Agenda and minutes

Members of the Panel were asked for nominations for the Chair of the Panel for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Both Councillors Robin Bradburn and Keith McLean were nominated and seconded to be appointed as Chair of the Panel for 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Upon being put to the vote, Councillor Robin Bradburn was appointed as Chair of the Panel for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Councillor Robin Bradburn took the Chair.

Members of the Panel were asked for nominations for the Vice-Chair of the Panel for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Councillor Karen Rowland was nominated and seconded to be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Panel for 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Councillor Karen Rowland was appointed Vice-Chair of the Panel for 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillor Shaista Aziz (Oxford City Council) (Councillor Ajaz Rehman substituting), Councillor David Carroll (Buckinghamshire Council) (Cllr Richard Newcombe substituting), Councillor Emily Culverhouse (Co-Opted, Buckinghamshire Council), Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye (South Oxfordshire District Council (Councillor Andrew Tinsley substituting) and Councillor Simon Rouse (Co-Opted, Buckinghamshire Council) .

11.05am

To agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 24 March 2023 be agreed as a correct record.  

11.10am

On 28 March 2023, interviews took place for the vacant Independent Co-Opted Member of the Panel and Pamela Mackenzie – Reilly was the successful candidate.

The Panel is asked to confirm the appointment of Pamela Mackenzie – Reilly as an Independent Co-Opted Member of the Panel.

The Panel was informed that on 28 March 2023, interviews took place for the vacant Independent Co-Opted Member of the Panel and Pamela Mackenzie – Reilly was the successful candidate.

The Panel confirmed the appointment of Pamela Mackenzie – Reilly as an Independent Co-Opted Member of the Panel.

11.15am

The PCC will present his annual report for 2022/23 and the Panel will ask the PCC to outline progress made in meeting the five priorities outlined in his Police and Criminal Justice Plan 2021-2025.

Under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the Police and Crime Commissioner was required to produce and publish an Annual Report which summarised the exercise of the PCC’s functions in each financial year and the progress which had been made in the financial year in meeting the objectives contained in the PCC’s Police and Criminal Justice Plan.

The PCC reported that the report provided progress made in meeting the five priority areas detailed in his Police and Criminal Justice Plan 2021-25.

Members’ Questions

(1)    The revised national strategic policing requirement include the home secretary’s biggest threats to public safety, and they must be given due regard to by PCCs in their Police and Crime Plans. Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) has been added as a national threat. Will the PCC now consider amending his police and crime plan to include Violence against Women and Girls as one of his named key objectives, rather than it being hidden within the report?

[The PCC argued that the work which he and Thames Valley Police did on Violence against Women and Girls was a priority which was reflected throughout the Police and Criminal Justice Plan. Pursuing VAWG offenders and bringing them to justice was a priority.

The PCC referred to the work which had been carried out around the nighttime economy such as Project Vigilant. This was a Thames Valley flagship initiative that used a combination of uniformed and plain clothed officers to carry out patrols in areas outside night clubs, bars and pubs, to identify people who may be displaying signs of predatory behaviour, such as sexual harassment, inappropriate touching and loitering. 

TVP has an operational VAWG Strategy, and the PCC chaired the VAWG Strategic Partnership Board which brought in partners from local authorities, Health partners, charities, students etc. 

There was further detail in priority four, improving the criminal justice system such as the progression of cases in this area. This was a question of semantics, and the PCC did not recall the Panel asking him why he was not doing particular actions to prevent VAWG.

The PCC referred to the recent national strategic policing requirement of VAWG and commented that this also included violence against males which highlighted the semantics. The PCC said he was committed to supporting victims of crime in the Thames Valley and if the Panel was unhappy at the actions which were taken he would be happy to take this away and have a look at the strategy. 

Funding had been received from the Home Office and Project Vigilant directly supported the PCC’s Police and Criminal Justice Plan by focusing on prevention and targeting the perpetrators of crime.]

The Member appreciated the work which had been carried out on the nighttime economy in Reading but stressed that VAWAG was hidden in the Plan.     

(2)   A Member referred to local policing being about residents seeing police on the ground and in his ward, there were two police officers and three police community support officers.  There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

12.15pm

At a previous Panel meeting, Members asked for an update on police vetting when in   January 2023, the Home Office announced that all police forces must check their workforce against national databases to mitigate against the risk of important information on an individual being missed on their employment.

The report outlined the current central vetting unit; highlighting structural change, current work streams, current risks, and horizon planning.

At a previous Panel meeting, Members asked for an update on police vetting when in   January 2023, the Home Office announced that all police forces must check their workforce against national databases to mitigate against the risk of important information on an individual being missed on their employment.

The PCC provided a report which outlined the current central vetting unit, highlighting structural change, current work streams, current risks, and horizon planning.

Members’ Questions

(1)  In the report, reference is made to the current backlog having a 19-week delay which would be cleared by 6 March 2023. The PCC was asked for clarification on this as the date had elapsed.

[The PCC replied that this meant that there would be no applications no older than 6 March 2023.]

(2)  The incompatibility of the two IT systems was worrying, the PCC was asked whether there were any issues with anything slipping through the net.

[The PCC replied that this was an area for improvement, which the HMIC had identified. Members of the  Panel would be aware of some of the  challenges TVP had had in the past of some of the HR and IT  systems and procurement. The reassurance around this was that it was included in the scope, and this was borne in mind. There was no significant risk. There was a big space for automation beyond the TVP HR system. With regard to the historical data, everybody was vetted and put through the Police national data base so that nothing was missed.

