Meeting documents

An apology for absence was received from Mike Byatt, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.

Panel members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

§     Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest.

§     Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days).

§     Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable pecuniary interests is set out on the reverse of the form.

There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018 were confirmed and signed.

In respect of the Annual Report, the Chief Executive, OPCC advised that it was due to be finalised shortly and would be circulated to Panel members.

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions

There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

To receive an oral update on recent developments from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

The PCC updated members on the following areas of development, (the PCC’s speech is attached as an Annexure to these minutes):-

Fallout of merger decision

The economic case had showed the merger to be the most effective way to deliver budgets. The 100 police officers for Dorset that the merger would have provided would now not happen.  However, Dorset was not dependent on merger for future stability. The OPCC had budgeted as if it wouldn’t happen and was now exploring many other collaborations i.e. the merger savings had not been included in the Medium Term Financial Plan.  Dorset Police was now hosting the Regional Forensic Collection across the 5 forces in the south west and the Qlik Sense analytical tool was in the process of being adopted.  Talks were ongoing with Hampshire about further collaborations. There had also been various discussions with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue on a number of areas of potential collaboration with the aim to continue to try to save public money and achieve efficiencies.

Alliance

The PCC reassured the Panel that, despite the failure of the Merger, the Alliance was strong and that it would be actively continued. As a result of the collapse of the merger though some adjustments have had to be made.  The merge team had now been disbanded and a decision had been made to not further align any more business areas for the time being. The Force would still have joint Chief Officer meetings fortnightly and other changes to local governance were also highlighted. There was now a clear need to recruit a permanent Chief Constable as the current Chief Constable had been appointed on a temporary basis pending the outcome of the merger.  The post would be advertised shortly, interviews would be held in January 2019 and the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel had been invited, and had accepted, to take part in the process in an observer capacity.

The PCC highlighted that the Force was now operating with 500 less officers which was the lowest number of officers since 1981. He advised that Policing could no longer do everything, and he was considering which services to stop to keep the Police going. However, he assured members that people would be kept safe.

He was awaiting the government’s budget decision in December, but he had lobbied them for more funding.  However, there was an expectation that PCCs should raise the precept to accommodate the huge increase in demand especially in relation to knife crime.

Following a question from the Chairman about the Police pensions issue in the national media, the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC advised that the burden which had previously been held centrally by the Treasury was gradually, over several years, being moved to the local employer.  The costs were sensitive to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) growth forecast, which had reduced at the last valuation having the impact of increasing the required employer contributions. It was believed that the Treasury would partially offset  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

To receive an update of progress against the Police and Crime Plan Q2 2018/19. Each ‘Pillar’ of the Police and Crime Plan will be reviewed in turn, supported through a brief introduction from the PCC and the PCP ‘Pillar Lead’.

·         Pillar 1 – Protecting People at Risk and Harm (Cllr Kerby and Cllr Quayle)

·         Pillar 2 - Working with our Communities (Cllr Iyengar and Cllr Davis)

·         Pillar 3 – Supporting Victims, Witnesses and Reducing Reoffending (Cllr Pipe and Cllr Manuel)

·         Pillar 4 – Transforming for the Future (Iain McVie)

The following documents have been produced to support the discussion.

Annex A –  Finance

The Panel considered a report informing them of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2017-21.  The report provided information on the financial outturn position for Quarter 2 2018/19. 

The PCC highlighted areas of work related to each of the pillar themes.  Members of the Panel, who were leading on each of the themes in the Plan, were also invited to provide updates.

Pillar 1– Protecting People at Risk and Harm – Cllr Andrew Kerby/Cllr Byron Quayle

Cllr Kerby made reference to his scrutiny review of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which he had launched prior to the last meeting of the Panel in September.

A few volunteers had come forward and preliminary reports were good. He was looking to contact external agencies to see what their experiences were.  The PCC welcomed the ‘mystery shopper’ type approach and invited him to contact the Police for further help with examples of those DBS checks that might have slipped through the net.  One member referred to the issue of different organisations wanting separate DBS checks and the PCC highlighted the need for one system to be in place.  However, this had been stopped by the Government as the costs were too high.

Reference was made to the number of recorded hate crime and recorded hate incidents given the report showed that hate crimes had increased by 10% but hate incidents had decreased by 26%.  The PCC advised that there had been a focus on hate crimes and that the recording of incidents had improved. He added that this was one of the areas that the Government wanted to see an increase in reporting and it was encouraging that people were talking about it more and therefore reporting it more. One member felt it was positive to see an increase in the reporting of hate crime.  The PCC expressed concern that disability hate crime was still under-reported and felt that this area needed to be investigated further.

