Agenda and minutes

Members and officers must declare any pecuniary or personal interest in any business on the agenda. They should also make declarations at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. Consideration should be given to leaving the meeting if the nature of the interest warrants it. If in doubt contact Democratic Services, West Sussex County Council before the meeting.

63.  In accordance with the code of conduct members of the Panel declared the personal interests contained in the table below.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 23 September 2016

64.    The Panel noted a correction to the minutes of the last meeting to include the two declarations below to the minutes of the previous meeting on 23 September 2016.

65.    Paragraph 47, bullet 4 – The Panel requested an update on the recruitment of PCSO’s in the autumn. The Commissioner advised that 196 PCSOs would be in post by the end of January.

  66.    Paragraph 61, bullet 6 – The Panel requested an update on attempts to increase the level of recruits from BME communities and what the current percentage was in terms of recruitment of women and BME. The Commissioner explained that she would provide the statistics following the meeting.

67.     Resolved – That, subject to the correction in paragraph 6 above, the minutes of the meeting of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel held on 23 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record.

Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

68.      The Panel noted the circulation of the supplementary agenda and the addition of a part II item for the consideration at the end of the present meeting. The item concerned the minutes of the Panel’s recommendations relation to the appointment of the Chief Finance Officer to the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner at its meeting on 4 July 2016.

Report by the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel

The report sets out detail of the work of the Police and Crime Plan working group and recommendations arising from the two meetings of the group.

The Panel is asked ot consider the report and the endorsement of the Group’s recommendations.

69.    The Panel received and note a report concerning the outcomes of the meetings of the Working Group with the Commissioner and her staff to assist in the formulation of the budget and precept and the new Police and Crime Plan 2017 – 2021.

70.   The Panel made the points below in the discussion that followed:

·         Concern was expressed regarding the lack of accountability in the Plan, particularly the lack of clearly defined measures relating to the objectives. The Panel questioned how the Commissioner could be held to account for performance against the objectives in the Plan without tangible measures or indicators of success. The Commissioner asserted that the role of the Panel was to scrutinise decisions and measures and targets were contained in the Plan. The Commissioner had been re-elected on the objectives contained in the Plan. The Plan had been complied in accordance with national guidance advising that Plans should outline a vision rather than set targets. Each objective in the Plan had a measure and the Commissioner’s Annual Report would outline achievement under each aim.

·         The Panel was concerned that the Plan was not serving its function of presenting the Commissioner’s vision to the public with clarity particularly in relation to local policing.  

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

a)    Revenue and Capital Budget

The draft budget is attached for information, to inform the discussion on the proposed precept.

The Panel is asked to note:

·         the draft revenue budget for 2017/18;

·         the latest Medium Term Financial Forecast;

·         the latest savings schedule to 2020/21; and

·         the draft capital budget for 2017/18 and capital and investment programme 2020/21.

b)    Proposed Precept

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

The Police and Crime Commissioner will update the Panel on the proposed precept  and draft budget for 2017/18. The Panel is asked to consider the proposed precept of £153.91 (on a Band D property), an increase of £5.00, equivalent to 3.36%, and make recommendations.

Under Schedule 5 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 the Panel is responsible for reviewing the Commissioner’s proposed precept and making reports and recommendations. If the Panel does not accept the proposed precept the power of veto is provided under this Schedule. The power of veto can only be exercised with a two thirds majority, at least, of the current Panel membership, i.e. 14 members or more, voting in favour of a veto.

In the event of a veto the Commissioner most produce a revised precept by 15 February. A provisional meeting date of Monday 20 February 2017 has been arranged for the Panel to meet to consider a revised precept and make reports to the Commissioner if required. The Panel does not have the power of veto over the revised precept.

Revenue and Capital Budget 2017/18

71.   The Panel received the report by the Police and Crime Commissioner providing the draft budget 2017/18. The report was introduced by the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC, and explained that the draft budget set the context for the Commissioner’s Proposed precept. There had been an effective cut to funding announced in the settlement which did not take account of inflation. The precept proposal was to increase the Band D charge by £5.00; Sussex was in the lowest quartile of charging. Greater clarity surrounding medium term planning would be possible once the review of the Police Core Funding model had been completed, expected in May, and would impact on the grant received from central government. The risks to medium term planning were presented in the report including inflation and interest rates. Capital investment during the year would focus on fleet, estate and IT and would be funded initially through capital receipts and reserves. A policy existed to retain reserves at 4% however earmarked reserves would be utilised for capital investment.

