Cleveland Police and Crime Panel Minutes

Tuesday, 19th September, 2017
5.00 p.m.
The Unicorn Centre, Stainton Way, Hemlington Way, Middlesbrough, TS8 9LX
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Cllr Norma Stephenson O.B.E (Chair), Cllr Charles Rooney (Vice-Chairman), Cllr Alec Brown, Cllr David Coupe, Mr Andrew Dyne, Cllr Ian Jeffrey, Cllr Chris Jones, Cllr Jim Lindridge, Cllr Tom Mawston, Cllr Matthew Vickers and Cllr David Wilburn.
Judy Trainer, Julie Butcher, Peter Bell (Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council).
In Attendance:
Barry Coppinger (Commissioner), Simon Dennis, Joanne Hodgkinson, Elise Pout (Commissioner's Office), Chief Superintendent Simon Nickless (Cleveland Police).
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Trisha Lawton, Cllr Ken Dixon and Paul McGrath.
Item Description Decision
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
RESOLVED that the presentation be received.

1. The Members’ questions and the responses from the Police and Crime Commissioner be noted.

2. Further information be provided as detailed above
RESOLVED that the report and discussion be noted / actioned as appropriate.
RESOLVED that the decisions of the Police and Crime Commissioner be noted.
RESOLVED that the report be noted
RESOLVED that the Programme of Engagement for Police and Crime Commissioner be noted

1. The Force and the PCC provide updates to the Police and Crime Panel on a six monthly basis on the progress of the Evolve Programme and opportunities for further collaboration including the North East Transformation, Innovation and Collaboration Programme (NETIC).

2. In light of the huge successes and benefits which have been realised through the forces existing collaborative work, the force should look to actively and expeditiously expand upon these in other areas and, in particular, the Group felt active consideration should be given to collaboration on Professional Standards and although the meeting noted that this was outside the scope of Evolve at present, the Chief Executive drew Members’ attention to early proposals for joint training and development for legal and professional standards across the region.
RESOLVED that the Forward Plan for the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel be noted.
Members were informed that there were no public questions.
5.00pm to 7.00pm


Prior to the meeting Members visited the site of the new Community Safety Hub. Members then received a presentation that gave further details of the internal and external design of the building and the working conditions it would provide for police and OPCC personnel, along with the opportunity for wider partnership working.
Members were given the opportunity to participate in a question and answer session with the PCC. This session can be summarised as follows:

A Member reported that he had recently had to contact the Police non-emergency number 101 number but had been put in a waiting queue for 35 minutes. The Member then abandoned the call.

The PCC responded that he was sorry to hear the Member’s experience with the 101 service. A number of measures were being put in place including a substantial review of the control room taking place. It was also a subject that would be scrutinised in the near future. An update on the 101 service would be given at a future meeting of the Panel.

A Member requested that the Budget Task and Finish Group 2018/19 should receive supporting information and documentation demonstrating the way in which the PCC (and his colleagues across the country) had brought pressure to bear upon central government to fully fund the 1% pay increase for Police Officers.

The PCC indicated that he had written to the Prime Minister directly to challenge the Government’s approach to the pay award and reminded Members that there was work on-going about the challenge that the 1% bonus creates for Cleveland Police. There would now be a much earlier start to the budget process. The Budget Task and Finish Group would receive an update on the forward planning process.

A Member asked if there had there been any productive dialogue with the newly elected Tees Valley Mayor.

The PCC responded that he had met with the Tees Valley Mayor (Ben Houchen) shortly after he was elected and there were a number of issues of a common interest. Further meetings were planned for the future to discuss progressing an effective working relationship for the benefit of the communities of the Cleveland area.

With regard to performance reporting to the Panel, a Member asked a question around the level of the detail that the Panel was receiving and whether the Panel could be receive more detail as this information was already provided to Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs).

The PCC responded that the issue concerned the level of detail that the CSPs received and the timing of the release of the information. The CSPs received the restricted information that is not publically available. The information was therefore classed as restricted at the meetings of the CSPs and that therefore there was a potential issue of information law in relation to the remit of the CSPs and the Police & Crime Panel, which may limit the Panel’s entitlement to that detailed information. Members felt that they would like officers to look at what information was provided to CSPs and the Panel. It was agreed that officers would prepare a report for the next meeting of the Panel.
Consideration was given to a report on the performance of the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Police and Crime Plan.

The Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan objectives were as follows:

• Investing in our Police;
• A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses;
• Tackling Re-offending;
• Working Together to Make Cleveland Safer; and
• Securing the Future of our Communities.

The report updated Panel members on performance associated with the delivery of the Commissioner’s objectives, the wider aspects of the Police and Crime Plan and statutory responsibilities.

The report provided an overview of the current performance of the PCC and his Police and Crime Plan. The information provided was accurate at the time of production. Information focused on an agreed suite of performance indicators and support key diagnostic indicators. Additional information was also provided to establish the context of information presented and assist the reader in their understanding of the report.

Holding the Chief Constable to account was the key duty of the Police & Crime Commissioner and must encompass all of the functions of the Chief Constable and functions of those who were under the Chief Constable’s direction.

The scrutiny of the Force was one of the main responsibilities of the Commissioner as set out in the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011. This is delivered through the Commissioner’s standards and scrutiny programme during which effective checks and balances were undertaken through a schedule of regular meetings.

The overview of the performance information from the Police and Crime Plan was attached to the report. Members noted the infographic at page 2 that provided some highlights of the details contained within the performance report. Of particular note within the performance report were details regarding work being undertaken with victims, details on tackling re-offending and the Youth Triage Scheme, details of the community engagement meetings and an update on commissioned services. Information focused on an agreed suite of performance indicators and supported key diagnostic indicators. Additional information was also provided to establish the context of information presented.

Discussion on the information provided could be summarised as follows:

- Would the recent announcement by Government that Police Officers would receive a pay increase that would come out of existing budgets result in a cut in numbers of Police Officers?
- The PCC responded that it was a 2% increase for Police Officers. 1% was budgeted for and a 1% bonus that the government expected Forces to fund themselves. Both the Chief Constable, the Chief Finance Officers and the PCC Office were looking to how they could rise to the challenge of the announcement. They were looking for ways in which it would be possible to fund the pay increase without any reductions in service in the future. The bonus would be spread over 2 financial years. The PCC had received emails from Police Officers outlining that they would not be happy to receive the additional bonus money if that meant the jobs of colleagues were put at risk.
The Chair outlined that the Police shouldn’t be asked to find that money and that she would support the PCC in trying to convince the Government that they should fund the 1% pay award.
- How will the thematic examination of HR be carried out?
- The PCC responded that it would be a scrutiny meeting and that his office had submitted a number of questions on various aspects of HR operations. The minutes of the meeting would be presented to the Panel at a future meeting.
Consideration was given to a report that provided an update on decisions made by the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and the Forward Plan.

The Police and Crime Commissioner made all decisions unless specifically delegated within the Scheme of Consent / Delegation. All decisions demonstrated that they were soundly based on relevant information and that the decision making process was open and transparent.

In addition, a forward plan was included and published on the PCC website which included items requiring a decision in the future. This was attached to the report.

Each decision of significant public interest made by the PCC was recorded on a Decision Record Form with supporting background information. Once approved it was published on the PCC website.

Decisions relating to private / confidential matters would be recorded; although, it may be appropriate that for legal reasons for certain information, such as operationally sensitive details, not to be published in full.

Decisions made since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel were also attached to the report.
Consideration was given to a report that gave an update in relation to key matters including;

- Seven Force North East and Yorkshire Collaboration
- Transforming Professional Standards
- Everyone Matters
- Sexual Assault Services

Members were updated with regard to the Head of Professional Standards. There had been a very high level of interest in the post and the completion of the recruitment of the post would take place over the next 4 - 6 weeks. A specialist recruitment agency had been engaged by Cleveland Police with the full support of the OPCC, in order to ensure that the recruitment campaign attracts and appoints the highest calibre of professional to the role.

Discussion on the information provided could be summarised as follows:

- Following Brexit there had been a worrying increase in Hate Crime. There had also been an increase in the abuse of MPs and local Councillors. Can the PCC give some assurances that this was an area that he would have some focus on as people that serve the public do need protection?
- The PCC responded that there was a Strategic Hate Crime Working Group that the he chaired. It was looking at ensuring a more joined up approach to tackling Hate Crime. There was a lot of work taking place with additional staff to strengthen Neighbourhood Policing arrangements. The PCC reported that he would bring an item to the next meeting that would give an overview of the work of the Strategic Hate Crime Working Group.
- With regard to the attacks on democratically elected representatives the Police Force was giving support where ever needed and this was continually under review. If any Member had any concerns they should contact the Police as soon as possible.
Consideration was given to a report that provided Members with a brief update in relation to meetings attended by the PCC from July 2017 to August 2017. Future meetings of the PCC were also be summarised within the report.

The PCCs consultation and engagement activities focused on improving the understanding of the needs and perspectives of the diverse communities of Cleveland, ensuring clear and consistent communication with the public and ensuring effective consultation and community engagement.

The PCC attended a number of meetings on a regular basis with key partners, stakeholders and residents from across the Cleveland area.

In addition to this the PCC had attended various regional and national meetings representing Cleveland.

Contained within the report was a summary of key other meetings attended by the PCC. The full diary was published on the PCC website.

Future meetings of the PCC included:

• Strategic Independent Advisory Group - 16th October
• APCC/NPCC Joint Summit -1st/2nd November
• Community Safety Awards - 22nd November
Consideration was given to a report that outlined the findings of the Task and Finish Group set up by the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel (PCP) to examine the PCC commitment to continue to deliver the Evolve Programme - collaboration with Durham and North Yorkshire (including dog section, major crime and legal services) and an appreciation of what was needed to enable further collaborative opportunities as part of the Evolve programme with other forces, and with other non-police partners.

The Task and Finish Group was established in January to explore the key lines of enquiry:

- What is the relationship between the development of shared services and financial planning / achievement of savings targets?
- What is the scope for further joint services and what form could these take?
- Which police and/or external organisations may be involved?
- What examples of shared services / joint working exist in other force areas? What learning from these can be used locally?

Shared services covered a multitude of actual and potential collaborations and it was proposed that the Group’s work focused on the Evolve Programme in particular, in addition to gaining an appreciation of the wider context.

The report set out the findings and conclusions and was intended to assist the Panel by providing assurance on the progress of the Evolve Programme and the commitment of the PCC in pursuing further opportunities to collaborate.

With regard to the overall conclusions the Group found that:

• A strong commitment to collaborative working had been demonstrated by the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Cleveland Force

• The Evolve Programme was progressing well and was already achieving increased capability and capacity as well as realising savings

• Areas for future collaborative working were part of on-going strategic planning and debate and the Task and Finish Group asked that opportunities for collaboration on Professional Standards should be actively considered as part of these discussions

• The seven North East Forces had given a commitment to working together as part of the NETIC Programme

• That opportunities for collaboration would need to be considered in conjunction with the development of the 2020 workforce strategy and any review of the structure of the Cleveland Police.
Members were presented with the Forward Plan for the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction