Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

• Cllr Trevor Cartwright, Fareham Borough Council
• Cllr Jacqui Rayment, Southampton City 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.

No declarations were made.

To elect a Chairman of the Panel for 2017/18.

The presiding officer, Paul Griffith, legal advisor to the Panel, explained the process of electing a Chair, which was set out in the Panel Arrangements. The appointment would be for a period of one year, until the annual meeting in 2018.

Cllr David Stewart was nominated by Bob Purkiss and seconded by Cllr Jan Warwick and as the sole nominee duly elected.

Councillor David Stewart in the Chair.

To elect a Vice Chairman of the Panel for 2017/18.

The Chair called for nominations for the position of Vice Chair of the Panel, an appointment which would be for one year, until the annual meeting in 2018.

Cllr Jan Warwick was nominated by Cllr Ken Carter and seconded by Cllr Lynne Stagg and as the sole nominee duly elected.

To confirm the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Minutes from both of the 7 April 2017 meetings 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.

No questions or deputations were received by the Panel on this occasion.

To hear any announcements the Chairman may have for this meeting.

The Chairman gave one announcement, welcoming all new members to the Panel, and setting out briefly how the Panel operated during its formal meetings.

The Chairman welcomed new Members appointed to the Panel:

• Cllr Ryan Brent (Portsmouth)
• Cllr Adrian Collett (Hart)
• Cllr Lisa Griffiths (Winchester)
• Cllr Ian Richards (Test Valley)

The Chairman minuted his thanks to the following Members who had ceased their appointments to the Panel:

• Cllr John Kennett (Hart)
• Cllr Peter Latham (Hampshire)
• Cllr Ian Lyon (Portsmouth)

To hear any announcements the Commissioner may have for the Panel. This item will also see the Chief Constable in attendance.

The Chair invited announcements from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire (hereafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’), and noted that the Chief Constable was also in attendance in order to introduce herself to new Members, and to give a brief overview of where she saw Hampshire Constabulary as being and aiming a year into her role.

The state of policing currently was complex and fast moving, and the Chief Constable aimed to bring purpose and a focus on sincerity to the Force. The Chief Constable shared an internal document which would aid this intention, and dovetailed with the Police and Crime Plan.

The Constabulary needed to be alive to the fact that policing is changing fast, with a significant move of crime types from a public to a private space. For example, rape and sexual assault crimes had trebled in terms of reporting, with the ‘Jimmy Savile’ effect seeing more victims coming forward to report crimes who might not have done so previously. These changes in activity required the Force to have a moveable resource to respond to crime, particularly in relation to hidden crimes, such as those conducted online.

Lots of work was being undertaken in collaboration with regional colleagues, such as on counter terrorism and counter extremism, and the Chief Constable was extremely proud of the response of officers and staff in ensuring readiness for these events should they happen in the Hampshire region. Hampshire had sent officers to London and Manchester to work on the response to these events, in order to both contribute to, and learn from them. Through all of these events, two thirds of the response had been through local policing, and if this type of act was a new normality for the police to respond to, then this would have an impact on resources going forward.

Hampshire Constabulary now had six core areas of focus which sat alongside its purpose. These are:

·         Tackling crime and offending

·         Identifying and protecting those who need our help

·         Track, assess, learn and improve

·         The values in the code of ethics

·         Looking after our people

·         Building partnerships that enable a better public service

Specifically, the Chief Constable felt that the police provided a public service and had a key responsibility in preventing and responding to crime, but, in addition, she felt that there was a new responsibility for the police to identify who was likely to be vulnerable to crime and to help these individuals, e.g. victims of child sexual abuse and modern slavery. It was also key to the Chief Constable that the workforce was fit and well, and that as an organisation the Constabulary looked after the people who worked in it, especially given the traumatic or stressful events that some staff were exposed to.

In response to questions to the Chief Constable, the Panel heard:

·         That terrorism-related events had brought into stark view what was already there. The Constabulary had well-rehearsed and thorough procedures in case of such events, but that wouldn’t make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To consider the PEEL inspection outcomes for Hampshire Constabulary, and to hear how the Commissioner has held the Chief Constable to account for the ratings and recommendations received, together with actions being taken forward by the Commissioner in advance of the next set of inspections.

Members received an overview from the Commissioner of the PEEL (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy) inspection outcomes for Hampshire Constabulary, particularly focusing on how the Chief Constable had been held to account for the ratings and recommendations received, together with actions being taken forward by the Commissioner in advance of the next set of inspections. (see Item 9 in the Minute Book).

The Commissioner outlined that at the most recent Constabulary senior leaders away day, HMIC came and observed discussions around the PEEL inspections. HMIC had described Hampshire as a force that was “going places”.

The Commissioner had attended the debrief meeting where discussions took place between the Force and HMIC, and there had been some dispute about the findings, specifically in relation to domestic abuse. The Commissioner supported the innovations and processes used by the Chief Constable in directing her officers in this area. Times of limited finances required innovation and the Commissioner would continue to support this, whilst ensuring that the public are kept safe.

The overall rating of the Force remained ‘good’ despite the ‘requires improvement’ under effectiveness. The actions laid out by the HMIC during this inspection had been quickly acted upon by the Constabulary, and further work was still ongoing.

In the Commissioner’s view, HMIC’s strongest role was to inspect Forces and to share best practice and knowledge from other Constabularies to ensure that this can be applied to ensure consistency of approach.

In response to questions, Members heard:

·      That the Commissioner saw an immediate response by the Chief Constable and Constabulary to respond to the issues the HMIC raised, and to build an evidence base for those areas where innovation had brought about positive ways of reacting to crime. The Commissioner had asked the Chief Constable to look carefully at how evidence could be gathered to understand if innovations applied do deliver better outcomes, and improved action time.

·      The Minister responsible for the police funding formula had not yet taken a firm decision on whether the changes proposed would be adopted in the next year. There was lots of discussion ongoing at a regional and national level, and the general feeling was that this was likely to be delayed. The Commissioner and Chief Constable had both gone on the record to state that the funding formula for Hampshire was unfair, and further delays in changing it would disbenefit the people of Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton.

·      Further work would need to take place ahead of the precept to continue to understand the worst-case scenario should the current funding formula continue.

·      That there are well established processes in place for reprimanding officers who fall short of the Code of Ethics, including a policy on pension forfeiture should this be appropriate.

RESOLVED:

That the update is noted.

To understand how elements of the Act are being implemented locally, to specifically include consideration being given to the future of fire and rescue responsibilities across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

Members received a report setting out how elements of the Act are being implemented locally, specifically on consideration being given to the future of fire and rescue authorities across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (see Item 10 in the Minute Book).

Members heard about the two specific parts of the Act, relating to fire and rescue authorities and complaints handling, which would impact the most on the Police and Crime Panel and how it held the Commissioner to account.

More generally, the Act gave the first statutory requirement for greater co-operation across blue light agencies and gave the Commissioner the ability to have greater influence in this area. For the Hampshire policing area, the Commissioner felt that the primary role of the Act would be to improve the governance processes of the fire and rescue authorities, and to enter into a voluntary collaboration which would bring about improvements through potential shared services and a reduction in duplication. The Commissioner to this end was attending fire and rescue authority meetings as an observer with speaking rights.

Meetings were ongoing between interested parties to consider the options available to the Commissioner in this area, and work was taking place to draw together a business plan covering all of the options. The Commissioner was committed to open discussion and engagement with stakeholders, and he would only take the decision to assume fire and rescue authority responsibilities if this would lead to greater operational effectiveness. The Panel would be affected should the Commissioner choose either Option 3 or 4 in the paper, and therefore it was important to keep the Panel up to date on progress as it happened.

RESOLVED:

That:

·      The update is noted.

·      An item be heard once the Commissioner has taken a decision on the chosen model for the future of Fire and Rescue Authorities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

·      An item be heard on complaint reform once the Commissioner has reached a decision on his chosen option.

To consider a presentation on the Commissioner’s revised Estates Strategy.

Members received a presentation from the Commissioner, Interim Chief Executive and Estates Director of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner on the review undertaken of the Estate strategy, as well as progress since the Panel’s previous update in April 2017 (see Item 11 in the Minute Book)..

The Panel heard that the review of the Estates strategy had ended in evolution rather than revolution, with the aim of this work being to ensure that the priorities are still valid and appropriate, and that it met the needs of the Police and Crime Plan in terms of enabling operational delivery. In addition, the review was a sense check of whether the finances associated with the programme were still valid. The Commissioner was pleased to report that the answers to all of these questions was a firm ‘yes’, and therefore the projects ongoing would continue, with minor tweaks made.

An overview of the changes made to date was shown, with a large percentage of moves being into co-located public sector spaces. The Basingstoke Police Investigation Centre (PIC) had been completed on time and on budget, and feedback from it had been very positive. The lessons learnt from this build and design could now be applied to the Portsmouth PIC, which had now been granted planning permission. A construction company for this development had been appointed, and it was hoped that work would start in the Autumn, with a view to finish in Spring 2019.

The slides set out a number of changes across the various geographies of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, with the programme expected to take a further two to three years. Many of the refurbishments were aimed to improve morale and wellbeing in police buildings, renovating office space and adding facilities that assisted staff to undertake their roles to the best of their ability. The Estates Director was content to discuss with Members any specific concerns relating to their geographies. Specifically, it was heard that:

·      In Aldershot, lots of conversations were ongoing in terms of a suitable site. In the interim, the aim was to undertake some light refurbishments.

·      In Yateley, the plan was to sell and re-provide an alternative location. This building was a large facility, but there was a disproportionate number of officers based there.

·      There were ongoing conversations with the Leader of Fareham Borough Council as to how to select a site that had the right balance of being an appropriate community site with footfall, and a building that would meet the operational needs of the police.

·      In Portsmouth, the Central and Fratton stations would be closed once the PIC was completed (with all teams moving to this site), and these buildings would be disposed of. These sites would remain active until this time. The Cosham team may potentially be placed in the dockyard, with discussions ongoing.

In response to questions, Members heard:

·         That there is a Constabulary ‘front desk strategy’ which considers how the public can access the police in this way,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To consider a report setting out the activities of the delegated officer and the Complaints Sub-Committee in relation to complaints made against the Police and Crime Commissioner in the last quarter.

Items 15 and 16 on the Agenda were taken out of order.

Members received a report from the scrutiny officer to the Panel detailing the activities of the Complaints Sub-Committee in the last quarter (see Item 15 in the Minute Book).

The Chairman of the Complaints Sub-Committee spoke to the report, noting the current status. He requested that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner attend a future meeting of the Sub-Committee, in order that the complaints process currently used internally could be understood by members, ahead of the changes being made following the implementation of the Police and Crime Act 2017.

RESOLVED:

That the quarterly complaints report is noted.

To consider a report providing suggested revisions to the Complaints Protocol of the Panel.

Members received a report from the scrutiny officer to the Panel which suggested revisions to the Police and Crime Panel’s governance documents (see Item 16 in the Minute Book), specifically relating to the Complaints Protocol.

The Chairman of the Complaints Sub-Committee spoke to the report, noting that the changes had been made following a referral of a complaint from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and consideration of this in the annual complaints review meeting.

It was noted that the Home Office had not yet published its response to the Complaints Consultation undertaken with Panels in 2016, but that further amendments may be made to the Protocol once this is available.

RESOLVED:

That the revised Complaints Protocol is agreed.

Councillor Tonia Craig and Bob Purkiss left at this point in the meeting.

To receive a quarterly update from the Commissioner detailing delivery against his Police and Crime Plan.

Members received two presentations from the Police and Crime Plan Programme Office Lead and the Commissioner setting out an update on delivery against the Police and Crime Plan 2016-2021 (see Items 12 and supplementary to Item 12 in the Minute Book).

Before hearing the presentation, the Chair of the Police and Crime Plan Working Group gave a summary of the most recent meeting held, where Members discussed the current approach to blue light collaboration, and reviewed the Gantt chart being used by the Office to track projects. The working group found this very helpful, especially in terms of identifying gaps and better aligning work programmes. At the next meeting, the group hoped to consider commissioning projects and how these fitted with the priorities of the Plan.

The presentations gave an outline of progress since the last meeting, and the Commissioner highlighted some of the areas of interest to the Panel, such as the recent visit of the Victims Commissioner to Hampshire, Compass meetings with the Chief Constable, and Mardi Gras and a celebration of diversity on the Isle of Wight.

In response to questions, the Panel heard:

• That currently there were not any ‘red’ rated projects sitting underneath the Plan. The working group were tasked with reviewing overall progress against all of the ongoing projects, and would bring any ‘red’ projects or issues of concern to the Panel.
• Lots of work was ongoing with the Youth Commission and police cadets. All staff leading this work with young people were accredited, checked and appropriately trained, and all activities were risk assessed. Some of the young people being worked with have vulnerabilities, and the Commissioner and his Office were responsible for ensuring necessary safeguards are put in place to ensure any issues are reported and acted upon.

RESOLVED:

That the updates on the delivery of the Police and Crime Plan are noted.

To consider a paper outlining the Police and Crime Commissioner’s response to the final recommendations of the Police and Crime Panel on ‘Restorative Justice’.

The Commissioner’s comments on the recommendations from the ‘restorative justice’ proactive scrutiny final report were noted.

RESOLVED:

That the Commissioner’s response is noted and published on the Panel’s website.

To agree the outcomes and recommendations of the Panel’s review of ‘Rural Crime’.

The final draft of the ‘Rural Crime’ recommendations were presented before the Panel by the Police and Crime Plan working group.

The Chair of the Plan working group commented that the Panel had revisited a topic last scrutinised four years ago, when the proactive scrutiny work programme was first agreed. This review aimed to look at what had changed in this time, and how the recommendations from the previous scrutiny had been implemented.

It was also noted that the Inspector responsible for the approach to rural crime in Hampshire Constabulary, Lou Hubble, had recently been recognised for her contribution through the award of an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours. The Panel noted their congratulations to Inspector Hubble, and agreed that the Chairman should write to convey their thanks to her and her team.

The Panel commended the report and agreed that it summarised well the oral and written evidence received.

RESOLVED:

That the ‘Rural Crime’ proactive scrutiny recommendations are agreed, and sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner for his response to the Panel’s recommendations.

To consider a report which sets out the required membership of the Panel’s working groups for consideration and appointment.

Members received a report from the scrutiny officer to the Panel which sets out the required membership of the Panel’s working groups for consideration and appointment (see Item 17 in the Minute Book).

It was agreed that membership would be confirmed via email. During the item, the following Members volunteered:

Complaints Sub-Committee:

·         Cllr John Beavis

·         Cllr Ken Carter

·         Cllr Lisa Griffiths

·         Cllr Ken Muschamp

·         Bob Purkiss

·         Cllr Leah Turner

As the Sub-Committee terms of reference noted that there would be a maximum of four members on this working group, the final membership would be determined by the Chairman in consultation with members.

Finance Working Group

·         Michael Coombes

·         Cllr Adrian Collett

·         Cllr Ian Richards

Plan Working Group:

·         Cllr Simon Bound

·         Cllr Ryan Brent

·         Cllr Trevor Cartwright

·         Cllr Steve Clarke

·         Cllr Jan Warwick

RESOLVED:

That the Panel consider and agree the membership of the Complaints Sub-Committee, Police and Crime Plan working group and Finance working group for the 2017/18 year.

To consider a report setting out the proposed future work programme for the Panel.

Members received a report from the scrutiny officer to the Panel setting out the proposed work programme for the Panel (see Item 18 in the Minute Book).

The Chairman noted that the following would be added to the work programme:

• Two further items on the implementation of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, to consider decisions taken by the Commissioner on Fire and Rescue Authorities and Complaints.
• An item on community engagement, which will include the community speedwatch item already listed on the work programme.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme is agreed.