Meeting documents

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 September 2016.

The Minutes of the Meeting were agreed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:-

Page 5- second bullet point before resolved ‘Ms Girling referred to a 2014 article which related to the Crown Prosecution Service being criticised for continuing a case particularly on cost considerations. ‘If a case satisfies the evidential test and it's in the public interest to prosecute it, the CPS will prosecute’.

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.

To review the PCC’s approach to collaboration with the public and private sector and to receive assurances from him on the discharge of his statutory duties in relation to the Strategic Policing Requirement.

The reason for this item was to review the PCC’s approach to collaboration with the public and private sector and to receive assurances from him on the discharge of his statutory duties in relation to the Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR).

PCC’s have a legal duty to collaborate where it is in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness of their own or another police force. Collaboration agreements between police forces can also include other public sector organisations as well as the private sector. PCCs will also need to collaborate to meet their responsibilities under the SPR (this sets out a broad range of national threats and the need for a suitable response).

The PCC made the following points in his opening presentation:-

·         The Government (Home Office) expected that collaboration would help Forces meet the twin pressures of financial constraint and the ability to meet new policing demands. However, this pressure to collaborate has caused some concern because of having a number of different agreements with different organisations and employees being on different terms and conditions.

·         Thames Valley is more advanced than other Forces in terms of their collaborative work. They manage the SE Regional Units for Organised Crime and Counter - Terrorism which are very effective, and collaborate with Hampshire Constabulary on areas such as information and communication technology, joint information management unit and operations (e.g. firearms, police dog section and roads policing). Hampshire however is not part of the Chiltern Transport Consortium which is a collaboration between TVP, Hertfordshire Constabulary, Bedfordshire Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

·         There is a national Specialist Capabilities Programme which will develop options for new models to support policing at a local level so that areas such underwater search services etc. will be provided for a number of Forces rather than individual Force’s having their own service. One proposal is for one Force to be responsible for providing a service for a number of Forces and who will be held to account for its provision.

·         The National Police Air Service is a national collaborative venture involving all police forces across England and Wales and is very effective.

·         In terms of Fire and Rescue Services the Government through the Policing and Crime Bill are expecting police forces to rationalise support services by collaborating with fire and rescue services. This Bill is still going through Parliament and PCCs are encouraged to produce a business case to submit to the Home Office on their proposals which could include the PCC taking over governance from their local Fire and Rescue Authorities and becoming the employer of fire and rescue staff (the governance model), the Chief Constable becoming a single employer for police and fire staff (single employer model) or the PCC being represented on Fire and Rescue Authorities (the representation model). The PCC was waiting until the legislation was in place before identifying which direction he should take. There were three Fire and Rescue Services in the Thames Valley and some form of collaboration would save money. Skills in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To note and ask questions on the topical issues report.

Commissioning

Shona Morrison Policy Development Manager OPCC presented a report on the proposed victims’s services re-design. From 1 April 2015 the OPCC commissioned a range of services to assist victims to cope and recover from the consequences of crime. Based on learning from the first round of commissioning the PCC is intending to undertake a fundamental re-design of commissioned Victims’ Services by 1 April 2018 which would include:-

·         A central co-located ‘Victims First’ Hub with the Thames Valley Police Witness Care Unit.

·         A number of actual or virtual satellite hubs

·         A range of community ‘touchpoints’ or safe places where members of the public and other professionals can access information, obtain advice or initiate a referral to the Victims Hub.

The overall aim of this proposal was to provide a better service to victims of crime through co-ordination of witness care with enhanced, wraparound, emotional, practical and psychotherapeutic support for all victims. The outcome for victims of crime would be a better and more personalised service, with a single point of contact and co-ordinated care from point of report, throughout criminal justice proceedings, and beyond. Ms Girling, Independent Member commented that the new streamlined system looked better but asked why they were changing it. The PCC reported that it was a more efficient and rigorous system and it was an improvement in terms of directing where the funding was being allocated. The Policy Development Manager reported that the new system was more ‘front loaded’ to ensure that resources were prioritised to those victims who most needed them. Ms Girling then asked for progress on ‘Track my crime’ which provided information to victims and was informed that this would be going live shortly. Members welcomed the report.

Police helmets

Thames Valley Police replaced custodian helmets with peaked caps about five years ago but the PCC reported that he and the Chief Constable were now considering whether they should be brought back at the PCC felt they presented a smarter image, would improve public confidence in policing and provided head protection. Curtis James Marshall, Independent Member commented that as a special constable he welcomed this step as it helped in visibility and they would be good to wear ‘on the beat’ or within busy town centres. The MET used flat caps and helmets. Cllr Mallon thought this was a good idea for identification purposes. Cllr Birchley also thought it was a good idea as it would make police officers more imposing. Cllr Page commented that he could see the merits in the proposal but asked for more information including the views of the Police Federation.

Cllr Macpherson asked about police views on helmets. The Chief Constable reported that it depended on age. An extensive consultation had been conducted previously in Aylesbury as a pilot area where they had changed uniforms and some officers preferred the traditional helmet. Others found it uncomfortable. He would have a look at comments made on the previous consultation and the cost impact of re-introducing helmets particularly in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To note the PCC response to the recommendations from the Panel and to raise any areas for further action.

This report has been made available to monitor the PCC and Panel Member responses on previous recommendations made by the Panel, particularly on themed items and to see whether any further action is required.

Cllr Sinclair referred to taxi licensing and expressed concern that there were 300 hackney carriages in Oxford City that were not licensed and therefore could be used for child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and selling drugs. The PCC reported that he would like to see changes in Government policy for taxi licensing as this was an issue across the Country. There was a legal loophole in the legislation. Cllr Egleton commented that previous recommendations had referred to a dedicated taxi licensing officer for TVP and a national/regional database. He also expressed concern about the use of tinted windows in taxis which could hide children who were being exploited. There were some simple prevention methods available. Cllr Burke reported that unlicensed taxi drivers were coming into Milton Keynes from Northamptonshire and Luton.

Panel Members were asked to contact the Scrutiny Officer if they had comments on the responses provided.

For Panel Members to consider and agree which recommendations they wish to take forward as actions.

Panel Members received a report on the future operation of the Panel. This was following a Learning and Development Session held in August to look at how the Panel was operating. Cllr Adey and the Scrutiny Officer had also observed a pro-active scrutiny session held by Hampshire Police and Crime Panel to see whether this was a model Thames Valley would like to use.

RECOMMENDED

That Panel Members send comments on the report to the Scrutiny Officer.

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

The Work Programme was noted. The item on mental health for the next meeting would be part of the topical issues report rather than a themed item in order to make sure there was time to discuss the draft Police and Crime Plan.

RECOMMENDED

That Members submit any items that they would like to be considered by the Panel in 2017 to the Scrutiny Officer.

16 December 2016

To agree dates for 2017 as follows:-

3 February                                                       8 September

7 April                                                             17 November

16 June                                                           

(These Meetings have been set to align with the PCC’s Policy Planning and Performance public meetings)

2018

2 Feb                                                               22 June

20 April                                                           7 Sept

16 December 2016 at 11am at Aylesbury Vale District Council