Meeting documents

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 safe. He referred to the high number of black people that had been subject to stop and search in Dorset and advised that a report on this was due to be completed in January 2019.

 

One member asked for an indication if any of the searches had been unlawful in the recent review that had taken place. The PCC advised that there was a large report which had been drafted but he needed to get the Police to respond before circulating it further.  He made reference to the Stop and Search scrutiny panel which had been reshaped considerably this year and was content for Panel leads to attend and observe.

 

Following a comment about the partnership working in the Multi Area Safeguarding Hub (MASH) being criticised, the PCC advised that all agencies had been criticised, apart from the Police.  He had recently been talking to colleagues in local authorities and that in respect of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) the focus was on being safe and legal by April 2019 but to look to improve safety and vulnerability in August 2019.

 

With regard to the effectiveness of the PCC’s blog on county lines, the PCC advised that thousands had read it and he had received a good number of responses.  The purpose of the blog was to raise awareness with partners.

 

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

 

Cllr Iyengar was concerned that the articulation shown in the rag ratings might not give the whole picture. The Group Manager, Governance and Assurance noted that the Panel had been working closely with the OPCC on the format of the quarterly reports and it was about getting the balance right to support effective scrutiny.  As there was an ongoing and active role for the Panel in getting this right. more detail, understanding and reflections on this could be included at the Training day on 7 December 2018. 

 

Cllr Iyengar made reference to the summer Drink Drive campaign and felt that the name and shame effect had been a positive deterrent.  The PCC advised that this was a Police operational campaign and that he had challenged them about this.  The challenge was initiated by reports to the OPCC that public exposure of Drink Drive offenders could lead to difficulties for those involved, particularly if those individuals were already managing poor mental health. There had to be a robust risk assessment around this as there was a very delicate balance to be sought.  One member was pleased to hear that people were risk assessed before their name was made public and the PCC undertook to take this back to the Police and his Head of Media.  As some members were in favour of the name and shame process and others expressed caution, Cllr Iyengar welcomed a Panel discussion on this in order to come to a collective view.

 

The PCC confirmed that the national guidance stated that if someone had been charged they could be named.

 

In respect of Neighbourhood Policing engagement contract timings, the Director of Operations, OPCC advised that a self-assessment was being produced and was due to be signed off by the end of the year, the OPCC would have sight of this in January 2019.

 

Cllr Iyengar felt that with regards to his Pillar ‘working with our communities’, in order to keep the idea of the pillars going there was a need to look to sharpen them up to ensure clear segmentation of the issues.  It was agreed to look at this as part of the training session in December.

 

Following a question about the Business Crime Strategy, the Chief Executive, OPCC advised that work had been ongoing to try to align this with Devon and Cornwall, but it had now been decided that this objective would no longer be pursued.

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

 

Cllr Pipe made reference to the staff recruited for the Complainant Advocate Project and highlighted the problem of the double/triple booking of court rooms, especially in Weymouth.  The PCC advised that there had been a significant improvement in this area and undertook to report back to members about performance in Bournemouth as Weymouth had now improved.

 

Following a comment about victim satisfaction and whether there were any particular issues in this area, the PCC advised that the data came from surveys carried out with a number of victims.  This was an ongoing challenge but with a constant focus there had been some improvement.

 

In response to a question about tagging of criminals, the PCC advised that there were 2 types of tagging and that Government tagging been contentious for several years. This commitment was red in the report as he wanted to expand the tagging of offenders in Dorset and as yet the new tags had not yet been procured.

 

In respect of the Restorative Dorset event scheduled for 22 November 2018, the Director of Operations, OPCC confirmed this event was to celebrate the hub and there would be speakers from the Police and several other agencies. Further details would be circulated to Cllr Pipe outside of the meeting.

 

Pillar 4 – Transforming for the Future – Iain McVie

 

Iain McVie advised members he was due to attend a meeting in January which would be looking at spotlight scrutiny on court schemes and he also highlighted the PCC’s funding of £263k for the Weymouth CCTV regeneration programme.  Mr McVie felt the contact he had with Jason Mumford at the OPCC alerted him to any significant changes to the ratings within his pillar.

