Meeting documents

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 February 2017

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 February 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

HBoS Fraud

At the last meeting the PCC had referred to the HBoS fraud case and the length and cost of the investigation, which had resulted in the case taking over six years to bring to court. The PCC had commented that the cost in time and money for a police force to take on a major fraud investigation was considerable and a judgement had to be made as to whether the £7m spent on this case, and police officer time, could have been better spent in pursuing other crimes, such as child sexual abuse, and the multitude of lower scale frauds perpetuated against smaller companies and the elderly.

He also commented that the entire annual budget for the Serious Fraud Office is just £44m and yet the overall cost of losses from fraud and cyber crime was estimated to be around £200bn.

The PCC reported he was seeking to recover the full cost incurred on the case of £7m through a special grant payment but no response had been received from the Home Office to date. The Cabinet Office was due to have a meeting after Easter to discuss serious fraud issues.

Members noted that the bank had set aside £100m to compensate 64 victims of the HBoS Reading fraud although this sum may need to be increased if there were further claims.

CSE Recommendations (attachment to the minutes)

·         MASH – the PCC reported that he had visited the majority of MASH’s in the Thames Valley and he reported that the larger MASH worked well, whereas he considered that some of the smaller MASH were not sustainable. He would review the performance of MASH at the end of the calendar year. He emphasised the importance of having an education representative on the MASH and needed ‘buy in’ from schools to ensure that all MASH had access to this resource.

·         Perpetrators – the PCC referred to recent cases in the press. He commented on the importance of also looking at lone perpetrators profiles as well and to share all information with partner agencies to bring all intelligence together. The Home Office were also undertaking national work on the profile of offenders to get a better picture of the scale of the issue.

·         Safeguarding in language schools – the PCC reported that this was a widespread issue and that he had been discussing this with the PCC for Sussex who also had a number of language schools in her Force area. He was looking to send a joint letter with Sussex to the Department of Education on this issue.

·         Hotelwatch – he would request a report from the Chief Constable. He referred to an award being presented to hotel reception staff for recognising a potential offender. He also expressed concern about the increasing amount of hotels which did not have a reception and customers could just log in with a card. The Panel also referred to the smaller guest houses and also whether there was a high turnover of reception staff and how often they were retrained.