This was a big operation which also included manual checks. The PCC asked the question, whether they could automate, potentially through robotic automation, and that this be done regularly. The Home Office may be concerned at individual Forces doing their own automated regular checks at the risk of crashing the whole system.

The National Law Enforcement Data programme would be replacing the Police National Computer and the PCC hoped this would allow automated data checks.]

(3)      The PCC was asked about the different types of backlogs and particularly contractors. Does the delay in vetting contractors’ impact on TVP’s business?

[The PCC replied that this was a challenge, but that priority was given to those contractors that needed vetting quickly for urgent works. The reason for the 116 of contractors required vetting was because it was the start of the financial year.]

RESOLVED – That the report of the PCC be noted.

12.30pm

The Panel is asked to consider and agree the following:

1)          That the Rules of Procedure and Panel Arrangements for the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel be approved (as attached in Appendix 1 and 2).

2)          That, subject to the appointment of the Chair of the Panel, consideration be given to the Host Authority for the Panel for 2023/24. (See para. 2) 

3)          That the Panel reconfirms the decision that future meetings take place at Buckinghamshire Council’s Gateway House in Aylesbury.

4)          That the Panel makes appointments to the Panel’s Complaints Sub Committee (7 Members) and Budget Task and Finish Group (5 Members).

5)          That the established Complaints Sub-Committee and Budget Task and Finish Group be agreed with no changes to their terms of reference for the following year (subject to any legislative changes) (Appendix 3 Complaints Procedure).

6)          That details of the Home Office Grant received by the Host Authority for 2022/23 be noted. (See para. 5). 

The Panel was provided with a report which included updated Rules of Procedure and Panel Arrangements, details of the Complaints Procedure, required appointments to the Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee and Budget Task and Finish Group and details of the Home Office grant for 2022/23.

The newly appointed Chair of the Panel reported that he would have discussions with Milton Keynes City Council on the future hosting arrangements for the Panel and report back to the next Panel meeting. ACTION: CHAIR 

On the appointments to the Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee and Budget Task and Finish Group it was agreed that the Chair of the Panel, in consultation with the Scrutiny Officer be given delegated authority to fill any vacancy. After the meeting a vacancy on the Complaints Sub-committee was filled.    

RESOLVED – (1) That the Rules of Procedure and Panel Arrangements, as amended, for the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel be approved.

(2) That, the Chair of the Panel discusses the hosting arrangements of the Panel with his local authority and report back to the next meeting of the Panel

(3) That the Panel reconfirms the decision that future meetings of the Panel continue to take place at Buckinghamshire Council’s Gateway House in Aylesbury.

(4) That the appointments to the Panel’s Complaints Sub Committee and Budget Task and Finish Group be as follows:

Complaints Sub-Committee

Cllr Robin Bradburn, Cllr Peter Brazier, Cllr David Carroll, Cllr Emily Culverhouse, Mr Peter Gammond, Cllr Karen Rowland and Cllr Richard Webber

Budget Task and Finish Group

Cllr Keith McLean, Stephen Newton, Simon Rouse and Geoff Saul (1 Vacancy)

(5) That the established Complaints Sub-Committee and Budget Task and Finish Group be agreed with no changes to their terms of reference for the following year.

(6) That details of the Home Office Grant received by the Host Authority for 2022/23 be noted.

12.40pm

The Panel is asked to receive the Panel’s Annual Report for 2022/23 which will be published on the Police and Crime Panel’s website.

The Panel’s Annual Report for 2022/23 was submitted and Members placed on record their appreciation of the work of Councillor Keith McLean, the previous Chair of the Panel.

RESOLVED - That the Annual Report be adopted and published, and that Panel Members submit the Annual Report to their respective local authorities for information.

12.45pm

To receive a report of the Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee.

A report of the Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee was received and noted.

12.50pm

The Panel is asked to consider the Topical Issues report prepared by the Panel’s Scrutiny Officer and ask questions on any of the issues raised to the PCC.

The PCC and the Chair of the Panel to provide updates if required.

The Panel received a report which provided details of topical police and crime issues and the following issues were raised. 

In relation to the changing age profile and experience of TVP officers, the PCC was asked what he was doing to fill those gaps and to possibly links to retirees who could mentor new Police Officers. The PCC replied that this was a challenge and an opportunity. Part of the work on using Police volunteers involved trying to get ex Police Officers to come in and do some of that training. The Panel was informed that there may be a glut of officers leaving next year as a result of the pension changes because of the McCloud judgement.

A Leadership Academy was to be formed to support that development and learning and under the community policing portfolio there was a silver lead for Police support.

A Member raised an issue of residents feeling less safe with anti-social behaviour being one of the reasons for this and that she was pleased to read that there was a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour. The PCC was asked for his views.

The PCC replied that the most interesting thing to come out of this proposal was reparative justice which would involve for example, a person found defacing property with graffiti, having to clean the graffiti off. Combatting anti-social behaviour was a joint approach from local authorities and the Police on tackling this. 

The topical issues report was noted.

13.00pm

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

Reference was made to the offer the PCC made of Members of the Panel visiting the Contact Management Centre and it was asked that visits be arranged before the Panel’s next meeting as there was an item on the agenda about Contact Management – Update on performance of “101” Calls and on-line reporting.

The PCC asked that the proposal for a Panel meeting to be held at TVP Training Centre be either November or January.

The work programme was noted, and Members were asked to inform the Scrutiny Officer of any potential work programme items.