Meeting documents

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2016.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

Cllr Burke reported that she still had not received a written response on her question relating to dog theft.

                                Action: OPCC

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.

The Panel uses its powers in accordance with Section 28 (4) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to review, report and make recommendations regarding the Police and Crime Commissioner’s 2015/2016 Annual Report.

The Panel welcomed the PCC’s fourth Annual Report and congratulated him on the Report particularly emphasising the following points:-

• Thames Valley Police has had 5 successive years of budget cuts. In 2015/16, £12.8m was removed from the budget, bringing the total budget reduction since 2011/12 to £70m. Despite these budget cuts, the performance of TVP has remained high as can be evidenced by HMIC reports.
• The provision of Community Safety Funding grants totalling £3.1m being provided to County and Unitary Councils across Thames Valley to fund crime prevention and community safety activities that support the Plan.
• The use of body worn video equipment which has increased the number of guilty pleas. There will be the use of approximately 1100 units across the Force which should ensure that every police officer on patrol should be able to have access to this equipment. Smart phones were also currently being rolled out.
• Members expressed concern that crime reduction in some areas may not necessarily be related to good performance but possibly because the profile of crime was changing such as household burglary. The PCC referred to an article he had written which he hoped would be published shortly (a copy was requested) on concerns around the increasing incidence and impact of cyber crime. He referred to Portsmouth University research which states that £190 billion is lost because of cyber crime which makes a huge dent in national finances, some of these proceeds of crime going abroad. The Panel welcomed the proposal for the need to introduce a ‘National Agency’ to address cyber crime and would like to be updated on this area.

http://uopnews.port.ac.uk/2016/05/25/fraud-costing-uk-economy-193bn-a-year/

Action: OPCC

Panel Members raised the following issues on discussion of the Annual Report:-

• Cllr Culverhouse asked about visible presence of officers on the beat – the PCC reported that there was a slight decrease of officers which was being supplemented by improved technology and an increase in the use of special constables. The use of IT should mean that police officers will spend less time undertaking administrative tasks at the police station which will help improve visibility. However, police visibility still remains a concern of Panel Members.
• In terms of targeting areas of high crime and working in partnership the PCC referred to the fact that CCTV was a valuable aid and crime deterrent. Members noted his concerns about any council cuts to CCTV budgets and that the Force would be unable to support additional funding in this area which could lead to a rise in crime being undetected. It was up to the political governance of each council to decide how much resources were allocated to the monitoring of CCTV. The Chief Constable however informed Members of a recent meeting with Local Authority Chief Executives where further improvements to CCTV was discussed which should help reduce revenue expenditure (any information on these improvements would be welcomed by Councils).

Action: OPCC

• Cllr Webb expressed concern about the fact that the PCC had still not appointed a Deputy PCC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The aim of this item is to look at how the police and local authorities are working together to respond effectively to unauthorised encampments including consistent interpretation of legislation/guidance.

Attendees

Gary Brewer - Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Gypsy & Traveller Services 

Paul Hendry – Countryside Manager, West Berkshire

Background report for the Panel

The aim of this item is to look at how the police and local authorities are working together to respond effectively to unauthorised encampments including consistent interpretation of legislation/guidance.

External witnesses included Gary Brewer from Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Gypsy and Traveller Services and Paul Hendry, Countryside Manager from West Berkshire Council.

Gary Brewer provided Members with the following background information:-  

·         He managed 13 permanent sites for Bucks/Oxfordshire, Brent and Ealing with 3 site officers. He collected money for rent and utilities. However, he did inform Members that Buckinghamshire had recently made a decision, due to limited resources, to sell their permanent sites and provide their own service.

·         He clarified the difference between unauthorised development and unauthorised encampments.

·         He had a very good relationship with the police force but some areas were better than others in responding to unauthorised encampments and also experienced different issues.

·         Resources had been cut generally in dealing with gypsies and travellers in terms of police and council funding. The Community Law Partnership works with gypsies and travellers on cases taken to court to challenge Councils where they had not applied the correct legislation.

·         The Government’s policies on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and enforcement are set within a framework of rights and responsibilities in which everyone’s rights must be equally respected but where, at the same time, equal standards of behaviour are expected from all.

·         There could be civil action relating to trespass from the landowner or a crime if there were six or more vehicles on the land, where there has been verbal or physical aggression to the landowner (including family and employees) or where damage has been caused to the land.

·         Where there are more than 20 caravans, it is useful to visit the site with the police and utilise their powers.

·         If an unauthorised encampment is on private land it is primarily the landowner’s responsibility to deal with the eviction. The Council will offer advice on the eviction process if asked by the landowner. Landowners can use common law rights to recover land and may use bailiffs to carry out the eviction.

Paul Hendry provided Members with the following background information:-

·         He had no responsibility for settled communities or traveller sites and the primary focus of his role was to liaise with and evict gypsies and travellers from unauthorised encampments.

·         West Berkshire has not in the past had many problems with unauthorised encampments but there has been a big increase this year. They have developed a close working relationship with the police force and will be re-examining their protocols in this area.

·         It is important to provide good information to the public on when they should call the Council and also when the Council and the police are able to use their powers.

The Vice-Chairman Cllr Mallon referred to the need to ensure that there is a consistent approach to unauthorised encampments across the Thames Valley and that the Police Force are being consistent in their application of the unauthorised encampment policy and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Members are asked to note and comment on this six monthly report.

https://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/information-hub/agendas-and-minutes/policy-planning-and-performance/

(PPP Meeting on 29 July)

Panel Members noted the six monthly report on finance and performance monitoring.

The PCC commented that the total savings made since 2011/12 was £87m which was a significant amount of money particularly bearing in mind that £1million accounted for 20 police officers. Savings had been made through collaboration and streamlining property. He made reference to the changes in the Medium Term Capital Plan and that the Force were now looking at an opportunity to buy a property it currently leases and thereby reduce annual revenue costs.

During discussion the following questions were raised:-

·         Cllr Webb asked what impact the departure of the interim Head of ICT was having on the delivery of key ICT infrastructure and business systems which need to deliver significant business benefits and efficiency savings. In response it was noted that there was another interim Head of ICT in place and his contract had just been extended with full support from the Senior Management Team.

·         One of the targets in the OPCC Strategic Delivery Plan was to develop a Business Plan for the possible transfer of governance responsibility for the Thames Valley Fire and Rescue Services to the PCC. The PCC reported that there was a push by Government to promote further collaboration between the emergency services. With the possibility of the transfer of governance responsibility for fire and rescue services to PCCs, the aim would be to facilitate this further collaboration between, and possibly integration of services. The PCC reported that he could see benefits in the police service working with the Fire Service but felt that it would be difficult to integrate services with the Ambulance Service as they were operationally very different.

·         The PCC expressed concern that two Fire Authorities were currently looking at replacing their Chief Fire Officer which would cost a lot of money particularly if those posts were no longer required if a new structure was put in place to rationalise services across the Thames Valley. Panel Members agreed that this was a retrograde step and supported the PCC’s view that these Chief Officers should not be replaced at this current time. The possible transfer of governance responsibility should be included in the Panel Work Programme.

Action: Scrutiny Officer

·         Cllr Burke asked whether the PCC was happy that enough was being done to mitigate the current overspend in their budgets? The PCC reported that they had always achieved a balanced budget so far. The Chief Constable reported that assumptions were always made at the start of the year and that as the year had progressed the Force had not lost as many police officers as they originally thought. However the intake had been reduced to take account of this and there were reserves in place to reduce the forecast overspend.

The Panel noted the report.

To note and ask questions on the general issues report.

The main specific topic to address in this item bearing in mind recent incidents is to ask the PCC questions on the robustness of Thames Valley Police Armed Response Unit.

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/about-us/specialist-teams/joint-operations-unit

Armed Response

One of the topical issues for discussion was armed response. Members noted that from the last HMIC PEEL assessment that the leadership has strong oversight of the Force’s ability to respond to national threats, such as terrorism, serious cyber-crime and child sexual abuse. Its own arrangements for ensuring it can meet its national obligations in this regard (such as planning, testing and exercising) are assessed as ‘good’.

