Meeting documents

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 November 2015 including the Confirmation Hearing for the Deputy PCC

The Minutes of the two Meetings held on 27 November 2015 were agreed as a correct record subject to recording Cllr Burke’s apologies.

Anyone who works or lives in the Thames Valley can ask a question at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel, at which a 20 minute session will be designated for hearing from the public.

If you’d like to participate, please read the Public Question Time Scheme and submit your questions by email to contact@thamesvalleypcp.org.uk at least three working days in advance of the meeting.

http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/article/5242/Public-questions-at-Panel-meetings

There were no public questions.

Nathan March (South Bucks District Council), Julien Alison (Oxford City Council) and Clyde Masson (Reading Borough Council) Licensing Managers will be attending for this item.

The purpose of this item is to look at standardisation of taxi licensing across the Thames Valley and how partners can work together to ensure that the public can travel as safely as possible.

http://www.local.gov.uk/publications/-/journal_content/56/10180/7111867/PUBLICATION

Nathan March (South Bucks and Chiltern District Council), Julian Alison (Oxford City Council) and Clyde Masson (Reading Borough Council) Licensing Managers attended for this item.  The purpose of this item is to look at standardisation of taxi licensing across the Thames Valley and how partners can work together to ensure that the public can travel as safely as possible.

These main points were covered as part of the presentation:-

·         Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle legislation is primarily concentrated in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The legislation provides a broad framework for the licensing of drivers, vehicles and operators but the detail of how this is done, including standards and conditions, is the responsibility of individual councils.

·         There is also the Deregulation Act 2015 which consolidates and updates the laws governing both taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs). Section 10 of the Bill extends the standard duration of a taxi or PHV licence to three years to reduce paperwork. Section 11 allows minicab firms to subcontract bookings to firms licensed in a different district which could be a concern on the public protection/enforcement side.

·         The difference between a taxi and PHV is that a PHV unlike a taxi cannot ply for hire or wait on ranks, which means all journeys must be pre-booked in advance through a licensed operator. It is an offence for PHVs to pick up passengers from any location unless pre-booked.

·         Local Authority core functions include setting the local framework, considering licence applications and undertaking inspection and enforcement activities.

A series of questions were then asked by Members with the following responses:-

Regulation

·         If there is an incident driver conduct can be investigated. There are regular checks and policies and procedures in place which are constantly reviewed and also looked at by Scrutiny Committees. Policies take into account safeguarding issues.

·         The majority of the trade have high standards but there is a small percentage which the Council keeps under review.

·         Councillors are fully trained – no councillor should be permitted to sit on a Licensing Committee without having been formally trained.

·         A Licensing Authority must not grant a taxi or PHV driver’s licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.

·         A Council may only take action against a vehicle or driver that it has licensed which means that there is nothing a council can do if a vehicle or driver licenced elsewhere is operating in their area (unless officers have delegated powers from other Councils to enforce those drivers/vehicles). That is why the issue of cross border hiring is perhaps the most acute problem facing many Councils today.

·         For example a driver applied to a council for a licence only to be refused after the police presented concerns to the Licensing Committee; the driver then applied to the neighbouring council, who had the same information but chose to licence the driver. The driver now operates in the area of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Dr Louis Lee, Chairman of the Joint Independent Audit Committee will attend to present his report.

Members received the Annual Assurance Report from the Chairman of the Joint Independent Audit Committee, Dr Louis Lee. The JIAC is a key component of the PCC and Chief Constable’s arrangements for corporate governance and provides an independent and high level focus on the audit, assurance and reporting arrangements that underpin good governance and financial standards. This is the Committee’s third Annual Report.

Dr Louis Lee presented the report which highlighted the following:-

·         The JIAC has to date been operating since its formation in March 2013 with only three Members, the minimum requirement under legislation. The size of the Committee was increased to five Members in January 2016 to ensure the meeting is quorate should any one Member be unable to attend.

·         The external auditor gave an unqualified audit opinion and value for money conclusion for both the PCC and Chief Constable. TVP were the first local policing body in 2014/15 to have their accounts formally closed and signed off. Members were satisfied that the OPCC and TVP had the necessary capability and capacity to ensure the proper administration of their financial affairs.

·         The Corporate Governance Framework within Thames Valley is operating efficiently and effectively

·         Complaints, Integrity and Ethics Panel – Members of the JIAC can now attend this meeting as observers and are satisfied that the new oversight arrangements are operating effectively in practice.

·         Corporate Risk Management – Members have regular quarterly updates on this area. Some concerns were raised regarding ICT issues and providing information in written reports which have been resolved but Members will continue to retain a close scrutiny of the transformation of ICT systems which are recognised as being business critical.

·         Business continuity management processes are operating efficiently.

·         Internal audit – resources were reallocated to provide assurance on the Shared Infrastructure Platform programme. The Committee has 10 audit days to draw upon for its own specific use. Of the completed 20 audits one has received full assurance, 18 majority assurance and 4 limited assurance.

