Meeting documents

To receive an update of progress against the Police and Crime Plan Q3 2017/18. 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 documents to support the discussion.

Annex A – Information on knife crime in relation to Domestic Abuse (Pillar 1)

Annex B – Road Safety Activity and Digitisation of Speed Cameras (Pillar 2)

Annex C – Problem Solving Forum (Pillar 2)

Annex D – Commissioning and Grants (Pillar 2)

Annex E – Alliance Customer Service Team (complaints update) (Pillar 4)

Annex F – Firearms Licensing Update (Pillar 4)

Annex G – Budget Monitoring Report (Pillar 4)

Annex H – Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) Visit – Pillar Lead  briefing (Pillar 3)

The Panel considered a report which informed members of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2017-21 in order to enable members to scrutinise activity and the achievement of outcomes.  The quarterly monitoring report also provided further information on the progress with the Strategic Alliance work, road safety activity and digitisation of speed cameras and a follow-up on the Firearms Licencing Review, following on from the Spotlight Scrutiny review undertaken by members and reported to the panel in June 2017.  The report also included an Alliance Customer Service Team (complaints) update.

Members also considered a briefing note from Cllr Barbara Manuel and Cllr Bill Pipe, in their roles as pillar 2 leads for supporting victims, witnesses and reducing reoffending, following a visit to ‘The Shores’ Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) in Bournemouth.

The PCC highlighted areas of work under each of the pillar themes whilst Members of the PCP who were Leads/Champions for each of the ‘Pillar Themes’ in the PCC’s plan were invited to present their updates.

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

The PCC expressed concern about Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) disclosures.   He felt there was a need to ensure appropriate and early disclosure with public service individuals and he was due to meet with local MPs to discuss this further.

He advised members he was in the process of creating a suicide prevention plan for the County and noted that there was already a water plan in place for the County.

The Chair sought views from the PCC on the use of Taser in a Mental Health environment.  The PCC advised that the way Taser was used had changed in the last couple of years, but in a Mental Health environment it was very challenging. He stated that a working group had been created to look at this issue.

ii)                Pillar 2- Working with our Communities – Cllr Bernie Davis / Cllr Mohan Iyengar

The PCC advised they were still looking at fly-tipping but that the next topic for a forum would be business crime and rural policing.

In respect of traffic road safety, it was noted that the website looked very different and was now maintained 365 days a year and giving regular information for members of the public.  The PCC confirmed he was still pushing new initiatives and that it was work in progress.  He added that if additional resources materialised through the digitisation of speed cameras, it would be utilised specifically on road safety with the aim of reducing accidents.

In respect of business and rural crime and policing and future ‘problem solving forums’, it was suggested that a forward plan be prepared with themes as appropriate to aid discussions and help communities to plan and problem solve at the appropriate time. Cllr Iyengar and Cllr Davis undertook to take this forward, discuss with members and the PCC and then bring back to the Panel.

iii)              Pillar 3 - Supporting Victims, Witnesses and reducing Reoffending – Cllr Barbara Manuel / Cllr Bill Pipe

The PCC highlighted his pilot victim’s advocate scheme.  He made reference to stop and search which was very contentious, but highlighted the 40% increase in knife crime in Dorset which reflected the same nationally. Policing in Dorset had to change due to government changes and a new knife crime strategy was due to be published shortly.

Cllr Smith had recently joined the 101 Customer Service Panel and had found the meeting very useful.  The PCC explained that other scrutiny Panels were starting to build nicely and were highlighted, the PCC invited members to observe scrutiny panel meetings.

Cllr Manuel reflected on her and Cllr Pipe’s visit to ‘The Shores’ and were very impressed with the care and thoroughness of referrals. Their only query was there appeared to be no follow up given to feedback.  They planned to visit other areas and report back.  The PCC advised that Victims’ Commissioner, Helen Newlove,  was due to visit the County shortly and was keen to meet with some victims and hear their experiences. He undertook to let members know the date.

Following a question about the possibility of another Shores project in Dorset, the PCC advised that there was not a requirement for another, they were commissioned by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and were geographically based.  The PCC remained eager to identify appropriate locations for centres such as these.

iv)              Pillar 4 - Transforming for the Future – Iain McVie

The PCC highlighted drones and bodyworn cameras and noted that Dorset Police were leading in digital ways of working.

In respect of complaints these were dip sampled by members of the public and officers were waiting for further legislation on this.  A new complaints model was awaited in respect of appeals as at present trained observers only checked the process and not the subject. With regards to the process there would be a separation when the complaint came for review and it would not be somebody employed by the Force making the review. The Chief Executive, OPCC advised that this was something that the government was asking PCC’s to undertake and they would be following direction from them.

In respect of firearms licensing, the PCC highlighted 2 issues, staff recruitment and a national debate between the National Police Chiefs Council and the British Medical Association in relation to charging to undertake a medical report on fitness to hold a firearms certificate.  This was as yet unresolved and was work in progress.  The PCC agreed to confirm the ‘financial gap’ between the income derived from Firearms licences and the costs of the service. The PCC also agreed to follow-up on any lobbying activity to create the National Licensing System and any proposed increase in fees to reduce the financial gap.

Following a conversation regarding the 101 Customer Service Panel, it was noted that whilst there was good work being done there were no routine measures in place to assess caller satisfaction.  The PCC advised that he was looking at ways to achieve this making reference to text, skype and webchats.

The Chairman welcomed the budget monitoring section of the report and the improvements in financial reporting.  He highlighted Page 95 para 3.6 of the report, which stated that the ACOs controls in supplies and services had seen a reduction in forecast this month.  Since November 2017  the revised plan had increased by circa £1m, the forecast had leaped from £3.72m to £5.12m and the projected overspend was now £1.32m.  He requested some clarity at the next meeting on this issue.  The Chair also questioned why the minimum revenue provision charge for 2017/18 only now, for the first time, was reflected in the accounts.  The Chief Finance Officer explained that when the budget was set for 2017/18 the minimum revenue charge was not planned for and when the accounts were closed at 2016/17 there was a £2.2m increase in the capital financing requirement, therefore a revision to the budget was required.

Noted