During discussion the following questions were asked:-

·         Cllr Sinclair asked about the recent emergency exercise undertaken by Thames Valley Police. The Chief Constable reported that the Special Forces undertake regular exercises to ensure that the Force is prepared to respond to any major threats. This should also provide reassurance to the public. Panel Members noted that Local Authorities were not included in this exercise because of firearms. However, other emergency exercises were carried out with Local Authorities.

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-tem.htm?id=340864

·         The Chief Constable reported that they would be increasing the capability of specialised armed officers over the next couple of years and that there would be 50% uplift in armed response.

·         Cllr Sinclair asked the PCC about his view of the use of Tasers. The PCC said he supported the use of Tasers as they saved people’s lives. Truncheons which were used previously could inflict more damage than Tasers. Furthermore, the use of Tasers offered more protection from harm to police officers as it reduces the need for close-quarters contact with a person being apprehended. The Chief Constable referred to a recent radio interview where he had commented that Tasers should be issued to all officers but obviously officers needed to be fully trained. He referred to the awful incident in West Mercia where a man had died of a heart attack after a Taser had been used. A risk assessment needed to be undertaken on the use of Tasers. For each police shift there would be an officer who was trained in the use of Tasers. Cllr Burke asked for detailed information on any harm that had been caused by Tasers. The Chief Constable reported that this information was freely available on the internet. She then asked whether the Taser was put away in a locked cabinet, particularly in police vehicles. The Chief Constable confirmed this.

·         Mr Marshall asked whether Special Constables would have to use Tasers. The Chief Constable reported that nationally it was agreed that Special Constables should not be issued with Tasers or firearms. He informed Panel Members that the number of times that Tasers were used (approx. six times in 2016) were few and that the threat of a Taser often had the desired effect of calming a person down.

Community Safety Fund

The Chief Executive of the OPCC reported that they were looking at the recent consultation exercise undertaken to review options for the Community Safety Fund. They would write to Local Authorities in October/November with their preferred option so that Councils could factor any changes into preparation for next year’s budget. Some Authorities had commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Members are asked to note the report.

The Panel noted the report of the Complaints Sub Committee regarding the alleged failure of the OPCC to respond to emails directed to the PCC’s email address. This was due to technical issues relating to the spam filter. The complaint was upheld with recommendation that adjustments be made to the PCC’s public email address (which the OPCC have already proactively implemented). The Complaints Sub-Committee also asked for a copy of the OPCC Complaints Procedure once it has been finalised and also that all documents pertaining to a complaint referred to the Sub-Committee should be given to Members in the first instance. The Chief Executive of the OPCC reported that a further letter of apology would be sent to the complainant.

The Panel noted the report.

To agree that a Plan Task and Finish Group be set up to look in detail at the draft Plan and provide recommendations to the Panel at its meeting on 16 December.

Panel Members noted the report which recommended setting up a Task and Finish Group to look at the draft Police and Crime Plan.

The following Panel Members volunteered to attend the Task and Finish Group:-

Julia Adey

Barrie Patman

Quentin Webb

There were two further vacancies.

RESOLVED

That the Panel agreed to set up a Task and Finish Group which will have responsibility for leading the Panel’s response to the draft Police and Crime Plan for 2017-2021.

That the PCC provide a verbal response updating the Panel on his response to Panel recommendations.

A written response on past Panel recommendations would be included in the agenda for 21 October meeting.

For Panel Members to put forward items for the Work Programme including ideas for themed meetings.

To add the following to the Work Programme:-

The possible transfer of governance responsibility for the Thames Valley Fire and Rescue Services to the PCC.

The Panel also asked the PCC to provide the Panel with a briefing paper once the Policing and Crime Bill became new legislation so that they could understand the impact that this would have on his Office.

Action: OPCC

21 October 2016

21 October 2016 at 11am at Aylesbury Vale District Council