Agenda and minutes

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel
Wednesday, 3 October 2018 1.00 pm

Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield. View directions

Contact: Euan Walters (Tel: 0116 3052583)  Email: euan.walters@leics.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

Webcast.

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWFpwBLs6MnUzG0WjejrQtQ

 

23.

Minutes of the previous meeting. pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018 were taken as read, confirmed and signed, subject to amendment to minute no. 18(viii) so that the first sentence states:

“The membership of the Youth Commission did not include people who had been involved with criminal activity.”

 

24.

Public Question Time.

Minutes:

There were no questions submitted.

 

25.

Urgent items.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items for consideration. However, the Chairman announced that the Home Office were conducting a review into the effectiveness of Police and Crime Panels and the Chairman was of the view that the Panel should fully engage with the review.  A message had been sent to the Home Office offering to provide feedback to the Home Office regarding the work of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel.

 

 

26.

Declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

 

Mr. K. Culverwell declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items as he had two close relatives that worked for Leicestershire Police.

 

Ms. M. Lalani declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items as she had a close relative that was a member of the Police Cadets.

 

 

27.

Performance Report - Quarter 1. pdf icon PDF 688 KB

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which presented the Quarter 1 2018/19 performance report. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 5’, is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the levels of confidence the public had in reporting crime, the PCC stated that there was no formal intelligence on the issue however on the whole he believed more people were prepared to come forward to report crimes. The PCC emphasised that the public were encouraged to report all crimes. The PCC said that there was some anecdotal evidence that some people did not report crimes due to issues with the 101 telephone service.

 

(ii)       A member also raised concerns regarding the 101 and 999 telephone services particularly relating to the care and assurance shown by the call handlers to those people calling in. In response it was acknowledged that public expectations of the telephone services were high and these expectations needed to be managed. The service offer to the public via the 101 and 999 telephone services was being reviewed and it was hoped that in future the issues the callers were raising could be resolved as early as possible in the process. However, resources were finite and any funding given to 101 and 999 telephone call handling would have to be taken from other areas of policing.

 

(iii)      In response to queries from a member regarding how the Force would cope with the increasing crime and maintain effective policing in the future, the PCC provided reassurance that he was monitoring the situation and in his view new approaches were required to cope with the increasing demand. Members were reminded that in the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services published in March 2018 Leicestershire Police had been rated as ‘Good’ in all areas that the force had been assessed against and no areas had been identified for improvement

 

(iv)      With regard to the increase in rapes being recorded the PCC stated that he believed this was partly due to an increased confidence on the part of victims to report. There were sometimes difficulties caused by victims not taking part in a medical examination or supporting the prosecution all the way to Court which hindered the prospects of conviction. The PCC clarified that the figures for rape by strangers were very low and in most of those cases the perpetrator was caught. Most rapes were committed in a domestic situation by a person known to the victim.

 

(v)       Clarification was given with regards to paragraph 10c of the report and it was explained that the Integrated Offender Management team were managing 328 prolific offenders, a figure which had gone up from 316 the previous year.

 

(vi)      It was explained that whilst tackling drug trafficking across county lines was a priority it did not fit into one of the specific categories of crime that the Home Office recorded and therefore was not referred to under the Headlines Recorded Crime section of the report.

 

(vii)    In response to a question about media coverage of knife crime in other parts of the region reassurance was given that Leicestershire Police had appeared on television and radio to disseminate messages about knife crime, and the Force had been involved in the national knife crime campaign involving the boxer Anthony Joshua. Leicestershire Police and the OPCC had recently submitted a bid for funding from the government’s early intervention fund in relation to knife and violent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Project Darwin. pdf icon PDF 870 KB

A presentation will be given at the meeting.

