Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) relating to crime prevention activity. The report had been provided in response to a letter from the Chairman of the Panel seeking clarification on a number of issues, which had been addressed within the report. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 17’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)        Panel members questioned what measurable reduction in policing demand had been achieved as a result of investment in prevention activity and when demonstrable outcomes would be expected. In response, the PCC stated that it was inherently difficult to evidence crimes that had been prevented or to directly attribute reductions in demand to specific interventions. He advised that performance was instead assessed through trend analysis, including reductions in certain categories of crime. He stated that outcomes were often influenced by a combination of partnership activity rather than any single intervention.

(ii)       With regards to whether further reporting would be provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of prevention initiatives, the PCC confirmed that it would be possible to provide the Panel with a further report but that producing such a detailed analysis would require additional time and resource within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC). He also highlighted that there was typically a lag before preventative activity translated into measurable outcomes. It was noted that an existing performance framework, which indicated that a number of crime types had reduced, was presented alongside the PCC’s Police and Crime Plan Delivery Update to the Panel on a quarterly basis.

(iii)      Members raised significant concerns regarding reports that funding for a proposal to create security patrols in town centres across Leicestershire and Rutland was to be directed towards private security firms rather than frontline policing. Questions were asked as to why such funding would not be used to increase police or PCSO presence, particularly given concerns around powers of enforcement and overall value for money. In response, the PCC stated that no final decision had been made and that the proposal remained a work in progress. He provided assurances that discussions were ongoing with the Chief Constable regarding a police-led approach, with the private sector being considered only as a potential fallback option. He further clarified that funding would be drawn from the Crime Prevention Fund, rather than the core policing budget.

(iv)      Members sought clarification on the role and effectiveness of private security personnel, particularly in relation to their lack of enforcement powers and reliance on police intervention. Concerns were expressed that such an approach may increase demand on police resources rather than reduce it. In response, the PCC emphasised that the intention of any proposal was to increase visible presence and deter crime, rather than to replicate policing functions. He maintained that no final delivery model had been agreed and that options remained under consideration.

(v)       A member of the Panel challenged an assertion within the report that there had been limited appetite from local authority partners, highlighting ongoing public sector-led initiatives and partnership working within Leicester and other areas. Clarification was sought on which local authorities had been consulted and at what level. The PCC acknowledged the positive work being undertaken by local authorities, particularly within Leicester City, but noted that the current proposal was focused on market towns and remained under development.

(vi)      Members expressed concern regarding inconsistencies between media reporting and statements made by the PCC within the meeting. The Panel were in agreement that proposals appeared to have been communicated publicly prior to being scrutinised by the Panel. In response, the PCC reiterated that media reporting did not always accurately reflect the position and confirmed again that no final decisions had been taken.

(vii)    The Panel questioned whether the proposed approach represented best value for money, particularly in the context of ongoing financial pressures within policing. The Panel were in agreement that investment in officers with enforcement powers would provide greater benefit and public confidence. The PCC responded that value for money would be a key consideration and that no decisions would be taken without assessing the most effective use of available resources.

(viii)   Members of the Panel raised strong concerns regarding the level of scrutiny applied to the proposal to date and the absence of a clearly presented evidence base, including research, comparative models and a defined business case. It was emphasised that the Panel expected to review such information prior to any significant expenditure being committed. The PCC confirmed that research had been undertaken, including consideration of models used in other areas, and indicated that further detail could be made available.

(ix)      The Panel remained concerned and sought assurance that the Panel would have the opportunity to scrutinise proposals prior to implementation. In response, the PCC confirmed that no final decision had been made and that discussions with the Temporary Chief Constable were ongoing, although he did not commit to granting the Panel the opportunity to provide pre-decision scrutiny on the matter.

(x)       A member of the Panel reiterated their concerns regarding the proposed use of crime prevention funding, particularly in relation to non-police personnel, governance arrangements and the need for greater clarity and transparency. The Panel emphasised the importance of robust evidence, clear communication, and appropriate scrutiny before any final decision was made.

It was moved by Cllr. E. Cutkelvin and seconded by Cllr. L. Phillimore:

“That the Panel remain concerned around potential plans for the PCC’s office regarding proposals to spend £2m from the Crime Prevention Fund on security industry authority licensed contractors. The Panel ask that ahead of any decision being made, it be presented with evidence of research undertaken and what it indicates, along with the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals in full, in a disclosable format.”.

The motion was put and carried, 10 members voting for, and none against.