Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an update on progress with delivery of the Police and Crime Plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 6’, is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)           The PCC explained that his original Police and Crime Plan covered a 4 year period, but as his term of office had been reduced to 3 years due to the Covid-19 pandemic, he had one year less to implement the Plan, and some aspects of the Plan required more than 3 years to come to fruition.

 

(ii)         The PCC emphasised the value of the role played by Special Constables and stated that public awareness of their value needed to be increased.

 

(iii)        Reported crime for January 2024 compared to January 2023 had seen the following reductions:

·              Harborough and Wigston down 3.7%;

·              City Centre down 7.1%;

·              East Leicester down 6%;

·              Hinckley and Blaby down 3%;

·              Charnwood down 5.4%;

·              Melton and Rutland down 10%;

·              West Leicester down 7%.

 

(iv)       The PCC paid tribute to all the work that was taking place in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland to reduce crime, particularly violent crime, and he praised the impact of the Violence Reduction Network.

 

(v)         In response to a query about differences in crime levels across the different areas of LLR the PCC provided reassurance that trends were monitored and the data was used to hold the Chief Constable to account. CSPs were provided with detailed figures for crime in their areas.

 

(vi)       Rural crime had previously been an issue in the Force area and Leicestershire Police had received some criticism from rural businesses with regards to how it was handled. However, work had taken place to tackle the issue. There was now more confidence to report crime in rural areas, and actual incidents of rural crime had reduced.

 

(vii)      In response to a question from a Panel member, the PCC stated that he supported the work of Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) and he spent a lot of time engaging with them. The CSP funding formula had changed a year previously and the PCC was waiting to see the results of this before making any further changes. In the view of the PCC, further change and clarity was required with CSP funding but this would have to wait until after the PCC elections in May 2024. Panel members thanked the PCC for revising the funding formula for CSPs and for taking their concerns onboard.

 

(viii)    A member raised concerns about how onerous the process for reporting crimes online was, particularly all the personal information that was requested that was not specifically relevant to the crime/incident that was being reported. The member asked what the abandonment rate for online reporting was. In response the PCC explained that there were regulations that covered crime reporting and some of the information collected was mandatory whilst some of it was down to local discretion, however he agreed to look into the matter further and provide a report to a future meeting of the Panel on the topic including the abandonment rate.

 

(ix)       Leicestershire Police had uplifted its Taser training, and Tasers would be available for every officer who wanted to carry one and who had successfully completed the training. The PCC had also committed to equipping all Special Constables who were willing and able to do so to carry Tasers as long as they had passed the training.

 

(x)         A member expressed disappointment that Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) were trained to use speed guns but could not issue a Fixed Penalty Notice as a result of the speed measurement they had taken. In response the PCC explained that this was an operational decision that had been taken by the Chief Constable and the PCC held the Chief Constable to account for the results rather than the way the results were achieved. It was further explained that the role of the PCSO was different to that of a Police Officer in that PCSOs engaged with communities and listened to local concerns about speeding in an area and ascertained if there was an issue. Then further action could be taken by the Force. The College of Policing was reviewing the role of PCSOs.

 

(xi)       In summer 2023 the PCC had commissioned an independent large scale public survey to gain the views of residents across LLR and understand the expectations and views of policing across LLR. In response to a request, it was agreed that the findings of the survey would be circulated to members after the meeting.

 

(xii)      A member welcomed the strategic objectives set out in the appendix to the report though asked for more detail on why some of the objectives were RAG rated amber and some were green. The member raised concerns that the RAG rating by itself gave insufficient assurance that progress was being made. In response it was explained that the RAG rating reflected progress at that current point in time and for some of the objectives, plans were in place to deliver the objectives but the plans had not been implemented yet. It was agreed that future reports would contain more detail on the reason for the RAG rating.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

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

 

(b)        That the PCC be requested to provide a report for a future meeting of the Panel regarding the online method of reporting crimes.