Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an update on delivery of the 2025-29 Police and Crime Plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           Members welcomed the table at paragraph 8 of the report which set out progress against the different areas of the Police and Crime Plan. The PCC explained that the metrics were regularly reviewed at Police and Crime Plan delivery meetings and annual reviews of the metrics would also take place. If any metrics were not moving in a positive direction action would be taken. Future reports to the Panel would include the outcomes of the delivery meetings and the proposed next steps with regards to those metrics. Members requested that when the table was presented to the Panel in future it included more context around the metrics and a comparison with other Force areas. In response it was explained that some of the metrics were collected by all Forces nationally and were therefore marked on the table with ‘CSEW’ and comparison data could be provided for those, but other metrics were only used for the Leicestershire Force area therefore comparison data would not be available. A member requested that the table include not just the percentage of change for each metric, but also the numbers because if the numbers were small a large percentage increase could be misleading. The PCC acknowledged this request but explained that the purpose of the metrics was monitoring the impact of the Police and Crime Plan and it was the percentage of change the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) was focusing on. It was explained that it would be difficult to bring the detailed figures to every single Panel meeting, however, if a detailed report was requested by the Panel on any of the metrics, all the figures would be provided in that report. The Chair suggested that any outlying metrics could be scrutinised in more detail at future meetings.

(ii)         It was suggested by a member that as the metric for ‘incidences of shoplifting’ had increased from 7.6 to 8 this metric should have been rag rated as red not green. In response it was explained that it may depend on whether the increase was considered to be statistically significant and it was agreed that the Director of Performance and Governance at the OPCC would come to the next meeting and give an explanation.

(iii)        The Chair noted that the data relating to two metrics in the table at paragraph 8 had been redacted – ‘Staff satisfaction for Force’ and ‘Abstractions from Neighbourhood Policing’, and all the Panel could establish from the table was that performance against these metrics was not moving in a positive direction. The Chair raised concerns that this made it difficult for the Panel to hold the PCC to account on these topics, and it was emphasised that these particular metrics were important given public concerns about trust in the Police. In response the PCC assured the Panel that he was holding the Chief Constable to account with regards to these two metrics but he acknowledged the Panel’s difficulties if the data could not be published. The PCC said he would ask the Acting Chief Constable if the Force would consider publishing the data.

(iv)       The OPCC was carrying out a project designed to deter shoplifting and tackle assaults against retail workers and increase feelings of safety within the business community. This involved funding and providing over 110 Body Worn Video cameras across the Community Safety Partnerships and Business Improvement Districts. The localities were Ashby de la Zouch, Leicester, Oadby and Wigston, Loughborough, Hinckley and Melton. After 2 years the OPCC would no longer fund the cameras and the retailers themselves would have to decide whether they wanted to fund the cameras themselves. In response to a suggestion from the Chair that the use of body work cameras by some retail staff could be pushing retail crime to other retailers that did not use the cameras, the PCC acknowledged that this was a possibility but stated that he was not aware of any data regarding this and emphasised that if it was the case, this was not a reason to stop providing the cameras. A member expressed disappointment that national retailers had a policy of not using the cameras. The OPCC was monitoring the impact of the cameras on crime and how the retailers felt about them and a report could be brought to a future meeting of the Panel regarding this.

(v)         In response to a concern raised by a member that the Police would not investigate thefts of property worth less than £200, the PCC provided assurance that this was not a policy of Leicestershire Police and all thefts would be investigated no matter how small the value. The PCC stated that if the evidence was available the file would be taken to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. However, it was acknowledged that more resource may be allocated by Leicestershire Police to thefts of a larger value.

(vi)       Underspend from the 2024/25 Community Safety Partnerships budget, had been used to fund a move to a new partnership shared Anti-social Behaviour case management system known as ECINS. In response to a request from a member, the PCC agreed to provide a report on the system at a future meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the update on delivery of the 2025-29 Police and Crime Plan be noted.