|Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2018.|
Members agreed the following correction to minutes:-
Page 3, Paragraph 5
Delete the words:-
The Chair confirmed that the Panel had been made aware of the complaint in any event.
|Members considered a report that presented the Commissioner's 2017/18 Annual Report. |
The Annual Report set out how the Commissioner had successfully delivered the commitments he had made in his Police and Crime Plan during the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.
It was the Commissioners sixth year and he felt privileged that people had continued faith in him to ensure efficient and effective policing was delivered in Cleveland.
The Annual Report highlighted the 2017-2018 timeline that showed some of the key achievements the Commissioner had made in the last 12 months.
Further highlights in the Annual Report were:-
- 2017/18 in Numbers
- Your Force Your Voice
- Investing in Our Police
- Getting a Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses
- Tackling Re-Offending
- Working Together to Make Cleveland Safer
- Securing the Future of Our Communities
- Scrutiny and Governance
- Budget Results 2017/18
Members felt that the report was easy to follow for the public. An observation was made that the photographs should better reflect the ethnic mix across Cleveland.
A question was asked about what percentage of the Police Budget in Cleveland was spent on Neighbourhood Policing. As the exact figures were not available it was agreed that a response would be prepared for the next meeting of the Panel.
|Consideration was given to a report that provided Members with an update in relation to key matters since the previous meeting in February including;|
* Devolution of Ministry of Justice Funding - Expression of Interest
* Child Sexual Exploitation - Perpetrator Research Event
* Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery Network
* Staff engagement sessions
* Collaboration - NETIC/Evolve
|Consideration was given to a report that updated Members with progress on the refresh of the Cleveland Police and Crime Plan.|
The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Clevelands Police and Crime Plan was a statutory document. Requirements for the Plan were set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the Policing Protocol Order 2011. The Plan must have regard to the Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR) issued by the Home Secretary.
The PCC had a duty to keep his Plan under review and in particular to review the Plan in the light of any changes in the SPR and any report or recommendations made to the PCC by the Police and Crime Panel.
Members were aware from the update at the last meeting, the Police and Crime commissioner would like to use the Chief Constable appointment as an opportunity to look again at the current Plan and work in partnership with the Chief Constable on a Plan refresh.
The commissioner would maintain his commitment to the five objectives set out in the Plan:
Investing in our police
A better deal for victims and witnesses
Working together to make Cleveland safer
Securing the future of our communities
A strategic planning session was held on Tuesday 19th June 2019 and was attended by senior managers from across Cleveland Police and the OPCC. The day included a presentation on the Strategic Threats and Risk Assessment, Long Term Financial Plan, Collaboration and Strategic Contracts.
A series of workshop sessions were held to examine what outcomes the PCC was looking to achieve across each of the Commissioners Objectives, what the PCC was doing to meet the objectives and what the PCC needed to do in the future to meet these long term objectives. Attached to the report were the notes of the workshop sessions.
The Police and Crime Commissioner had attended over 500 local meetings across the Cleveland Police area and had used and would continue to use this engagement mechanism to further develop police and crime objectives. In addition to this, during May and June, the Commissioner had written to all partners to formally invite comments on the plan refresh. This information was being used to formulate the new Plan.
A series of Chief Constable and Commissioner staff briefing session had also been held across the organisation with all staff as part of a programme of engagement. The feedback from which would be used to inform the Plan.
A planning session involving partner organisations would be held on 13 September and would be the final engagement opportunity on the drafting of the Plan.
The refreshed plan would be published in the Autumn following consideration by the Police and Crime Panel.
|Consideration was given to a report that provided Members with a brief update in relation to meetings attended by the PCC from February 2018 to June 2018. |
The PCCs consultation and engagement activities focused on increasing understanding of the 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 many regional and national meetings representing Cleveland.
The Your Force Your Voice engagement initiative continued to take place with community meetings in all of Clevelands 79 ward areas being revisited on an annual basis. Since coming into office in November 2012 the PCC had attended over 560 community meetings allowing him to better understand the needs of local communities across Cleveland.
A summary of key other meetings attended by the PCC was contained within the report. The full diary was published on the PCC website.
Scrutiny meetings continued to be held with the Chief Constable on a weekly basis. Discussions from these meetings were published on the PCC website under Force Accountability. Any outstanding actions were followed up by the Office of the PCC.
In addition to this the PCC monitored the Control Room Log and the Serious Incident Log on a daily basis.
Future meetings of note over the next few weeks were detailed within the report.
|Consideration was given to a report that provided Members with 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 made by the PCC was recorded on a decision record form with supporting background information appended. Once approved it was published on the PCC website.
Decisions relating to private / confidential matters would be recorded; although, it may be appropriate that full details were not published.
Decisions made since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel were attached to the report.
|Consideration was given to a report that provided Members with an update on the PCCs scrutiny programme and presented the performance report of the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Police and Crime Plan.|
The Commissioners objectives were as follows:
Investing in our Police;
A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses;
Working Together to Make Cleveland Safer; and
Securing the Future of our Communities.
The report updated Members on performance associated with the delivery of the Commissioners objectives, the wider aspects of the Police and Crime Plan and his statutory responsibilities.
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 Constables direction and control: this means, particularly:-
- How the Chief Constable discharges his duty to have regard to the Police and Crime Plan;
- How the Chief Constable has regard to national and regional Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR);
- How the Chief Constable complies with the law generally and police codes of practice in particular;
- How the Chief Constable deals with his functions in relation to the handling of complaints against the police;
- The effectiveness and efficiency of Cleveland Polices work in relation to collaboration and partnership;
- How effective and efficient the police arrangements are for engagement with local people;
- How well Cleveland Police achieves value for money in all that it does;
- How Cleveland Police addresses its equality and diversity duties; and
- How Cleveland Police deals with its responsibilities, working in partners, in respect of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
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. Delivered through the Commissioners standards and scrutiny programme effective checks and balances were undertaken through a schedule of regular meetings.
Since the last Police and Crime Panel the PCC had held the following meetings.
Scrutiny, Performance and Delivery meetings
28 February 2018
11 April 2018
The minutes of the above meetings were attached to the report.
Since the last update to the Panel there had been two Working Together meetings on the 15 March and 8 June 2018. The minutes were attached to the report.
In addition to the meetings above, the Commissioner continued to attend the following to complement his scrutiny programme:
- Daily review of the Control Room and Serious Incident Logs;
- Weekly accountability meetings with the Chief Constable;
- Monthly crime performance monitoring;
- Attendance at the Forces monthly Force Performance Group (; and
- Attend at least one local area meeting in each of Clevelands neighbourhood police team areas.
Attached to the report was an overview of the performance information from the Police and Crime Plan.
Members discussed the information that had been presented to them and it was agreed that a closed in-depth briefing session on performance should be held prior a future meeting of the Panel.
|Consideration was given to a report that provided detail of current and outstanding scrutiny topics and sought to set the Police and Crime Panel Work Programme for 2018/19. |
Details of outstanding scrutiny topics were as follows:-
Overall Budget Strategy (Annual Review)
Tackling Off-Road Motorbike Nuisance
As the Panel already had two topics scheduled for scrutiny it was not proposed at this stage to add to the Scrutiny Work Programme. This took into account that the Task and Finish Group - Tackling Off-Road Motorbike Nuisance would be reporting into the meeting of the Panel in November 2018 and that the Task and Finish Group for the Overall Budget Strategy would report to the meeting of the Panel in February 2019. There would then be a period of purdah before the forthcoming local elections.
Members were asked to take into account the capacity and resources needed to carry out the review programme to ensure that it is manageable.
Members discussed Neighbourhood Policing and it was agreed that Members would receive an update at the next meeting of the Panel.
It was agreed that the Governance Officer would write to both the Hartlepool Borough Council representatives to ask if they would like to sit on the Task and Finish Group - Tackling Off-Road Motorbike Nuisance
|Consideration was given to a report on the process for the appointment of a non-political independent member, in light of the resignation of one of the existing two non-political independent members.|
Schedule 6 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 required that each Police and Crime Panel appoints two non-political independent members.
The two independent members should be appointed in the context of ensuring that the panel had the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to discharge its functions effectively.
One of the existing two non-political independent members, Andrew Dyne, had resigned. A replacement member was therefore required. Attached to the report were draft documents associated with the appointment of independent members. These were updated versions of the documents previously agreed.
It was suggested that:-
As before, the advertising process utilises all available free opportunities,
including press release, website and existing mailings and partnerships;
The term of office of the new member should coincide with the terms of office agreed for the two Independent Members i.e. 1st February 2021.
As previously, that a politically balanced selection sub panel of 5 drawn from the full panel be appointed to conduct short listings and interviews to determine the most suitable candidate to be the replacement non-political independent member, with the full panel endorsing the decision prior to the candidate being formally appointed.
A politically balanced selection sub panel of 5 would be Labour 3, Conservatives 1, Liberal Democrats 1. With a view to reflecting the number of Members within political groups, in each constituent authority, whilst providing each authority the opportunity to be represented on the Panel, the following was suggested:-
Hartlepool Borough Council- 1 Labour
Middlesbrough Council - 1 Labour
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council - 1 Liberal Democrat
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council - 1 Labour and 1 Conservative
|Consideration was given to a report on the possibility of the Panel joining a Special Interest Group (SIG) for Police and Crime Panels, within the Local Government Association.|
Unlike Police and Crime Commissioners who had established a National Association, the Police and Crime Panels had not had a similar collective voice through which representation to Government and the sharing of best practice could be facilitated.
At the meeting held on February 2017 it had agreed that the Chair of the Panel should further investigate, with other interested Panels, the potential formation of a National Association of Police and Crime Panels.
Since that time a number of options had been investigated and there was strong support for the formation of a Special Interest Group, within the Local Government Association.
It was open to any 10 or more full Local Government Association (LGA) Members with common features, interests or concerns to form a SIG, subject to approval of an application by the LGAs leadership Board. SIGs were able to make representations direct to government and elsewhere on matters arising directly from their special interest.
It was proposed that a Chair and Vice Chair for the SIG should be elected on an annual basis, with one vote per Police and Crime Panel. Whilst some of the administration for the SIG would be carried out by the LGA the Chair should be able to arrange additional administration through his/her local facilities.
Meetings of the SIG would initially take place on a quarterly basis.
The suggested level of subscription for the SIG was a maximum of £500 per Police and Crime Panel. This equated to £125 per authority, for the authorities making up the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel. The subscription would assist with set up and running costs.
An initial work programme for the SIG might include:
Meetings with relevant partner organisations and the Home Office.
The development of guidance for PCPs on handling complaints.
Updating the existing suite of LGA / Centre for Public Scrutiny guidance for PCPs.
Exploring the impact of changes to FRA governance and the enhanced role for PCCs, and therefore PCPs, in this area.
A review of panel resourcing.
|Members were presented with the Forward Plan for the Panel.|
|A discussion was held about a recent incident that had happened at Stockton-on-Tees Borough Councils Planning Committee. A member of the public had suffered a heart attack. A defibrillator had been sought but unfortunately the defibrillator at Stockton Police Station was out of action as the battery was flat. A Member reported that he felt the problem with defibrillators was that they werent available out of hours and not publically accessible but one modern solution was the AED. The Commissioner reported that he was already looking into the issues and he would report back to Panel members.|