Following some confusion over the rag ratings in the report, the Chief Executive, OPCC highlighted the importance of scrutiny and that this report focussed on the PCC’s objectives as set out in his Plan, rather than the Chief Constable’s performance in this particular area. The report aimed to give the Panel a flavour of where things were and in Dorset they were thankfully talking about relatively low numbers as Dorset remained a safe place to live and work.  It was suggested that a deeper dive into hate crime could be undertaken to provide a better understanding.

Following a comment about knife crime, the PCC confirmed that at present Dorset did not have a charity focusing on knife crime.

Members discussed the stop and search practice and asked the PCC for his view.  He made reference to the 3 different messages to the Police that had been received from 3 different Home Secretaries on stop and search and supported the current view as this did need to be done to keep people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To receive an update report from the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC on the specific issues raised by the Panel, when agreeing the 2018-19 Precept, in order to assess the impact and effect achieved through the application of these funds.

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC which provided an update in relation to the Panel’s endorsement of the 2018/19 council tax increase of £12 per annum for a Band D property in order for members to assess the impact and effect achieved thought the application of these funds.

Members asked the following questions:-

1. (Para 2.2) - Whilst acknowledging that these events maybe being co-ordinated at the national level:

o   What action is being taken at the local level in order to assure the Dorset tax payer that the raise in precept 18/19, and the proposed 19/20 rise, meets the 2018 Central Govt directive on:

                                          i.    Improved efficiency and increased productivity, making better use of the money held?

                                         ii.    Smarter Procurement?

                                        iii.    Improving productivity?

The PCC advised that he had tried to address all 3 areas and was working hard to secure smarter procurement. There was a move to a demand model locally in policing.

2. (Para 2.3) - What changes are being proposed for the Reserves Strategy?

The draft Reserves Strategy has been updated with only minor presentational changes plus the inclusion of an additional table to show the analysis of reserves as required by the Home Office guidance.  No significant changes are being proposed and the Policy Statement is unchanged from 2018.  The final Reserves Strategy and an updated budget risk assessment will be part of the budget papers presented in February 2019.

3. In terms of the other bullet points contained in the ‘2018/19 precept letter’ from the Panel to the PCC:

-  What specific action has been taken on:

a.    Alliance savings continue to be under considerable scrutiny. However, it is fair to acknowledge that we are in limbo between decisions having been made on the basis of progressing with a merger, and waiting for the next Alliance Exec Board where those decisions can be reviewed in light of the current position.

For example, members received a presentation at the June meeting that highlighted the interaction between the alliance and merger programmes – and noted that the four corporations sole had determined which elements of the Alliance programme should continue as planned, which should be paused, and which should be moved into the merger programme (pending future decisions).

Post merger decision, those have yet to be formally reviewed.

At the same time, Dorset has taken the decision to remove some alliance savings from the current MTFS – namely criminal justice, victims/witnesses, estates and contact management and communications, given the likelihood of those savings being realised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

To consider a report from the Chief Executive, OPCC.

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Executive, OPCC which provided an update on complaints management following the Home Office’s recent confirmation that anticipated reforms to the complaints system would be delayed.

One member highlighted that in respect of Model A – Mandatory, the Panel needed to be aware that this was highly likely to result in more complaints against the PCC.

To date the draft regulations had been sent to the Chief Constable’s but as yet no guidance had been given.

Following a question about super complaints, the Director of Operations, OPCC noted that the Chief Constable and PCC would be informed if one was received.  Although the PCP would not be part of this process members would be updated on the process.  The PCC suggested the Panel could appoint a Pillar Lead for complaints.

Resolved

1. That the OPCC would provide a further update for members when a final decision was made about the local implementation of the Alliance Customer Service Team.

2. That the Panel would consider a formal Panel Lead for complaints.

To consider the Work Programme for the Panel.

The Panel considered its Work Programme and noted the items to be considered for their next meeting on Friday 1 February 2019.

The Group Manager, Governance and Assurance advised members that work was ongoing to try to realign some of the dates for meetings next year to be more in line with quarterly reporting.

Members were reminded of the Training Day scheduled for 7 December 2018 and noted that a draft agenda would be available shortly.

Resolved

That the work programme be updated accordingly.

To receive an update from the Chairman of the Panel of any non-criminal complaints that have been received by the Panel in respect of the PCC.

The Group Manager – Governance and Assurance advised members that no new complaints about the PCC had been received.  However, one further complaint relating to a previous topic, the ‘Lush: paid to lie campaign’ had been received, which was being dealt with by the Monitoring Officer, OPCC.

Noted

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Thursday 8 November 2018.

There were no questions by members of the Panel.