Agenda item

The Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel, Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC has been invited to attend for this item.  A presentation will be delivered.

The Commission considered a presentation from the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel which provided details of the activity undertaken by the Panel since the previous report to the Scrutiny Commission.  A copy of the presentation marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

 

In introducing his presentation, Mr Orson advised the Commission that the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) continued to mature.  He felt that it had become less confrontational and had a good relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

 

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

 

    (i)          The PCP’s role was to support and challenge the PCC.  In terms of ensuring that the police force received adequate funding, the PCP had written a letter for the PCC to use as part of his campaign for fairer funding.  No formal response had been received.  The PCP continued to press this issue and used its scrutiny of the performance report to encourage the PCC to find efficiencies.

 

   (ii)          The PCP’s role in the appointment of a new Chief Constable was to hold a confirmation hearing, where it had the power of veto.  However, this power could only be used once and the second candidate chosen by the PCC would have to be accepted.

 

  (iii)          There was a tension between having police officers who were visible in the community and the need for intelligence-led policing to respond to threats such as cyber-crime.  It was agreed that the visibility of police officers improved public confidence and could lead to increases in the reporting of incidents like hate crime.  The role of Police Community Support Officers in increasing public confidence was welcomed, although it was recognised that, as they had less powers than a uniformed police officer, they had been left vulnerable to service reductions.  It was suggested that the PCP should consider a report on rural crime issues in order to assure itself that there was sufficient visibility of police officers in these areas. 

 

 (iv)          Mr Orson considered the PCP’s most successful meeting to have been when the previous PCC had disagreed with Blaby District Council and the County Council over Section 106 monies.  Everyone had performed well at the meeting and the desired outcome had been achieved.  Generally, Mr Orson felt that the PCP was most successful through its ability to highlight issues in a public forum and challenge the PCC when necessary.

 

  (v)          Some members disagreed with the current arrangements as they felt that they had reduced the level of elected member involvement with the police.  However, the Commission was assured that monthly crime statistics were shared with the Community Safety Partnerships.  The next performance report to be considered by the PCP could also be shared with the Commission.

 

 (vi)          Members queried how the PCP assured itself of the effectiveness of work with neighbouring police forces, for example where crime crossed the county border.  It was confirmed that relationships were good and that any concerns could be raised with the PCC through the district council representatives on the PCP.  Mr Orson also undertook to encourage district council representatives to share information with other elected members on the council on a regular basis.

 

(vii)          All Community Safety Partnerships had information relating to Project Darwin, a move towards more locality based policing; however this information, including the geographic areas and number of officers involved in each investigation unit, could also be shared with the Scrutiny Commission.  One of the areas that would be addressed by Project Darwin was the timeliness of police responses.

 

(viii)          It was confirmed that the PCP had questioned the PCC regarding the police response to burglaries, where there was anecdotal evidence that some residents were given a crime number but were not visited by the Police.  The PCP had also considered satisfaction rates and noted with concern that the satisfaction rate was higher for the first call or visit than for any subsequent activity.  This was an area of continued focus for the PCP.

 

 (ix)          As a result of reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, the PCP had scrutinised the PCC on the accuracy of crime recording by Leicestershire police.  The PCP was reassured that the police had taken the matter seriously and had made changes to the way it dealt with crime recording.  It was estimated that 5,820 of the 13,171 additional crimes recorded during the last year could be attributed to improvements in crime recording activity.

 

  (x)          In response to a query regarding the high level of reserves held by the PCC, it was confirmed that some reserves had been invested in new technology at the start of the current financial year.  The PCP would continue to scrutinise the level of reserves.  It was not known whether funding for unfilled posts in the Office of the PCC was reallocated or added to reserves but Mr Orson undertook to find this out and report back to the Commission.

 

 (xi)          The PCC set out his priorities in his Police and Crime Plan 2017-2021.  The role of the PCP including scrutinising his progress in addressing these priorities.  The 101 non-emergency telephone service was one of the current priorities, actions being taken included training to improve the quality of call handling.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)  That the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel be thanked for his presentation and the information now provided;

 

(b)  That the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel be invited to provide an update on the Panel’s work to the Commission in a year’s time;

 

(c)  That the following information be circulated to all members of the Commission:-

                        (i)          The performance report due to be considered by the Police and Crime Panel in July 2018;

                       (ii)          Whether funding for unfilled posts in the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner is reallocated or carried forward;

                      (iii)          The geographic areas and number of officers involved in each investigation unit under Project Darwin.

 

(d)  That the Police and Crime Panel be requested to consider receiving updates on Project Darwin and Rural Crime later in the year;

 

(e)  That the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel be requested to remind Panel Members representing District Councils to disseminate information to their colleagues as appropriate.