Meeting documents

To receive an update of progress against the Police and Crime Plan Q3 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 documents to support the discussion:

Annex A – Drink/Drug related arrests at Road Traffic Collisions

Annex B – Finance Update (to follow)

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 3 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

Councillor Andrew Kerby advised the Panel that he had been invited to a meeting in relation to the Disclosure and Barring System (DBS) and that he was currently in the process of writing his report.  He explained that a completed DBS form was initially sent to the DBS office in Liverpool and thereafter forwarded to DBS offices in other parts of the country for any previous address listed on the form.  If the post involved dealing with vulnerable people then an enhanced check would be conducted. There had previously been an issue with the DBS checking turnaround times, however, this had reduced to 1.62 days in November 2018 from 17.97 days in June 2018 demonstrating improved efficiency in this area.

He had been provided details of the work of the Dorset DBS team and had been assured that his key areas of focus on safeguarding and turnaround times were being met and that the team were doing a good job. 

Members asked about the requirement for Councillors to have more than one DBS check for each organisation and the Panel was informed that this could be avoided by using the online service and also that moving to the Dorset Council would require a single check.

The Chairman asked the PCC what direction he was giving to the Chief Constable to reduce the overstretch of police resources, in particular with regard to mental health related incidents.

The PCC advised that there was a good protocol in place with the mental health crisis teams that could receive people under Section 136 from the Police. Hahnemann House in Bournemouth was receiving 40 people a day on average, a third of which were taken there by police officers and this had an impact on resources by reducing the amount of police time.  A second retreat was currently being built in Dorchester that would include an "airlock" of two doors to enter the premises and an anti-room for any form of disturbance or violent behaviour.

General welfare issues, however, were becoming more prevalent and the PCC was in discussion with the fire service concerning sharing of resources in this area of work.  Attendance by the fire service at non-injury Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs) had been discussed at the previous Panel meeting, however, fire officers were not currently empowered to undertake breath tests following RTAs.

The Chairman asked the PCC about the steps he was taking to bring in other agencies to relieve the strain on police resources.

The PCC advised that discussions concerning multi agency approaches were being explored including sharing of premises, but liaison had been slightly less productive so far in respect of the South Western Ambulance service.

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

The PCC advised that there was a delay in the statistical information in relation to problem solving due to the process required when a person highlighted a confidential issue directly to the PCC.

The PCC was asked whether there would be a designated intelligence officer for the rural crime team.

The PCC stated that the Chief Constable anticipated having separate analysts for both rural and marine crime which was now being better reported.

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

The PCC was asked about the Women's Diversionary Support Scheme, an initiative that had been implemented in Bristol and Hampshire.

The PCC advised that there was a gap in the restorative justice approach in respect of female offenders and this programme sought to find suitable diversionary routes for them.

Councillor Bill Pipe advised that he had attended a meeting at the Winfrith Headquarters in December 2018 with Councillor Barbara Manuel to discuss new ideas with senior management.  These included expanding the restorative justice meetings between victims and perpetrators and a better understanding of the complainant advocate project. The result of the latter would not been known until an assessment of its effectiveness had been undertaken during a 2-3 month pilot that would be the reported to the Panel in Summer 2019.

In response to questions in relation to Victim's Champions arrangements, the Panel was advised that the existing Victim's Champion was shortly due to leave the post and that the Victim's Bureau Manager would take over this role, in addition to the PCC's caseworker who also played a Champion type role. A victim's lawyer pilot scheme would be arranged if it became in the PCC's remit to deliver this provision.

It was also reported that work was progressing in identifying a Collingwood Wing to be converted for military veterans and a charity had been identified to work with these prisoners.

Further to a discussion in relation to tagging of high risk offenders pre-charge, the PCC stated that he would be willing to reinvigorate this topic with the Justice Secretary.  Previous lobbying by the PCC to attempt a change in the law had not proved successful despite the support of senior police officers.

Councillor Barbara Manuel noted that Pillar 3 had proved to be the most difficult to progress due to the need for change in legislation and resources.  Although progress had been slow, these factors had been beyond the control of the PCC and she was pleased that part of the increase in the precept would be used for those areas that currently had a Red RAG status.

The PCC explained that he had wanted to make the most difference with this Pillar, however, this was an area where the most partnership working was involved and at a time when the community rehabilitation contract was failing.

Pillar 4 – Transforming for the Future – Iain McVie

The PCC advised that the only Red RAG status for this Pillar in respect of the total establishment would be amber by the next Panel meeting.

The Chairman asked about the use of spit guards and was advised that the PCC had supported the operational decision of the Chief Constable and funded their use at a cost of £5k.  However, the PCC considered the national approach used to provide the evidence base for issuing spit guards overall had been poor.

Iain McVie reported on the Pillar 4 scrutiny meeting that looked at how the OPCC managed the activity that the PCC was seeking to achieve.  He was embarking on a scrutiny review of court remote enabled access for witnesses and others.  His aim was to complete this during the course of the next 2 months and he review would not only scrutinise, but also provide some support to the recent work of the PCC in this area where appropriate.

The PCC sought the Panel's support in respect of pre-charge bail limits as it had become apparent that Dorset was using bail limits that were less than the average in England and Wales and invited the Panel to take part in a deep dive in this area. Iain McVie advised that he would give consideration of some key lines of enquiry (KLOEs) for this scrutiny which could take place in a similar timeframe as the scrutiny of court remote enable access.

Iain McVie asked how the PCC could ensure value for money for Dorset residents in respect of the remote service for the Regional Organised Crime Unit (ROCU) funded by the five PCCs on a pro rata basis and whether there was a danger that regional funding would always be diverted to the larger areas, such as Bristol.

The PCC responded that Dorset had full access to performance data and outcomes of police forces and that Dorset's portion of the funding of 12% had provided value for money.

Further to his scrutiny of body worn video (BWV), Iain McVie highlighted that it had been difficult to provide that provision to Special Constables.  However, he asked whether this would now be considered alongside its rollout to Poole Forum members.

The PCC advised that provision of BWV to Special Constables and Poole Forum members was part of phase 3 of the project and that costs were currently being investigated.  Decisions in relation to spit guards and BWV could be taken by individual Chief Constables rather than nationally.

The Panel considered the Quarter 3 finance update attached as an annex to the Monitoring Report and was informed that the budget would be in balance by the end of the financial year.

The Chairman asked about the 4% overspend in relation to overheads and was informed that the variances were spread across a range of expenditure types and could be due to over pessimism in the forecasts. Forecasting against the outturn was currently being reviewed and an explanation would be provided in the next financial outturn report.

The Chairman asked how the Revenue Support Fund was used and was advised that this had been created in 2018-19 to align with the Devon & Cornwall Police Force and smooth the impact of the ongoing funding reduction.

Noted