·         Health and Safety – Compared with other Forces TVP performance was better than average which is good but leaves room for improvement.

·         Equality and Diversity – TVP provides a policing service to diverse communities and efforts are being made to change the composition of the workforce to more accurately reflect the communities that it serves through recruitment and retention initiatives.

·         Inspection and Review – HMIC reports are considered by the PCC at his regular meetings. No reports have been specifically referred to the Audit Committee on assurance on the internal control environment or governance issues.

During discussion the following points were noted:-

·         Cllr Pitts asked whether the Chairman of the JIAC was regularly briefed and how the Work Programme was set. The Chairman is regularly briefed by the Chief Constable and the PCC on the full range of activities and is invited to internal Force meetings and informed about legislative, policy or operational initiatives that are relevant to the Committee’s remit. He also has private meetings with the internal auditor. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Chairman Iain McCracken

As in previous years, the Thames Valley Police & Crime Panel formed a Budget Task & Finish Group to assist in discharging its statutory duty to scrutinise the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Thames Valley’s proposed council tax precept for 2016/17. Cllr McCracken, the Chairman of the Budget Task and Finish Group presented the report. He thanked Ian Thompson and Linda Waters for attending the Group and updating Members on the PCC’s draft budget proposals and also Members of the Group for their work. A recommendation had been put forward which was debated during the next item as follows:-

1. That the Panel approve the Police and Crime Commissioner’s precept for 2016/17 as set out in the OPCC report ‘Revenue Estimates 2016/17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2019/20’ subject to satisfactory responses to the questions raised at Appendix B of the report and any other supplementary questions asked at the Budget Task and Finish Group on 26 January and the Panel meeting on 29 January 2016.
2. That the Panel add, if necessary, its support to the PCC’s representations to the Home Secretary with regards to the setting of the revised Funding Formula.

Attached is the Revenue Estimates 2016/17 and the Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/16 to 2019/20 for consideration.

For information on the Medium Term Capital Plan 2016/16, the Reserves, Balances and Provisions and PCC Financial Strategy please see supplement pack.

http://sbdcspider2.southbucks.gov.uk/democracy/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=289&MId=2384&Ver=4

The following questions were raised in relation to the proposed precept of the PCC:-

1.              You say you are assured that the pledges outlined in the Police and Crime Plan are fully funded by the proposed budget but have you any concerns about some aspects of it becoming compromised or undeliverable?

The PCC reported that his main concern was the cuts to Council budgets and the impact this would have on communities. He had only reduced Community Safety Partnership Funds by 1% and was worried that this would be subsumed by Council cuts.

2.              What further information is awaited before the budget can be finalised ?

The PCC was waiting to hear about the Emergency Services Mobile Communications Project (para 24) which should be funded by Government but the costs for implementing this Project would inevitably impact on his budget and it was difficult at this time to say how much and how easy it would be to control.

3.              Please could the PCC provide an overview of the Force Productivity Strategy and Priority Based Budgeting Review process?

The Force Productivity Strategy has been in place since 2010 and has been used successfully to identify and remove over £72m of revenue savings from the base budget. It is a carefully planned and controlled process to review all areas of force activity. The Productivity Strategy summary report is reproduced on pages 87 to 89 of your agenda papers; the main areas of focus are:

• Collaboration: ICT, JOU, Business Support, see Q 13
• Structure & process reviews: These tend to be focussed around a service or function.  For example the review of processes within CJ.  Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) will predominately replace these reviews.
• VFM reviews: These reviews look across the organisation, for example, transport costs or workforce modernisation programme which was initiated from the HMIC VFM profiles.
• Review of remuneration & conditions: this strand included all of the Winsor elements but has also included, for example,  our own review of shift allowances
•  Review of remuneration & conditions: this strand included all of the Winsor elements but has also included, for example,  our own review of shift allowances

The PBB process undertaken by Thames Valley Police has challenged the majority of the organisation to identify the resources required to deliver priority services. A series of Panels were chaired by the Chief Constable or his Deputy. The first Panel looked at the baseline of each service level, the second Panel method and service level changes and the third, prioritisation of services. Areas looked at included providing services at a bronze standard rather than gold, the minimum legal requirements and whether the police were providing a service which should not be their responsibility. There were four work groups:-

• Demand – understanding the causes of demand and hence how we respond including mitigation e.g. appropriate police resourcing for mental health issues (triage project), whether shoplifting offences should be a lower priority, rape is a high priority complex crime but now is a bulk crime due to significant increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

This item is to provide Members with information on the work of the Local Criminal Justice Board. A number of the PCC’s Strategic Objectives in the Police and Crime Plan relate to the Criminal Justice process therefore this item will provide information on the operation of the Board and the key issues being addressed.

David Colchester Programme Manager for the Local Criminal Justice Board will be attending.

David Colchester Programme Manager for the Local Criminal Justice Board was welcomed to the meeting. This item was to provide Members with information on the work of the Board and key issues being addressed relating to the PCC Strategic Objectives in the Police and Crime Plan. A handout was tabled on the governance, structure and priorities for 2015/16.

