(x)          A Member asked if in future performance reports the Hate Crime figures could be broken down into whether the offence related to race, sex, disability etc and the PCC agreed that this was possible.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the contents of the report be noted;

(b)       That a report on knife crime in Leicestershire be submitted to the next meeting of the Panel.