Meeting documents

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Ann Stribley (Borough of Poole).

Councillors 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 any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

The two Independent members advised the Panel that for the item on the agenda relating to the Appointment of Co-opted Independent Members they would leave the meeting.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2015 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2015 were confirmed and signed.

Matters Arising

Minute 71.2, 71.4 and 71.9 – Progress against the Police and Crime Plan (Quarter 2)

Following a question from the Chairman about the improvement in the confidence in the data that was provided, the Chief Constable advised that the capturing of the repeat victimisation data was not quite satisfied and there remained a caveat on all documents but advised that this would be removed by the end of this quarter.

The Panel champion for mental health advised he was still awaiting a response with regards to mental health training and the Chief Executive to the OPCC undertook to follow this up.

In relation to cyclists, cycle paths and enforcement members were advised that a new protocol would be published shortly.

 (a)       Public Speaking

            (b)       Petitions

Public Speaking

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

Mr Patrick Canavan addressed members of the Panel in accordance with Standing Order 21(2) in relation to the item the Appointment of Co-opted Independent Members. He felt that the paper failed to consider other options that were available to the Panel in this regard.  He also felt that the suggested timetable failed to take into account the election in May where any new PCC might wish to review the structure of the Panel or to increase the number of co-opted members. He added that members might wish to completely change the way in which members of the public could become involved in decision making and scrutiny.  Mr Canavan’s statement invited members of the Panel not to take any steps which would restrict any new PCC from making adjustments to the existing arrangements.

The Chairman thanked Mr Canavan for his statement.  He advised that the purpose of the Panel was to act as the formal scrutiny mechanism for the PCC and therefore it was not for the PCC to determine either the structure of the Panel or those representatives who were appointed to serve upon it.  The statutory role of the Panel was established in legislation, as set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Schedule 6 – Part 2 (Paragraph 4 membership and status) of these regulations and set out the specific representation requirements that local authorities must meet when formulating a Panel.  He concluded that although brief reference to the forthcoming PCC election was included in the timetable this was for information only and had no direct impact or influence on the duty to ensure that the panel was properly constituted.

Petitions         

There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.

To receive a verbal update on the revised Complaints Protocol from the Chief Executive, Dorset County Council.

Members’ attention was drawn to a letter from the Home Office regarding the public consultation on proposals for Police and Crime Commissioners complaints and asked members to forward any comments they wished to make on the three specific areas to the Clerk by Thursday 11 February 2016 when a formulated response would be prepared and sent.

In respect of a revised Complaints Protocol members were advised that this would be ready for members to consider at their meeting on 10 June 2016.

Noted

To consider a report by the Chief Executive, Dorset County Council (attached).

(Independent Members - Mike Short and Iain McVie left the meeting for this item)

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Executive, Dorset County Council, which outlined the options for the recruitment of co-opted independent members of the Police and Crime Panel, including the possible establishment of a Selection Panel to shortlist and interview candidates.   

Following a question from a member from the Borough of Poole about further options that might be available the Chief Executive, Dorset County Council, advised that the regulations stated a minimum of 2 independent members should be appointed and that to appoint further members would require a revision to the constitution of the Panel.  One member from Bournemouth Borough Council noted that at present the Panel had 2 very qualified and skilled independent members and that in some instances quality was better than quantity.

In response to a comment about the number of members on the Panel, the Group Manager Governance and Assurance, Dorset County Council, advised that at present the agreed membership was for 15 local authority members and for 2 independent co-opted members. The report for consideration by the Panel at its meeting today was to specifically address the legislative requirement for the Panels membership to include 2 independent co-opted members as their current terms of office would expire in May 2016.  Any changes to the structure of the governance would need to be looked at in line with the structure of the Panel and he undertook to produce a follow up paper to explore further options to the Panel’s next meeting in June, following the PCC election.

Resolved

1.         That the current term of the two Co-opted Independent members be extended for a further 4 years.

2.         That a further report would be presented to the Panel at its meeting in June setting out the options available to the Police and Crime Panel.

Reason for Decision

1.         To ensure that the Panel had the appropriate balance of skills, knowledge and experience and its constitution met the legislative requirements.

To consider a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner (attached). 

Members of the Panel are asked to review and make a report and recommendation (as necessary) to the Commissioner on the proposed precept.

The Panel considered a report by the Treasurer to the Police and Crime Commissioner which set out the proposed 2016-17 precept for the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset.

The Treasurer advised members that the provisional settlement had been received and noted that the final settlement was not expected until after the notification to the Panel of the PCC’s proposed precept but there was no indication that the funding position would change.

The Commissioner set the financial context by highlighting the changes in formula funding and the cost pressures facing the Police in 2016/17.  He also shared with member’s feedback from the public consultation on the precept proposals which showed 82% in favour of an increase.  He also advised members of the Panel that future increases would be necessary, in order to maintain policing services.  He also highlighted that there was no freeze grant available for 2016-17 and that when the provisional financial settlement announcement had been made the Home Secretary had written to confirm her view that in order to protect police funding there was an expectation of a rise in the precept, to protect policing budgets.

The Commissioner addressed members prior to taking any questions and his opening address is attached as an Annexure to these minutes.

Members of the Panel asked the following questions to the Police and Crime Commissioner, who responded accordingly:

1)      Bearing in mind that before any consideration of the impact of the proposed 1.97% precept increase, Police Officer numbers have reduced by 4% (1,221 down to 1,177 – section 4.5 of Appendix 2), can the Commissioner explain why there has been this reduction in numbers and what has happened to the 2015/16 base budget funding for these posts.

In order to meet the budget constraints in 2016/17 significant savings have already been achieved - over £6m.  Whilst fully appreciating the Government’s approach to protecting police funding, there has still been a reduction in central grant, an increase in National Insurance, pay and price inflation and reductions in specific grant funding.  Every effort has been made to mitigate this reduction.  However there has still been a net reduction of 44 posts.  This reduction relates to two specific areas.

Firstly, to posts funded through the Dedicated Security Post Grant. We are still awaiting notification of the grant for 2016-17 but we are expecting this to reduce by around £1m. We have therefore made a corresponding reduction in officer numbers of 22. The reduced grant may be phased over a number of years or be of a different scale to our expectations, in which case our assumption of 22 officers will need to be adjusted. The loss in officer numbers will be made through re-deployment and an adjustment to recruitment numbers.

The second element is due to savings arising from the Strategic Alliance with Devon and Cornwall Police. Business cases due to be implemented by the end of 2016-17  show efficiency savings of around 70 officer posts across the two forces and the Dorset  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner (attached). 

Members of the Panel are asked to review the performance of the Police and Crime Commissioner against objectives in the Police and Crime Plan.

The Panel considered a report by the PCC which informed members of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2013 – 17 for Quarter 3. The PCC highlighted elements of performance against the Plan during this quarter. 

The PCC provided commentary for members on a few key areas of activity and highlighted the priorities in the Plan.  In respect of the Local Innovation Fund, the Vice Chairman noted that only £67k had so far been spent.  The Treasurer advised that the majority of costs e.g. the funding for the Victims Bureau had not yet been recharged to that budget line. It was noted that the HMIC Peel report provided some helpful answers and he undertook to circulate it to members of the Panel.

Following a comment from the member from Christchurch Borough Council about the reduction in the rate of positive outcomes, the Chief Constable advised that the number of crimes had increased by around 14% and they were showing a positive percentage increase although there had been a reduction in the trend of anti social behaviour.

The Vice Chairman asked if there was a timeline in relation to the business cases for the Strategic Alliance work that was ongoing.  The Chief Executive to the OPCC confirmed that everything had a timeline associated with it and projects were all mapped out. He highlighted the statutory consultation period in relation to staff changes and undertook to circulate timeline information to members of the Panel.

In respect of rural crime the Chairman highlighted that 39% of people were concerned for their safety, the Chef Constable advised that this was not evidence based but anecdotal.  No issues regarding lighting had been highlighted and she noted that some rural communities felt they didn’t see a police presence as was seen in urban areas.  She accepted that the visibility of policing had an impact on the public’s perception of safety.

One of the Independent member’s drew members’ attention to the issue of port security which the PCC had highlighted as a key concern and asked if there was anything the Panel could do to support him in this regard. The PCC noted that any help would be gratefully received, he had not received any response to the two letters he had previously sent and his primary concern was about the Border Force which he would again be writing about the following week, and undertook to send a copy to the Chairman of this Panel.

The member from North Dorset District Council congratulated the PCC on his success in the dramatic reduction of detainees held under the Mental Health Act. The PCC advised that street triage was now in place in 30 out of 41 Police Forces and that access to NHS records and Care plans was key to assisting the Police in dealing with mental health issues.

Following on from this the Mental Health Champion for the Panel highlighted the mental health implications of prisoners not being able to be sent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive the work programme for the Dorset Police and Crime Panel (attached).

The Panel considered and agreed its Work Programme for 2016.

            Members were reminded of the dates for future meetings as follows:

2016

·          Thursday 12 May -  Informal briefing session for members

·          Friday 10 June 2016

·          Thursday 8 September 2016

·          Tuesday 8 November 2016

·          Thursday 8 December 2016 – training session for all members

            Noted

To answer any questions, within the Panel’s Terms of Reference, from members of the Panel, received in writing by the Chief Executive, Dorset County Council by not later than 10.00am on Monday 1 February 2016.

No questions were asked by members of the Panel.