Agenda item

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 tvpcp@buckinghamshire.gov.uk at least three working days in advance of the meeting.

Mr Andrew Hill attended the meeting and asked the following questions:

(1)   My understanding is that the panel scrutinises the PCC, and delivery of his crime plan. In the PCC’s crime plan he states (page7) that:

“In tackling the exploitation of vulnerable adults and children, we will not lose sight of the high levels of acquisitive and environmental crime that is also perpetrated by serious organised crime groups. Resources invested in this area will have an impact in reducing many of the crimes that concern the public most in their communities.”

and (page 15) that “environmental crime” is a strategy to be “developed”.

Given that Thames Valley Police have no dedicated environmental crime officer, and (by its own admission) little or no expertise in the complex law surrounding environmental crimes, what steps has the PCC actually taken to “develop” strategies on environmental crime, and how does this panel routinely monitor progress this specific type of serious crime that often “concern[s] the public most”?”

Answer

[The PCC replied that the anticipated strategy produced by his office which is still part of his Police and Criminal Justice Plan, is a four year plan. He was two years into the Plan, and he had never suggested that this work would have been developed by now. The PCC said he was working with TVP and there was a growing capacity to deal with fly tipping and other environmental crime in most areas.

On most occasions, fly tipping was a responsibility for local authorities who all had a good relationship with the police. There was a very good rural crime partnership on a local level which involved Environmental Health Officers, Community Safety Partnership officers and officers from local Neighbourhood Teams worked closely on fly tipping.

However, there were issues around fly tipping on an industrial scale and that was where the Force liaised with the Environmental Agency who may be the appropriate prosecuting authority. The Rural Crime Taskforce took the lead on these. The Rural Crime Strategy was developed by the Force which would include environmental crimes.

The Chair also replied that local authorities had their way of dealing with fly tipping.

The questioner also referenced wildlife crime which was also an environmental crime. The PCC replied that the Force did prosecute wildlife crimes and referred to the prosecution of the sale of whales’ teeth.

The Panel agreed that a report on the work of the Rural Crime Task Force (to include wildlife crimes) be added to the work programme.] [ACTION PCC/Scrutiny Officer]     

(2)   Agenda item 11 notes the record 5% increase in police precepts across the UK. The PCC issued a statement to all council taxpayers saying that the maximum precept of £15 should be collected.  A request above £15 is classed as “excessive” and would have triggered a referendum.

In the Royal Borough Of Windsor and Maidenhead, the PCC actively campaigned during the local elections to support the conservative party plan for warrant officer funding above the referendum trigger, with around £250k for an additional funding of 4 police officers through a “section 92” overpayment grant  (Police Act 1996), and also for 8 officers in 2024-25, notwithstanding that his crime plan was already supposed to ensure adequate and safe policing in the Borough (indeed, in all areas).

Neither the PCC, nor Chief Constable, brought this matter to the crime panel’s attention for any scrutiny, nor were these payments openly disclosed to all council tax payers in the wider TVP consultation documents that led to the setting of the current budget.

What therefore is the maximum sum of money, and maximum number of officers, that this panel would accept being paid for by any council through a section 92 payment, and does it even accept the principle that richer areas can ‘top up’ their warrant officer provision using this mechanism to achieve a higher level of policing in richer areas than poorer areas (beyond the levels identified as objectively needed in the plan’s evidence base)?

Answer

[The Chair replied that the Panel discussed the budget in detail. There was a Panel Budget Task and Finish Group which scrutinised the PCC’s proposed budget and the Panel discussed the report of the Task and Finish Group. Section 92 payments were not discussed and the Panel was given assurance by the PCC that the budget was required to enable the Chief Constable to adequately police Thames Valley.

Reluctantly, in the times of a cost of living crisis, the Panel agreed the Police Precept. The Chair proposed that an item on Section 92 payments be added to the Panel’s work programme.] [ACTION: PCC/Scrutiny Officer]

Mr Andrew Hill added a supplementary comment that Section 92 funding, in effect bypasses the referendum figure and calls into question, that the Chief Constable determines where police resources were deployed in Thames Valley, particularly when a local authority area provides Section 92 funding for police resources in their area.

The PCC replied that the funding received had not been requested by his Office or by TVP, but the offer had been made by the local authority. Reference was made to the funding he provided for Community Safety Partnerships to work in partnership with TVP to tackle crime.

The PCC commented that the funding was not included in the Police budget but was included in the local authority’s budget. The Police Precept budget was set before local authorities set their Council Tax budgets.]