Agenda and minutes

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel
Monday, 22 July 2019 2.00 pm

Venue: Meeting Room G.01, Ground Floor, City Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ

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://leicester.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/411692

 

12.

Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2019. pdf icon PDF 129 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 June 2019 were taken as read, confirmed and signed subject to amendment to minute 7(viii) so that it reads:

 

“In response to a question about local policing the PCC clarified that there would be more investment in neighbourhood policing in the wider sense, and the ability of the Force to respond to incidents and investigate crimes would be enhanced as a result of the Precept increase.”

 

13.

Public Question Time.

Minutes:

There were no questions submitted.

 

14.

Urgent items.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items for consideration.

 

15.

Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.

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.

 

16.

Police and Crime Commissioner's Annual Report.

The Constitution of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel states that ‘By July, the PCC shall provide the Panel with a copy of his annual report’, however the Police and Crime Commissioner has requested that this year consideration of the Annual Report be deferred until the September meeting. Members are required to consider whether to agree to this request.

 

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Commissioner requested that consideration of his Annual Report be deferred until the Panel meeting on 24 September 2019 in order to give further time for statistics to be produced and verified. It was noted that although the Constitution of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel stated that ‘By July, the PCC shall provide the Panel with a copy of his annual report’, the legislation did not require the Annual Report to be published in July.

 

The Secretariat reported that the Panel’s Monitoring Officer was undertaking a review of the Panel’s Constitution to ensure it was up to date and fit for purpose and this could include consideration of the section relating to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Annual Report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)      That consideration of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Annual Report be deferred until the Panel meeting on 24 September 2019.

 

(b)      That when reviewing the Panel’s Constitution the Monitoring Officer be requested to give consideration to the time scales for the Panel’s consideration of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Annual Report.

 

 

17.

Annual Performance Report. pdf icon PDF 393 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) regarding end of year performance for 2018-19. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 6’, is filed with these minutes.

 

 Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        The PCC confirmed that the 999 telephone service should only be used in an emergency and at the time a crime was taking place. Leicestershire Police believed that the increase in the volume of 999 calls was due to a rise in violent offences being committed. It was not believed that people were calling 999 because they were unable to receive an answer from the 101 service. The reduction in the number of 101 calls was believed to be due to an increase in online reporting. The PCC reported that the Chief Constable was of the view that the online reporting service was extremely efficient and provided a quick response. With regards to the amount of 101 calls that were classed as abandoned the PCC clarified that this included calls where the automated message gave the caller alternative numbers to call so in fact it could be that the caller received the information they required and was satisfied. Therefore the abandonment figures could be misleading. A member suggested that it would be useful to be able to monitor at which point the call was abandoned to see whether it was the automated message that was causing people to end the call. The PCC acknowledged that there was still some dissatisfaction with the 101 service and further work was required to be undertaken to make improvements. A member pointed out that if callers were unable to receive a response from the 101 service they might call back later which may affect the figures for overall volume of 101 calls.

 

(ii)       A member sought and gained reassurances that 999 calls were being triaged appropriately and received the correct level of response.

 

(iii)      In response to a question from a member the PCC agreed to investigate how the length of the calls to Leicestershire Police compared to the length of calls to other forces and if this information was available provide it to Panel members. A member suggested that the quality of the response to the call was more important than the speed and this included the quality of the service provided when the incident was passed onto other officers to deal with. The PCC agreed with this view.

 

(iv)      The PCC invited new Panel members to visit the contact management centre at Force Headquarters in Enderby. Panel members had previously undertaken a visit to the contact management centre and found it extremely informative.

 

(v)       A member raised concern that there were no Key Performance Indicators for Leicestershire Police performance and questioned what level of performance the Police and Crime Commissioner expected or demanded given that there were no targets. In response the PCC stated that in his view there was little benefit in predicting future performance levels and setting targets. The PCC stated that he believed the current performance report was of benefit because it showed trends and how performance compared to the previous year.

 

(vi)      With regards to the +23% growth in missing persons between the 2017/18 year and the 2018/19 year a member questioned whether this increase could be due to a change in the criteria for categorising missing people and whether the two sets of figures were comparable. Members also requested that the figures for missing persons be broken down into age groups so that trends could be identified for example the amount of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Regional Collaboration. pdf icon PDF 318 KB

Minutes:

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding regional collaboration. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        The PCC acknowledged that regional collaboration was important as criminals did not only operate within county boundaries. In response to a question the PCC explained that whilst Leicestershire Police did not have any formal collaboration arrangements with West Midlands police forces, such as they did with East Midlands forces, Leicestershire Police did work closely with West Midlands forces. The PCC stated that whilst increasing collaboration with the West Midlands in the future was desirable it may not be possible.

 

(ii)       Members raised concerns that police officer training was not conducted on a national basis and therefore there were no economies of scale. The PCC explained that individual forces liked to train their own staff in accordance with local requirements. He accepted that there was an argument in favour of more collaboration on training but said it would be difficult to get support for this idea nationally.

 

(iii)      In response to questions about the governance of EMSOU it was explained that the Deputy Chief Constable that was in charge of the Unit was employed by Leicestershire Police but he reported to all the Chief Constables in the East Midlands region. There were occasional disagreements between the Chief Constables regarding EMSOU but overall the Unit worked well.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the contents of the report be noted.

 

19.

Date of next meeting.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm.

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That the next meeting of the Panel take place on 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm.