The Panel will use a select committee style approach to scrutinise how the Police and Crime Commissioner is strengthening relationships and showing leadership in Partnership Working.

In preparation for the scrutiny, and in order to set the scene, the Community Safety and Partnerships Manager submitted and presented a report which –

Adopting a select-committee style approach, the panel then questioned at length the Police and Crime Commissioner and members of his senior management team, the responses to which were summarised as follows –

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner acknowledged the importance of partnership working and had an officer within his team committed to this role and to developing these, and other, relationships further;

·        key partnership relationships included Criminal Justice Boards, Community Safety Partnerships, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Safeguarding Boards, however, in addition to key partnerships, the Police and Crime Commissioner and his team actively engaged with a vast number of informal partnerships/voluntary and community organisations;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner had received an award from CoPaCC for public engagement;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner was keen to link in with other commissioning arrangements as well as devolved funding arrangements to Community Safety Partnerships and Restorative Justice via the Community Safety Partnerships;

·        the new Victim Code and EU Directive for Victims was driving the Police and Crime Commissioner’s victim commissioning arrangements from 2015;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner had concerns that some national funding streams (Victim and Witness Fund) were ending and was doing everything he could to influence the Home Office and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to maintain those funds in order that the services could continue in Devon and Cornwall;

·        there was a gap in terms of S136 (Detention of Mentally Ill Adults and Juveniles in police custody).  A National Crisis Care Concordat had now been published and a S136 Protocol had been signed up to by 17 agencies – this placed some clear duties and expectations on partners for when a person should be taken to a place of safety which is not a police station;

·        The Police and Crime Commissioner was concerned that in respect of Health & Wellbeing Boards there was still not a good join-up with community safety agenda issues, including mental health and the alcohol agenda.  He was also of the view that Plymouth’s Health and Wellbeing Board was heading in the ‘right direction’ so he needed to focus his attention elsewhere, as a ‘compliment’ to Plymouth.  That was why he regularly sent a representative to Plymouth’s Health and Wellbeing Board rather than attend in person;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner had persistently tried to ensure that Community Safety was embedded in the plans for Health and Wellbeing Boards and that community safety was given more prominence in their strategies.  He had also been trying to improve Health & Wellbeing Boards’ engagement with the public;

·        the Police Service already had an element of volunteering in a structured way, for example Special Constables and Police Cadets.  However, a more fit-for- purpose approach to volunteering/citizens in policing needed revitalising and this was now a ‘6^th priority’.  A pilot existed in East Cornwall looking at how a model of volunteering could be improved.  There was a need to build a new ‘relationship’ and ‘mind-set’ within the Police for working with volunteers and this was mentioned in the Police and Crime Plan, although work was still in its infancy;

·        the Chief Constable was the ACPO lead for Police Cadets which were a good news story in respect of volunteering.  The Police and Crime Commissioner was not aware of the Chief Constable’s view on the current programme of volunteering and whether it was fit for purpose.  However, the Police and Crime Commissioner was keen to get the Chief Constable to see volunteering beyond the traditional way;

·        the Police hadn’t entirely withdrawn their commitment to Neighbourhood Watch.  It worked better in some areas than others and was lacking structure, some hardware and an effective community messaging system.  The Neighbourhood Watch IT system had recently been upgraded.  If membership numbers had reduced significantly, the community and police needed to look at this together.  With regard to the issue raised in Plymouth, the Police and Crime Commissioner be happy to discuss the matter with Chief Superintendent Andy Boulting to verify what support was being provided but the community as a whole needed to look at this;

·        Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) were a provision that the Police and Crime Commissioner supported.  However, they were supported differently in each area.  From April 2015 Public Health England (PHE) would be the lead commissioner in respect of the medical care; the Police and Crime Commissioner would ensure funds were available for forensic examinations.  There were currently three SARCs across Devon and Cornwall catering for both acute and historic cases.  PHE was about to publish some ‘user specifications’ for SARCs nationally.  Different strands of funding would pay for the different aspects of support and care and the national drive was determining who was paying for what.  The Police and Crime Commissioner needed to review the cost of meeting the new PHE user requirements as each centre may need to become a 24/7, 365 days a year provision for adult and paediatric services and could therefore become more expensive.  The issue in respect of Plymouth paediatrics provision was not a lack of funding or a commissioning issue but was due to a lack of facilities and individuals with the appropriate qualifications to provide a service for children in Plymouth.  The Exeter service had been expanded to take paediatric referrals from Plymouth for the remainder of this financial year.  However, it was acknowledged that it was more important to have a facility closer to users’ homes and the Police and Crime Commissioner was still talking to commissioners about how that gap can be closed in the new financial year. PHE and the Police and Crime Commissioner would offer another 12 months’ contract to service providers to continue existing arrangements whilst the new PHE arrangements were being developed;

·        the Police and Crime Commisioner had been closely observing the new Probation arrangements and transition and was aware of the risks and the mitigation of any risks.  It was his view that the MoJ had been keeping Police and Crime Commissioners at ‘arms-length’ from the process and contract arrangements although he had managed to obtain a position on a number of related boards. Working Links had been confirmed as the CRC provider for the Devon, Cornwall and Dorset package area.  The resettlement arrangements for prisoners on short term sentences would be via Exeter and those on longer term licenses would go through HMP Channing’s Wood in Newton Abbot.  There was an opportunity for Community Safety Partnerships to be involved in contract management.  Performance measures needed to be established and, in particular, how reoffending was measured needed to be carefully considered.  The Police and Crime Commissioner already had a meeting arranged with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Rehabilitation Services Contract Management Deputy Director (Midlands and the South West) to talk about how such scrutiny arrangements could be built locally so that local agencies could engage in the holding to account process.  The Police and Crime Commissioner would like confidence that the relationship between Community Safety Partnerships and the new Probation arrangements was going to work if resourcing of Community Safety Partnerships was under pressure;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner was concerned whether Community Safety Partnerships were the correct bodies to hold Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service to account given that both were ‘statutory’ members of Community Safety Partnership as part of the new Probation arrangements and that Community Safety Partnership partner organisations were not remitted to scrutinise each other.    The Police and Crime Commissioner suggested that he himself or the LCJB could be appropriate scrutiny bodies but also recognised that local authority Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Panels, who have a statutory responsibility to scrutinise the work of Community Safety Partnerships, could play a part and undertake this role (although unless it also became a statutory responsibility, this would only take place if they so wished to undertake the work);

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner was also concerned that data sharing issues in respect of victims still existed.  It was a challenging problem which would not be solved overnight.  In terms of victims’ care, the Police and Crime Commissioner was leading the way along with Cambridge.  Police compliance with the Victims Code was still being reviewed although improvements would likely be made through the new Victims Services commissioning and ‘victims consent’ to their information being shared and by minimising victims not getting the care they need.  All the activity was being carried out jointly between the Police and OPCC in order to meet the ‘victim’s code’ requirements as well as the EU directive;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner was of the view that resources must be transferred from reaction to prevention.  This was currently being exercised through Community Safety Partnerships, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), and other partners working closely with the Police.  However, financially, this was challenging.  The Police and Crime Commissioner was concerned that neighbourhood policing could ‘wither on the vine’ in favour of more reactive policing demands.  It was important to define what neighbourhood policing was, what the resources were for it and how it could be protected so that prevention resource was protected.  At the next panel meeting the Police and Crime Commissioner would provide details on how he intended to ‘transform’ policing to cope with future demands;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner was considering a more business based budgetary mechanism to address new and emerging threats and the resources needed to address them.  There were two new threats, the first being cybercrime, where ‘capability’ locally was very low, and the second being  child sexual exploitation, which was complex, however the Chief Constable was looking at best practice across the UK in terms of historic child sexual exploitation and it would potentially be included in the new Police and Crime Plan.  Other priorities were determined through the Community Safety Partnership Peninsula Strategic Assessment.  The views of the public were listened to whenever possible but it was challenging balancing what the public wanted against what could be afforded and police professional judgement in relation to how the force area should be policed is complex.  The public view is that they would like action taken in relation to parking and speeding issues, the inefficiency of the 101 number and local/neighbourhood policing interface and visibility to the public;

·        a review was being undertaken in relation to what individual victims of crime can do to prevent re-victimisation.  As part of the new Victim’s Code, in respect of businesses, they were entitled to the same care and consideration as individual victims.  A survey of Devon & Cornwall Business Council had been undertaken to understand what crimes were being committed in relation to businesses, how much was reported and what businesses need in terms of support;

