Name

Minute Number and Item

Reason

Interest

Councillor Mathews

44 - Consideration of the Police and Crime Commissioner's proposed level of Precept for 2017-18

In receipt of a pension and a widower’s pension from Devon and Cornwall Police

Personal

Question by Mr Gareth Derrick

As a Panel you reviewed a draft Police and Crime Plan at your previous meeting on 12th December. At that meeting the Panel agreed that a further draft should be brought to today’s meeting, that was to have addressed concerns raised by the Panel for their further consideration today. Yet without further open scrutiny by this Panel, and to the surprise of its Members, the Commissioner launched her Plan in the media on Thursday 26th January. Do Panel members consider that due process has been followed? 

Response by Councillor Croad (Chair)

The Panel have undertaken their obligations in line with Section 28 of the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011 Para. 3 (a)(b) having made recommendations to the Police and Crime Commissioner on a draft plan.  The Commissioner is required to have due regard to those recommendations. 

With regard to the Police and Crime Plan the Panel is a statutory consultee and does not have powers to formally sign off the Plan.

Question by Mr Gareth Derrick

The Commissioner has often stated that the she knows (through her public consultation) that PCSOs are highly valued by the public, operating as they do at the front-line of community relations. Are members of the Panel content that the Police and Crime Plan based around an as yet undefined Local Policing Promise but mirrored by a significant reduction by the Chief Constable of PCSO presence on the streets is robust in its ambition to reconnect Policing with our communities?

Response by Councillor Croad (Chair)

This is a matter for members of their Panel to consider during their scrutiny of the revised Police and Crime Plan and the finance report.

Question by Mr Gareth Derrick

At your last meeting, Councillor Saltern declared an interest (understood to be financial in nature but yet to be clarified) relating to consultancy services he provides to the Commissioner. Do the Panel consider it appropriate for a Member of this scrutiny Panel to have been engaged by the Commissioner in this way and /or for Councillor Saltern to continue as a Member?

Response by Councillor Croad (Chair)

All members are aware of the requirement of conformity with the Seven Principles of Public Life. One of these is the principle of integrity – that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.

Councillor Saltern has declared a Personal Interest in relation to unpaid consultancy work undertaken for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. 

(a)

the PCC was investigating the possibility of opening a number of police stations, manned by volunteers;

(b)

the style of crime was changing, and the traditional approaches to policing also needed to change;

(c)

it was acknowledged that whilst PCSOs were at the forefront of dealing with crime (prevention, community intelligence etc), assets were needed to conduct the complex investigations which followed;

(d)

a ‘postcode lottery’ existed in rural areas in terms of ‘keeping people safe’ in high risk matters.  In 2010 approximately 80% of 999 calls were responded to within the target time of 20 minutes.  In 2017 this figure was approximately 80% in Plymouth and Exeter, however this figure was 45% in rural areas;

(e)

policing was a Crown Service, and it was the responsibility of the Chief Constable to configure the workforce to the best of his ability;

(f)

the Chief Constable was fully aware of the importance of protecting communities within the peninsula, and acknowledged that he had lost, and would continue to lose, police and police staff if the current level of PCSOs remained the same;

(g)

the Police and Crime Bill (due to receive Royal Assent in the near future) could enable the delegation of powers to Community Wardens;

(h)

an improvement in the budget could result in the mitigation of the impact of this Plan on PCSOs;

(i)

the Chief Constable acknowledged that he was faced with making difficult decisions surrounding the future of PCSOs, recognised the dangers involved, and would not implement any changes without the full consultation of local communities;

(j)

a wide range of people were keeping the residents of the peninsula safe, and it was acknowledged that in some areas a PCSO was the only face of policing;

(k)

the PCC reiterated that the intention of the Plan was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

(a)

the proposed reduction in PCSO numbers was confirmed as194;

(b)

the OPCC only had a one year position on grants from the Government, and the position for the remaining three years was an ‘educated guess’;

(c)

this budget tried to maximise the use of reserves, and spending plans could be adjusted as necessary; 

(d)

money was earmarked in the reserves to deal with any large-scale or unplanned incidents, however in these cases the Home Office could assist with extra finance if required;

(e)

the recent High Court decision on the use of Regulation A19 (which requiredpolice officers with more than 30 years pensionable service to retire), having ruled that the use did not amount to age discrimination, had eased pressure on reserves.

The Panel agreed -

(1)

unanimously the proposal to increase the precept by 1.99% (15 members present out of 20);

(2)

to note the budget.

(a)

Dr Jacki Tapley (Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth)  had been commissioned to write the report in order that care and services for victims could be improved;

(b)

the report was very positive, and had been commissioned to provide the learning points and recommendations around police officer awareness and skills around victim care;

(c)

work was now under way between the OPCC, Devon & Cornwall Police and the Victim Care Network to implement the full range of recommendations contained within the report to ensure that victim services and victim care in Devon and Cornwall remain the best in the UK.

In response to questions, the Panel were advised that -

(d)

the PCC had commissioned a range of work to investigate looking across the whole of the witness and victim experience of the wider criminal justice system;

(e)

the service that had been delivered before the creation of the Victim Care Unit had been extremely uneven, and in some parts of the Force area this had been provided by PCSOs, without the knowledge and ability to pass through victims to where specialist and generic services could be provided;

(f)

Devon & Cornwall had a very strong Victim Care Network with 82 organisations able to offer a range of support that victims could choose from;

(g)

the PCC aimed to look at the Victim’s Strategy (with the Chief Constable) by September and aimed to introduce the online ‘Track my Crime’ service by the end of the year;

(h)

the service was being re-launched both within the Police Force and externally to highlight the work they do and the support offered.

(a)

the performance for the 101 service continued to be strong, with average waiting times of three minutes, with 90% of these calls being transferred within 10 minutes;

(b)

the 101 service would be part of a discussion between the PCC and the Chief Constable with service standards to be set as part of the connectivity plan.  More information would be provided in due course;

(c)

the OPCC and Chief Constable acknowledged the fragility of the service, but hoped that the performance of the service would continue to be strong.

In response to questions, the Panel were advised that -

(d)

the service standards would cover all forms of contact with the Force;

(e)

no statistics were available for e-mail contact, although anecdotal feedback was good, with response times between 24-48 hours;

(f)

more comprehensive statistics for waiting times would be provided at the next meeting.

(a)

this was the last time that the OPCC would present against the previous plan measures;

(b)

there was little to report since the last report provided in December 2016;

(c)

there would be a new baseline in the new plan for measuring performance.

(a)

the OPCC were in the process of submitting bids for Violence Against Women and Girls Transformation Fund that was available from the Government, working with partners to produce three bids;

(b)

the full implications of the Police and Crime Bill would be known by the next meeting;

(c)

the OPCC and Chief Constable had been successful in three bids – including a national bid to support the transformation of the policing response to modern slavery and a proposed pilot for a Delayed Charge and Diversion Scheme.  Funding had also been made available for shared Command, Control and Public Contact with Dorset;

(d)

the OPCC welcomed the creation of a Care Offender Hub.

In response to questions, the Panel were advised that -

(e)

a number of the roles (for the modern slavery initiative) are not location specific;

(f)

the PCC was responsible for spending the Modern Slavery money, and the Chief Constable was responsible for the delivery;

(g)

the Chief Constable was the national lead for Modern Slavery (for Chief Constables);

(h)

the Delayed Charge and Diversion Scheme was currently being trialled by Durham Constabulary and positive results had been seen.