Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

• Councillor Reg Barry, Additional Local Authority Co-opted Member
• Councillor Ken Carter, East Hampshire District Council. Councillor Alan Waterhouse was in attendance as his deputy.
• Councillor Adrian Collett, Hart District Council
• Councillor Tonia Craig, Eastleigh Borough Council
• Councillor Lisa Griffiths, Winchester City Council
• Councillor Ken Muschamp, Rushmoor Borough Council
• Councillor Leah Turner, Havant Borough Council

To enable Members to declare to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest they may have in any matter on the agenda for the meeting, where that interest is not already entered in their appointing authority’s register of interests, and any other pecuniary or personal interests in any such matter that Members may wish to consider disclosing.

Members were able to disclose to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest they may have in any matter on the agenda for the meeting, where that interest is not already entered in their appointing authority’s register of interests, and any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in any such matter that Members may wish to disclose.

Councillor Steve Clarke declared a non-pecuniary interest in item four of the agenda. Councillor Clarke declared that he knew the member of the public who had raised a question to the Panel, under item four, through association at his local community speedwatch group and residents association. He further declared that he was aware, before the meeting, of the question which was to be asked.

No further declarations were made.

To confirm the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Minutes from the 6 October 2017 meeting were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any questions or deputations in line with Rule 31 and 31A of the Panel’s Rules of Procedure.

One question was received to the meeting.

“Could the P & CC indicate his support or otherwise for Community Speedwatch Schemes (CSW) operated by Volunteers. Mr Lane has been reported as suggesting that Speedwatch Schemes present a difficulty and as a result, Schemes may not be as successful as they could be in helping cut speeds in residential areas. Recent restrictions placed on Schemes, have resulted in sessions being cancelled and this has a detrimental impact of improving safety. (For example, limits being placed on maximum Public Liability for Volunteers to £50,000!)”

The member of the public who had submitted the question joined the meeting to ask it and provided further context to his request:

“Rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly you have been quoted as making remarks which could be construed as not being supportive of the of the voluntary speedwatch schemes across the county”

In New Milton we have encountered numerous problems in relation to CSW Operation – mainly in the areas of lack of feedback from our operations, questions relation to public liability insurance and the  and the selection of sites for approved CSW monitoring. We accept that locally our safer neighbourhood teams are stretched to the limit.

I would like to ask you sir whether you and your office could investigate a possible partnership with CSW online and consider Hampshire becoming part of the CSW online operation. The CSW online operation is being very successful in both Surrey and Sussex Constabularies and with Kent Police and I am led to believe it is being considered urgently by Thames Valley Police.

Partnership with CSW Online could assist in better supporting our local speedwatch operations and perhaps reduce the time and effort needed to be provided to local CSW operations by the under-resourced local police operations”

James Payne, Chief Executive of the OPCC, responded to question on behalf of the Police and Crime Commissioner:

“The Police and Crime Commissioner wholeheartedly supports members of the community who are volunteering and anything to enhance our support to citizens who are supporting the police will be looked at. I have not been made aware previously of CSW Online but will ask my team to liaise with the other neighbouring forces who you have mentioned to understand more about it. The OPCC are currently developing a tool that seeks to draw together all of the CSW data from the 96 voluntary groups across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. We hope that the outcome of this analysis will enable us to highlight the impact CSW has had on speeding both within each individual area, and to the Hampshire policing area as a whole. On behalf of the Commissioner I would like to thank all the CSW schemes across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, including those attending today.”

No further questions or deputations were received.

To agree the outcomes and recommendations of the Panel’s review of ‘Traffic Crime and Related Nuisance’.

The final draft of the outcomes and recommendations from the ‘Traffic Crime and related nuisance’ proactive scrutiny was presented before the Panel, by the Police and Crime Plan working group.

Following the recommendations proposed, Members of the Plan working group asked a question to the Chief Executive of the OPCC:

“We understand it was agreed during the multi agency meeting held in December 2016, to consider concerns relating to traffic on the A32, that a further meeting was to be held at the OPCC in June. We understand that this meeting has not yet taken place. What are the reasons behind the delay in this meeting being scheduled?”

The Chief Executive explained that this had been a multi-agency meeting and that Hampshire County Council had taken away a number of lead actions to be resolved. Members heard the follow up meeting had been delayed to allow the County Council more time to complete these actions, and that the additional time to reconvene the meeting was factored in to allow the outcomes from these actions to be enhanced. The OPCC felt they had received a good response from the County Council and felt assured that they were updating local communities. It was confirmed that the meeting would be reconvened at an appropriate time.

Members agreed the outcomes and recommendations from the ‘traffic crime and related nuisance’ proactive scrutiny. The Chairman explained that these would be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire for response.

The Chairman further explained that the Panel’s letter of recommendation would be published on the Panel’s website and shared with those who provided evidence to the review. Further it was heard that a copy of the Panel’s findings would be sent to Nick Hurd MP, Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, to the County, Unitary, District and Borough Councils, Town and Parish Councils and be shared with other Police and Crime Panels with whom the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel meet collaboratively.

This proactive scrutiny session will allow the Panel to scrutinise and support the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in his intention to keep the residents and communities of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight safer, through preventing cyber fraud.

This scrutiny will consider how the PCC is working with partners to identify and prevent these crimes, and review how effectively the PCC is holding the Chief Constable to account for ensuring that operational policing plans are reflective of the strategic priority placed upon tackling cyber fraud. This scrutiny will also consider how the PCC is seeking to educate and inform the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to recognise and protect themselves from cyber fraud.

The scope for this session is attached as Appendix One. Written evidence has been received and is attached as Appendix Two. The Panel will hear oral evidence from the below stakeholders:

a) DI Lloyd Tobin - Hampshire Constabulary

b) Margaret Filley - Hampshire and IOW Neighbourhood Watch

c) James Payne and Natasha Fletcher - The Office of the Police and Crime and Commissioner for Hampshire and the IOW

d) TBC

Members heard that this proactive scrutiny session would be focused on the topic of ‘Cyber Fraud’. A scope for this review (see Appendix One to Item Six in the Minute Book) had been agreed by the Plan working group, who had written to stakeholders in the previous weeks to collate evidence (see Appendix Two to Item Six in the Minute Book).

The key questions asked of witnesses were:

·      How well has the PCC, through holding the Chief Constable to account, ensured that operational policing plans are sufficiently robust to meet the strategic threat posed by cyber-enabled fraud?

·      How effective have the PCC and his office been in engaging with appropriate partners to ensure a joined-up approach to identifying and tackling cyber-enabled fraud?

·      What efforts have been made by the PCC to educate and inform the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to recognise and protect themselves from cyber-enabled fraud?

·      What are the key priorities which need to be considered by the PCC to reduce the threat posed to the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight through cyber-enabled fraud?

·      What best practice exists which could also be considered by the PCC in his approach to preventing and tackling cyber-enabled fraud?

It was heard that this proactive scrutiny session would allow the Panel to scrutinise and support the Commissioner, given his intention to keep the residents and communities of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight safer, through preventing cyber fraud. This scrutiny aimed to consider how the PCC was working with partners to identify and prevent these crimes, and further review how effectively the PCC was holding the Chief Constable to account for ensuring that operational policing plans were reflective of the strategic priority placed upon tackling cyber fraud. It was heard this scrutiny would also consider how the PCC is seeking to educate and inform the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to recognise and protect themselves from cyber fraud.

The Chairman explained that the oral evidence giving session would take the format of a witness expert panel, with all representatives present being given the opportunity to answer questions from the wider Panel. Discussion was encouraged, and any questions that were not answered on the day would be fed back to witnesses for a written response after the meeting.

The expert witnesses were provided with the opportunity to introduce themselves and invited to give a short presentation to the Panel discussing the role of their organisation in preventing and tackling cyber fraud. Through these presentations Members heard:

·         Cybercrime activity is growing fast and evolving at pace, becoming both more aggressive and technically proficient. Although general cyber awareness is improving in the UK, there remains a lack of understanding of cybercrimes, including cyber enabled fraud.

·         Approximately 1000 victims from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight report fraud each month. Of those reporting 39% were individuals, with the remainder being businesses and organisations.

·         Much of this defrauding is taking place online. Identifying that nobody is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.