·        one of the main considerations for efficiencies/collaborative working was the potential strategic alliance with Dorset which had nearly 30 projects working within it.  There were significant cultural similarities and differences to work within.  The Police and Crime Commissioner were looking at innovative ways for income generation for policing, but this work was not at a sufficient stage to be fully shared as yet.  However, it included different uses of the estate, more support financially and in-kind from local businesses and ways in which offenders could be pursued for costs through the criminal justice system, particularly when they were responsible for injuries to police officers who subsequently lost duty time.  The Police and Crime Commissioner would continue to have local discussions regarding options for collaboration;

·        in relation to offenders with mental health issues, Devon and Cornwall had just been awarded substantial funding to assist with liaison and diversion in police custody, looking at arrested individuals for a substantial criminal offence rather than being taken to the police station because they were not mentally well.  However, it was acknowledged that the two issues could be closely linked.  There were too many people entering the criminal justice system with mental health issues who were being criminalised when what was needed was actually a care requirement, which the liaison and diversion scheme assisted with.  Also the ‘Street Triage’ schemes in Plymouth, Devon and Torbay were working well to support police with assessing offenders’ medical needs and the best course of action.  Although this still needed evaluating, it was helping to reduce detention of people with mental health issues, speeding up access into the right services and supporting people threatening to self-harm.  The funding for ‘street triage’ ended in March 2015 but the Police and Crime Commissioner was working with partners to extend this valuable service.  A new S136 Review had just been published by the Home Office providing valuable new advice, especially in relation to the holding of children in custody;

·        there was no contribution currently towards CCTV provision from either the Police and Crime Commissioner or the Police and other blue light services who benefited hugely from it;

·        in terms of more effective policing provision –

o   for the first time in policing in the Devon and Cornwall area, a substantial team of volunteers was working out of the Victim Care Unit alongside Police staff, carrying out complementary roles as an integrated tea;

o   there would be roll-out of an additional 20 ‘speed-watch schemes’ across Devon and Cornwall;

o   a review had been funded on the effectiveness and integration of the Special Constabulary, considering its expansion and better use within the wider policing family.  The outcome of the review will be reported to the Police and Crime Commissioner in January 2015;

o   one of the OPCC’s managers was dedicated full-time to reviewing the internal use of volunteers.  It would be ensured, that if they were not already linked in with ‘Community Builders‘, they would be in future;

·        the alcohol agenda was very sizeable, A large proportion of the programme was still at an early stage establishing local and national relationships.  Plymouth had a particularly good Alcohol Policy and the Police and Crime Commissioner was the national PCC lead on the alcohol agenda across the 43 police force areas.  Examples of the programme included –

o   the ‘breathalysing pilot’, which was recently launched in Torbay to address pre-loading and other issues, and there had been good ‘buy-in’ from the industry;

o   the Police and Crime Commissioner had established a national lobbying platform and had taken these issues to 16 of the 18 MPs in the policing area.  He had also met with the Policing Minister, who he found to be supportive of his work and recommended a meeting with the Minister for Crime Prevention, which would take place in 2015;

o   working with Cornwall Council to look at key messages to target 18-25 year olds.  40% of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s small grants scheme was targeted at alcohol related issues;

o   in respect of data collection, in the Police and Crime Plan, to date, there hasn’t been the mechanism to relate crime to alcohol, but such a mechanism is being established for 2015/16 in order for the data collected to be more evidence based;

o   the Police and Crime Commissioner had met and was establishing relationships with the supermarkets, and was trying to engage with them to talk about the issues. Whilst some supermarkets were engaging, many are not, meaning there was a very substantial ‘fighting fund’ from the industry to oppose any change to alcohol legislation;

o   the Police and Crime Commissioner was also a member of the Criminal Justice Council for the UK and he was going to meet with all the licensing organisations locally in the New Year to see if there was something more that could be done with them to act, without the fear of being taken to court by the industry fighting fund;

·        the Police and Crime Commissioner advised he was trying to work with and support licensees via the Best Bar None and Purple Flag schemes as part of his strategy;

·        in response to the A&E data collection issue, the Police and Crime Commissioner had funded the roll out of some of the Assault Related Injuries Database (ARID) databases to improve data linkages.