72.   At the invitation of the Chairman, Susan Scholefield joined the meeting at 11:30a.m.

73.    The Panel made the points below in the discussion that followed:

·         The potential savings relation to a review of specialist crime teams was queried on how this would impact on the work of units such as cyber-crime and sexual crime teams. Concern was expressed that there were critical areas and the impact of any savings needed to be carefully judged. The Commissioner explained that there was an intention to look at potential efficiencies particularly in the services shared with Surrey. An example existed in the collaboration of Surrey and Sussex homicide teams. Examples of the specialist teams included in the review would be provided in the Commissioner’s Annual report.

·         The level of underspend contained in the report and the likelihood of additional underspend in the current year. The Chief Finance Officer reported that there was some underspend with the recruitment of new officers.

·         The Commissioner had projected a budget surplus over the next two financial years therefore the savings requirement was a political choice and represented unnecessary cuts to front line policing. Recruitment of new members of staff was misleading as it involved new employees to staff the Commissioners new initiatives.  The investment case for the new initiatives was not felt to be compelling and scrutiny  of the Commissioner’s budget was considered to be rushed; at local authorities savings proposals were published and considered months in advance of the approval of the final budget. There had not been sufficient time for the Panel to consider and understand the budget proposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner explained that the savings targets had been set at a level to ensure that the actual savings requirements over the medium term could be achieved in a shorter time frame. The time given to the Panel to consider the budget was felt to be sufficient and if members wanted greater sigh of budget proposals at an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Under Section 28, paragraph 3 of the Act, a police and crime must review the draft police and crime plan, or draft variation, given to the panel by the Police and Crime Commissioner and make a report or recommendations on the draft plan or variation to the Commissioner, to which the Commissioner must have regard.

The Panel is asked to review and make reports or recommendations on the Police and Crime Plan 2017 – 2021, informed by any recommendations of the Working Group agreed under item 4.

81.     The Panel considered a Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner which introduced a new Police and Crime Plan 2017-2021 following the re-election of the Commissioner in 2016. The Chief Executive, OPCC, introduced the report and advised the Panel that during the production of the Plan consultation was undertaken with the public, the PCP working group and a reference group. The Plan was formulated in accordance with official guidance. The Plan included a section on measuring success and would incorporate links to partners and agencies in line with the recommendations of the Working Group.

82.    The Panel raised the following issues and questions of the Commissioner:

·         There was disappointment expressed that the Plan was not inspirational.

·         The absence of definitive measures in the Plan and how the success of the objectives of the introduction of the Local Policing Programme (LPP) were required.

·         The new Plan appeared to be a continuation of existing policy and was a missed opportunity to introduce new priorities and areas of work. There were no tangible measures in the Plan and there was insufficient effort to inolve the public in setting objectives.

·         A query was raised regarding the level of cases heard in Sussex that involved a victim statement. The section of the Plan concerning victims should encourage people working with victims to make statements. The Commissioner would attempt to find out the level in Sussex.

·         An appropriate and tangible measure for accessing local policing services could be the maximum time a caller would have to wait for a call to the 101 phone line to be answered. The Commissioner was asked if she had a commitment on maximum call answering times. The Commissioner explained that of importance was the caller satisfaction with the outcome of the call. Work was ongoing with the Chief Constable to determine if improvements to the 101 service could be made but a measure on call answering times in the Plan was not appropriate.

·         The project in the three Mid Sussex towns to upgrade CCTV was raised and the possibility that it could be included in the section of the Plan relation to the use of technology. The Commissioner would provide an update on the project.

·         The absence of a foreword to the Plan was raised and the Commissioner was asked what would be included in the passage. The Commissioner confirmed that it had not been written but a note had been made of the Panel’s desire to see greater inspiration in the document.

·         The paragraph in the Plan relating to roads in Sussex was bland. To represent areas in Sussex, with a high level of KSIs, the Commissioner should incorporate specific measures in the Plan to asses performance against the objective to address cause of death and injury on the roads of Sussex. The Commissioner explained that the Plan was a strategic document and the operation delivery plan established by Chief Constable would include measures in respect of this objective.

83.      The Panel agreed that a summary of comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

   Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

The report provides an update on the new Local Policing Model. The Panel is asked to note the report.

85.       The Panel considered a Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on the introduction of the new Local Policing Programme. In a correction to the report the Commissioner explained that projected savings of 29m would result from the introduction of the new model and paragraph 1.3 should be amended to remove reference to the delivery of this level of savings each year.

86.       The Panel raised the following issues and questions of the Commissioner:

·         Greater detail was required concerning how the Chief Constable would engage communities to communicate the implementation of the LPP. It was not felt that the message regarding the new model was being adequately communicated and it was queried how the Chief Constable would ensure that communities felt safe and confident in the new model. It was requested that a plan of how the Chief Constable would approach communications to local communities be made available. The Commissioner explained that she would hold the Chief Constable accountable for the introduction of the LPP.

·         The Panel expressed concern regarding the reduction of PCSOs as outlined in the report.

·         The study conducted by Cambridge University into targeted patrols of PCSOs across Sussex was queried and the cost incurred by Sussex Police for the production of the study. The Chief Executive explained that the work was undertaken by the Cambridge University Institute of Criminality and was commissioned by the College of Policing; there was no cost to Sussex Police. The pilot model for PCSO deployment was being trialled  in Sussex with an emphasis on prevention of prominent trends in crime such as anti-social behaviour.

·         Concern was expressed that requiring officers to be multi-skilled could lead to a diminution of specialist skills with consequences on crime and disorder. The example of  a reduction in the number of licencing officers and subsequent increase in the level of drink-related disorder was cited as an example.

·         A summary of the comments of the Panel would be sent to the Commissioner for the attention of the Chief Constable.

87.     Resolved – that the Panel notes the report and update relating to the introduction of  the Local Policing Programme.

Members who attended the tour of the Resolution Centre are requested to provide feedback on the experience.

88.     The Panel provided feedback on a recent visit to the Resolution Centre. A summary of the comments arising from the discussion would be sent to the Commissioner.

89.      The Panel raised the points below in the discussion that followed:

·      The tour was a revealing experience.

·      The forms of promotion undertaken to inform to public of the work of the Resolution Centre was queried. It was felt that communications which highlighted the benefits of the Centre would be valuable.

·      A query was raised regarding call-handling on the 101 phone line. If callers hung-up before calls were answered would this distort the crime figures. The Commissioner explained that new facilities for the reporting of crime were being  developed; the Metropolitan Police was investigating the reporting of crimes by social media. The holding message on the 101 phone line directed people to the Sussex Police website to report crime.

·      The centre was very busy with a high level of calls and reports from the public. It was felt important that operators at the centre maintain sensitivity towards the impact of crime on victims. Crimes that may be perceived relatively minor could have profound effects upon the victim.

·      The Panel would continue to monitor the performance of the Centre and what progress was made in the future.

·      A summary of the comments of the Panel would be sent to the Commissioner for the attention of the Chief Constable.

Report by the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel.

Six pieces of correspondence have been received since the last meeting of the Panel. The report provides details of the complaints received and the action taken.

There are currently no complaints awaiting final determination by the Panel or the Clerk to the Panel.

The Panel is asked to consider the report and raise any issues or concerns regarding the complaints received.

90.     The Panel received a report from the Clerk to the Panel providing an update on complaints received in the last quarter.

91.     The Panel was concerned regarding the response received to the Hewitt and Grey complaint concerning an inappropriate relationship between the Force and a local author. The response from the Commissioner was considered bland and undermined the significance of the complaint. Appropriate checks and balances were required to avoid a repeat of such a situation and in the event of a reoccurrence a more robust response would be necessary.

92.   Resolved – that the Panel notes the report.

Report by the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel

Written questions may be submitted by members of the public up to two weeks in advance of a meeting. The Chairman of the Panel or the Commissioner will be invited to provide a response by noon of the day before the meeting.

Questions have been received from three correspondents prior to this meeting of the Panel. The questions to the Commissioner and the responses are attached for the Panel to note.

Please can members ensure that any supplementary questions relate specifically to the subject matter of the initial question.

93.    The Panel received and noted the schedule of written questions submitted prior to the meeting and the responses from the Commissioner’s Office.

The Panel is asked to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Sussex with the Commissioner.

94.     The Panel raised the following issues and questions of the Commissioner:

·         The Commissioner was asked about her involvement with Police ICT and what duties she had assumed outside her remit as Commissioner. The Commissioner confirmed she had not taken on any duties that were outside her remit and would provide a written response to clarify and include detail of the boards she attended.

·         The Commissioner was asked what replacements for the Neighbourhood Management Panels were planned. A full response to the question was contained in the response to the third written question.

The next meeting of the Panel will take place on Friday 7 April 2017, 10:30 a.m. at County Hall, Lewes. Please note: there is currently no substantive business for this meeting; if no business is forthcoming the meeting will be cancelled.

The prospective meeting date of Monday 20 February 2017 will be cancelled if the Panel does not trigger the power of veto over the proposed precept at this meeting.

Future meeting dates below:

Friday 30 June 2017

Friday 6 October 2017

Friday 19 January 2018

95.      The next meeting date of 7 April 2017 was noted.

96.         Resolved – That under section 100(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1, or Schedule 12 A, of the Act by virtue of circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.