 

Cllr Russell made reference to a 101 meeting (Customer Service Improvement Panel) he had attended in October where a good presentation had been received along with a useful update on neighbourhood engagement.

 

Members asked the following questions and received the attached responses:-

 

1. Can the Chief Finance Officer for the OPCC set out the detail of the disposals (capital receipts) that have taken longer than assumed and the reasons for the delay?  and also outline the impact of these delays on the capital programme?

 

The delay related to 2 disposals: The former Christchurch Police station and Wimborne Police station.  Both are complex in terms of working with multiple parties and subject to the planning process which has added to the time taken to achieve completion of sales.  Christchurch has required a supplemental agreement (to be signed by 5 parties) to allow a replacement planning application.  In the case of Wimborne the sale is being progressed jointly with Dorset County Council who are the freeholder (Dorset Police are the leaseholder) and the sale is subject to planning with the potential purchases seeking pre-application discussions with the Council prior to entering into the contract for sale.

 

The impact of the delays has had the effect of reducing the forecast year-end balance on the Capital Receipts reserve (although it should be remembered that the assets are still held on the Balance Sheet i.e. there is no loss value as a consequence of delay – liquidity is affected which in turn impacts on the ability to spend the receipt for other capital spend). Offsetting the impact of delayed receipts is a forecast that capital expenditure in 2018/19 will be lower than budgeted.

 

In summary the slippage in the timing of receipts is partially offset by slippage in expenditure.

 

2. From the analysis of the revenue budget it can be established that the Chief Constable is forecasting to spend £1.1m more than budgeted on overheads in 2018/19.

-          Is it possible to obtain a more complete understanding as to the nature of these costs and why they are predicted to be 17.6% (£5M) higher than the original budget?

 

Taking the question on the change from the Original Budget first – there has been an adjustment of £4m increase to the Overhead expenditure budget which is equally matched by an increase to the income budget. This relates to an alignment of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) budget to the financial accounting format which requires the grant to be shown as income as opposed to being netted off expenditure. This has arisen because both the annual accounts and the budget is now prepared by the Alliance Finance Team.

 

In relation to the £1.1m variance this is spread across a number of areas and in part is a reflection of some of the underspending in staffing costs.  For example there is an increased use of the IT managed service contract as a result of difficult to fill vacancies in the IT department, and there are high regional collaboration costs as we continue to develop working in partnership.   The Resource Control Board is monitoring the detailed variations in overheads.

 

3. Recognising that the Chief Constable has briefed the Panel on police overtime before, can the Police and Crime Commissioner provide an update on the changes that have been implemented in-year to reduce Police Officer overtime?

 

The changes are, of course, all operational and therefore not necessarily a matter for me. From a governance perspective there are two boards where police use of overtime is scrutinised – firstly the People Board, attended by my Chief Executive, receives quarterly performance data on the workforce that highlights any exceptions. More importantly though the Resource Control Board, chaired by the Chief and attended by my Treasurer and I, receive a more detailed overview of overtime, with respect to the use of allocated budgets.

 

Following on from my recent PCC challenge into overtime, and the ongoing pressures on budgets, both the Chief and I continue to keep a close watch to ensure the changes implemented throughout the force have embedded and are having the desired effect.  The Chair also requested that Occupational Health be taken into consideration across the Force by the PCC due to the overtime burden.

 

Resolved

1. That the rag ratings in the report be explored further at the Panel’s training day scheduled for 7 December 2018.

2. That the PCC would look again at the hate crime/incidents figures.3. That the Panel would have a discussion on naming and shaming, in respect of drink driving offences, in order to come to a collective view.

4. That the PCC would report to members about the booking of court rooms in Bournemouth as Weymouth had significantly improved.

5. That further details of the Restorative Dorset event on 22 November 2018 be sent to Cllr Pipe.