Minutes:

The Panel received a presentation from the Chief Executive of the OPCC regarding Project Darwin and Blueprint 2025. A copy of the presentation slides is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from the presentation the following points were noted:

 

(i)        Whereas with the previous model of policing in Leicestershire under Project Edison the police force was centralised, under Darwin a devolved model would be used and there would be more resources invested into neighbourhood policing. It was hoped that Darwin would see the force respond more quickly to incidents and the Priority Response Teams would be based in the Neighbourhood hubs to assist this. Under Darwin the Force structure was not rigid and going forward the systems and procedures would be able to evolve to meet changing demands.

 

(ii)       Reassurance was given that under Darwin Leicestershire Police would also be able to carry out crime prevention work, and the Neighbourhood Investigation Units would play an important role in this. Dedicated Inspectors would be allocated to custody suites to provide local knowledge.

 

(iii)      Discussion took place regarding the need to enable the public to be able to report crimes without interacting directly with police staff in order to be more cost effective. The methods under consideration were online forms, mobile phone applications or even placing electronic devices in the reception areas of police stations for the public to use to report a crime in a similar manner to self-service checkouts at supermarkets. Panel members emphasised that if this approach was to be followed then good communication with the public would need to take place to make it clear what kind of service they should expect. In response reassurance was given that public consultation would take place and Leicestershire Police were aware that further work needed to be conducted in this area.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the contents of the presentation be noted.

 

 

29.

Hate Crime pdf icon PDF 247 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on the Force’s response to Hate Crime in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and the plans which were in place for National Hate Crime Awareness week. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        Whilst hate crime in Leicestershire occurred fairly evenly across the various categories, the categories of faith and race had the highest figures. The OPCC agreed to forward to the Panel further details on hate crime statistics with the figures broken down into gender and age. The median age of hate crime offenders was 14 and care had to be taken not to criminalise people at such a young age. Panel members were of the view that the problem needed to be tackled at an early age such as through youth clubs. It was noted that the PCC Grant did fund activity working with young people. Engagement was currently taking place with universities and it was agreed to circulate to Panel members the report of Leicester University’s research into hate crime. In the future engagement was planned to take place with institutions for much younger people. The Hate Crime Perpetrator Programme would play an important role in tackling Hate Crime without taking the offenders to Court.

 

(ii)       Concern was raised by Panel members that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were not always effective in prosecuting hate crime, and the PCC was asked if he could take any action in this regard. The PCC explained that whilst he was the Chair of the East Midlands Regional Criminal Justice Board where matters like this were considered, ultimately decisions on prosecuting Hate Crime were the responsibility of the CPS. It was suggested that the Panel could write to the CPS outlining its concerns.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)       That the contents of the report be noted:

 

(b)       That a letter be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the Police and Crime Panel raising concerns about the lack of prosecutions for hate crime.

 

30.

Recruitment and retention in Leicestershire Police with particular regard to improving diversity and the BAME community. pdf icon PDF 264 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on recruitment and retention of police officers in Leicestershire Police and actions being taken to improve the diversity of the Force. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

 

For this item the Panel welcomed to the meeting Lynne Woodward, Head of Equality and Human Rights, Leicestershire Police.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were made:

 

(i)        The Panel commended Leicestershire Police for its positive work aimed at improving the diversity of the Leicestershire Police workforce, though one member was of the view that further engagement work with minority communities needed to be carried out. In response reassurance was given that in addition to the measures outlined in the report Positive Action Officers had been involved in outreach projects including engaging with students in Leicester and Leicestershire and places of worship.

 

(ii)       In response to a question about the diversity of the staff in Leicestershire Police that acted as mentors to applicants during the recruitment process it was clarified that these people volunteered to be mentors and it was preferable that they were fully committed and enthusiastic rather than being cajoled into acting as mentors. Therefore it was not planned to take any action to improve the diversity of the mentors. However, there were groups such as the Black Support Network and the Hindu Support Network which provided support to people of BAME origin.

 

(iii)      PCSO’s were able to apply to be Police Officers under the recruitment scheme and a large amount of the intake from campaign 1 were PCSOs. As PCSOs had already been vetted then this shortened the timescales for them to start working as police officers. However, the consequences of recruiting PCSOs as Police Officers was that further recruitment was required to take place to replace the PCSOs.

 

(iv)      Although removing the Competency Based Questionnaire for Campaign 3 and replacing it with a telephone interview had increased the number of applicants from minority backgrounds, it had also elongated the recruitment process timescales and the applicants from Campaign 3 had not yet undertaken the SEARCH Assessment Centre part of the process.

 

(v)       Leicestershire Police was introducing a Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship scheme where successful applicants would be able to perform the role of Police Constable whilst attaining a degree in Professional Policing Practice funded by the Police. So far 100 people had registered an interest of which 25% were from BAME backgrounds and 20% were female though it was yet to be seen which of these people made it to the end of the process. The Chairman raised concerns that those people who had their degree paid for by the Police would be able to leave the Force at any point after they had obtained the degree and in response it was confirmed that there was no contract tying them to being employed by the Police for a certain number of years therefore they would be able to leave at any point. It was clarified that in future applicants would not be eligible to become police officers unless they had obtained a degree qualification and the Chairman raised concerns that this could mean that people who did not have academic skills, but had the skills to be a police officer, would be prevented from joining the Police. The PCC explained that the initiative was being nationally driven, and he stated that he shared the Chairman’s concerns and had written to Ron Hogg, Durham PCC and Lead of the APCC Portfolio Group on the Workforce  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

Youth Commission. pdf icon PDF 228 KB

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on the progress of the Youth Commission. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Panel welcomed Brahmpreet Gulati, Youth Commissioner, to the meeting for this item.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        The age range of Youth Commissioners was 14-25 and for future recruitment campaigns consideration would be given to whether this was the most appropriate age range. It was not felt that 14 was too young as children of that age had been known to commit varying types of crimes.

 

(ii)       The current makeup of the Youth Commission included a person who had been a victim to a crime, a person who had been a witness to a crime and students of criminology and psychology. However, none of the current members had committed crimes themselves and work was ongoing so that in future the membership would include past offenders.

 

(iii)      There were links between the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Youth Commission and the Leicester City Council Youth Commission and work was ongoing to strengthen those links.

 

(iv)      In response to a request for examples of how the work of the Youth Commission impacted on policing it was explained that Leicestershire Police ran a course on mental health first aid for young people and the course content had been altered as a result of Youth Commission input. In addition the Youth Commission had worked with the Force’s knife crime coordinator regarding disseminating messages to young people about stop and search. The Youth Commission had also had meetings with the Force Head of Engagement to advise on how to best communicate with young people generally. A member of the Youth Commission had also been involved with producing a video for the Crimestoppers Fearless campaign.

 

(v)       A Youth Summit was taking place on Tuesday 6 November 2018, 80 people had confirmed attendance and all Police and Crime Panel members were invited.

 

(vi)      The Panel commended the work of the Youth Commission and emphasised that it was important to listen to young people. The Panel invited Youth Commission members to attend Community Safety Partnership meetings and Community Ward meetings. The OPCC welcomed these invitations though advised that many Youth Commission members were studying or in work and may not be able to attend every meeting they were invited to.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the contents of the report be noted.

32.

Dates of future meetings.

Future meetings of the Panel are scheduled to take place on the following dates:

Wednesday 12 December 2018 at 1:00pm at County Hall

Friday 1 February 2019 at 10:00am at County Hall

Thursday 21 February 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall (meeting will only take place if Precept is vetoed)

Monday 18 March 2019 at 1:00pm at City Hall

Monday 20 May 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall

Monday 22 July 2019 at 2:00pm at City Hall

Tuesday 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall

Wednesday 11 December 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That future meetings of the Panel take place on the following dates:

Wednesday 12 December 2018 at 1:00pm at County Hall;

Friday 1 February 2019 at 10:00am at County Hall;

Thursday 21 February 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall (meeting will only take place if Precept is vetoed);

Monday 18 March 2019 at 1:00pm at City Hall;

Monday 20 May 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall;

Monday 22 July 2019 at 2:00pm at City Hall;

Tuesday 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall;

Wednesday 11 December 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall.