Agenda item

To receive a quarterly update from the Police and Crime Commissioner detailing performance of and delivery against the Police and Crime Plan, with a spotlight on Community Crimes that Matter.

The Commissioner addressed a question raised by the Panel in advance of the meeting, following a number of high-profile missing person enquiries recently reported in the press. As one of only five forces across England and Wales to have a Marine Unit, and one of the largest coastlines to police, Members heard that Hampshire and IOW Constabulary were well prepared and had the necessary the capacity and capability to respond to such incidents. The Commissioner further noted that two such cases had occurred in Hampshire, to which the police response was executed quickly and both missing people were found within hours.

A short adjournment was called by the Chairman from 10:45-11:00 to resolve a technical issue.

Cllr Liz Fairhurst joined the meeting at this point, as the deputy member for Havant Borough Council.

The Panel received a presentation from the Commissioner providing an update against delivery of the Police and Crime Plan, with a specific focus on Community Crimes that Matter, through which it was heard that:

·         61% of the objectives within the Police and Crime Plan were evidenced, meaning that, in the PCC’s view, those objectives had been met.

·         Data shared through the presentation, which evidenced which wards were subject to the most prolific ASB, was used by the PCC to hold the Chief Constable to account for effective policing delivery and improvement. This data was also used by the Commissioner’s team to better target interventions which prevented young people from being drawn into criminality.

·         The PCC provided funding for the provision of E-Bikes on the IOW, which had increased policing visibility and provided assurance for residents.

·         It was considered that the increase in the reporting of sexual offences was a reflection of increased in public confidence.

·         Contact from the community through casework reports to the PCC was welcomed, and had supported her oversight and scrutiny of the force.

·         The PCC and her office were encouraging local business owners to report incidents of business crime and shoplifting, particularly where there was concern regarding staff safety.

·         The Commissioner had sought to support efforts to tackle business crime by bringing in DISC, which was an information sharing platform which could be used by the Police and business owners to share information to prevent crime and identify concerns.

·         The PCC further highlighted the business navigator scheme, which was providing targeted intervention for prolific perpetrators of shoplifting and other business crime, with support and funding from Southern Co-op.

Data was provided by the PCC, showing the ethnic representation of the force and how this had changed over previous last 12 months. Also shown were a number of case studies demonstrating the impact of projects commissioned by the PCC.

The Commissioner offered her thanks to the Panel’s Policy and Performance Working Group who had, through its most recent meeting, provided greater clarity regarding the information required to support the Police and Crime Plan update, along with feedback on the data and format of the information to be provided. The Commissioner’s team commented that it had been a helpful meeting with 28 items raised by the working group to be addressed in the update, which had focussed on identifying what impact the PCC and her office were having through the delivery of the objectives of the Plan.

The Commissioner noted that ONS data, which was requested by the working group, had been provided through a briefing note in advance of the meeting, along with further information on DISC.

The Commissioner tabled to the meeting an example of an update provided to the working group by the previous Commissioner demonstrating delivery against the previous Police and Crime Plan. The Chairman noted, for clarity, that the information tabled was an excerpt of nine documents which had been provided by the previous Commissioner on that occasion, along with the support of a senior performance officer who had answered questions from the working group about project evaluation. This process had provided the Panel with in-depth detail of the progress of delivery during that quarter, and had enabled the Panel to more effectively support and challenge the previous PCC during the public meeting.

The Commissioner felt that the requirements of the Panel had previously been unclear, but committed to work with the Panel to deliver information the Panel required, in the format needed.

Members were invited to comment, through which it was heard that:

·         Members requested that the Commissioner bring an update to the next meeting on the recently published PEEL Inspection 2021/22 for Hampshire and IOW Constabulary, particularly focussed on how the Commissioner would be holding the Chief Constable to account for responding to the outcomes of the report. The Commissioner stated that she would be happy to provide an update on progress against the recommendations of the Inspection at each future meeting. The Commissioner further explained that, as well as a monthly 1-2-1 meeting, she held weekly performance reviews with the Chief Constable and spoke with him on several occasions each week.

·         The PCC also agreed to bring to each future meeting an update against the joint performance framework, agreed with the Chief Constable. The Chairman commented that this would provide helpful supporting evidence to the Panel.

·         Members noted that they had asked, over a period of more than a year, for baseline data against the deliverable objectives within the plan. Through the Policy and Performance Working Group the Panel had sought to work with the PCC’s senior management team to define and refine the information to be presented to the Panel at its public meetings. The working group had also agreed to review a draft of the information to be presented to the meeting and provide feedback, but this was not provided by the OPCC ahead of the meeting. 

·         The Panel felt that they had been very clear about what information was required and invited the PCC to seek clarity from the Panel if that was not the case. The Commissioner responded by stating that she had requested that the Panel confirm in writing the information they required, and had sought to convey an openness through this approach.

·         The Panel recognised the amount of work which had been undertaken by the PCC and her office since her election. Members expressed confidence that the PCC was making significant progress, however they could not evidence this through the information and data which had been provided to the Panel to date.

·         The Panel was clear that the intention of requesting this information and data was to support the PCC in the delivery of her Police and Crime Plan objectives, and to provide an opportunity for her to evidence and demonstrate how she was delivering against these for the benefit of residents across Hampshire and the IOW.

·         The Panel were keen to continue to work with the PCC and her team to clarify the Panel’s requirements. 

The Chairman explained that one of the Panel’s primary aims, in requesting evidence of delivery of the plan, was not to duplicate work or request additional data where it did not already exist, and this had been clearly communicated with the Commissioner’s senior management team.

Members were then invited to raise questions against the Police and Crime Plan Delivery update, through which it was heard that:

·         Road safety was becoming an increasing community concern, with residents expressing frustration regarding rat running and road racing. Members also challenged how the Community Speed Watch (CSW) scheme could be adapted to meet the nature of urban road safety challenges. It was noted that whilst funding was available through the road safety fund, there were far fewer CSW groups in urban areas, with the uptake mainly coming from rural and semi-rural communities.

·         The Commissioner had full confidence in the Chief Constable and his approach in addressing concerns raised by local communities, including the impact of traffic crime.

·         All Police Officers and all staff at the OPCC had recently been re-vetted, in accordance with the National Police Database.

·         Resource for the 101 call answering service was still a significant challenge. This had improved for a period, however there were now circa 80 vacancies being recruited for. The Commissioner was supporting the Constabulary to consider alternative options to attract additional interest in vacancies, including expanding the use of agencies to head hunt resource and looking at other potential office bases, to expand the pool of available candidates.

The Chairman closed the discussion by summarising that the Panel needed to be more prescriptive regarding the information it required from the Commissioner to evidence delivery of the Police and Crime Plan. Discussions at the meeting had highlighted that, whilst the information provided by the Commissioner and her team to date had been helpful, it wasn’t sufficient enough to enable the Panel to effectively fulfil its responsibilities to scrutinise and support the Commissioner in the delivery of her Plan. The Chairman extended an invitation to the Commissioner to the next meeting of the working group, to enable discussion to be held regarding the data and information the Panel required, and to ensure that a clear agreement could be reached on what would be requested/provided going forward. Following the meeting the Panel would write to the Commissioner to confirm its requirements in a way which was specific, clear and concise.

RESOLVED:

That the update on the delivery of the Police and Crime Plan is noted