During his presentation the following points were noted:-

·         The purpose and vision of the Board was to reduce crime, harm and risk by increasing the efficiency and credibility of the Criminal Justice System. The Board is committed to delivering a high quality of service to the communities of Thames Valley, focussing on the needs of the individual, irrespective of background.

·         The Board promotes innovation and local freedoms and flexibilities, highlights barriers and analyses performance data to ensure that it is working as efficiently as possible.

·         The constitution of the Board is wide ranging with a number of agencies including the PCC and representation from Victim Support, Local Authority Chief Executives  and Public Health.

·         The Board meets five times a year and also has an Annual Planning Day which is usually held in January.

·         There is a rotating chair and the PCC will be the next Chairman with a two year tenure.

·         The priorities of the Board are set out within the handout and are reviewed on an annual basis which includes reducing reoffending and supporting victims and witnesses. There has been a slight change of focus looking at magistrates and crown court and the quality of case files.

·         The Board has several delivery groups, consisting of strategic and operational agency leads. The groups will be responsible for achieving the priorities in their area of business through leadership, management and supervision.

·         In terms of victims and witnesses this Autumn they looked at the new Victim Code of Practice and also ensuring they were properly supported through the court process and able to provide good evidence. They were working on ‘digital technology’ so that vulnerable people did not have to go to court and evidence was given through a remote video link.

·         Another area being looked at was health inequalities of offenders and links with drugs and alcohol and access to primary and secondary health care. Work was also being undertaken making sure that Looked After Children were not criminalised and not at a disadvantage because of their background. There was also ‘Working in Step’ where local multi-agency partnerships have been established in a number of complex areas of public policy, such as crime reduction and public health, in order to determine and work towards shared local priorities; oversee services which are provided jointly; and manage the risks and interdependencies between work carried out on a single agency basis.

·         The Criminal Justice Board was in a healthy position and was well supported by agencies with clear direction and management.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         Cllr Pitts asked a question about the Early Guilty Plea Scheme CPS. These cases are fast tracked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

For Members to comment on the attached consultation and the questionnaire. A response is required by 10 March 2015.

In December 2015 the Home Office issued a consultation document regarding complaints about PCC’s. This consultation focuses on the complaints process for Police and Crime Panels when seeking to resolve non-serious (i.e non-criminal) complaints made against a PCC. Legislative changes would be required to implement some of the proposals.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/complaints-about-pccs

The Government is committed to building on the success of the PCC model by further strengthening their role and feel that the time is right to amend the system for complaints against the PCC as follows:-

1.       Clarifying through non-statutory guidance, what constitutes a complaint ensuring that Police and Crime Panels (PCP’s) take forward complaints about a PCC’s conduct rather than their policy decisions.

2.       Providing Panels with greater investigatory powers to seek evidence pertinent to a complaint.

3.       Clarifying, through non-statutory guidance, the parameters of "informal resolution" and setting out that, where agreement cannot be reach, it is open to Panels to make recommendations on the expected level of behaviour of a PCC, and that they have powers to require the PCC to respond.

Cllr Emily Culverhouse commented that the role of the independent investigator should be fulfilled by a national body who applies a consistent approach to complaints and it was important to show independence to the complainant otherwise there would be a perception of bias.

RESOLVED

That the draft response to the questionnaire be sent to the Home Office

For the Panel to note.

The Panel received a report from the Office of the PCC on the Police and Crime Panel Review. A mapping and review exercise was undertaken to enable the PCC to take an informed decision as to whether the current Police and Crime Plan remained fit for purpose or needed to be refreshed. The PCC decided that a refresh of the Plan was not required at this time and to carry out a review exercise on an annual basis as part of the PCC’s statutory responsibility to ‘have regard to ‘the priorities of Community Safety Partnerships’ and to ensure that the Plan continues to reflect the policing needs of local people.

The Panel noted the report.

To note and ask questions on the general issues report

The general issues report was noted by Members.

Mr Marshall asked a question relating to volunteers and how their skills can be utilised. The Home Secretary has undertaken a consultation into proposed changes to powers held by police staff and volunteers in policing looking at reforming their roles so that they can play a greater role in policing communities e.g. using cyber specialists as volunteers. The Chief Constable reported that they were looking at powers and how they could be used to work more effectively. He gave an example of a volunteer PCSO who had not been given full powers as he did not want their role being deployed in that way. He would be looking into this area more closely once the legislation had been introduced.

Cllr Burke asked a question about the closure of police counters. The Chief Constable reported that the public very rarely used police stations and that it was important to use resources effectively. He was therefore investing in mobile technology and ensuring that police were protecting the streets rather than sitting behind a desk at a police station.

For Panel Members to agree the Work Programme for 2016 (which may be subject to change following the elections)

The Work Programme was noted.

11 March 2016 – Wokingham Borough Council

11 March 2016 at 11am at Wokingham Borough Council Council Chamber.