Agenda item

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 9 October 2015

Agenda item no. 2

 

Sussex Police and Crime Panel

 

9 October 2015 – at a meeting of the Panel held at 10.30 a.m. at County Hall,

Lewes.

 

Present:

David Simmons Adur DC

Paul Wotherspoon Arun DC

Emma Daniel Brighton and Hove CC

Dee Simson Brighton and Hove CC

Eileen Lintill Chichester DC

Michael Jones Crawley BC

John Ungar Eastbourne BC

Bill Bentley East Sussex CC

Rosalyn St Pierre East Sussex CC

Warren Davies Hastings BC

Kate Rowbottom Horsham DC

Tony Nicholson Lewes DC

Norman Webster Mid Sussex DC

Eleanor Kirby-Green Rother DC

Claire Dowling Wealden DC

Brad Watson OBE West Sussex CC

Graham Jones West Sussex CC

Val Turner* Worthing BC

Graham Hill Independent

Sandra Prail Independent

*Please see minute 41 below.

In attendance: Katy Bourne, Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner; Mark

Streater, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer of the Office of the Sussex Police

and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC); Carl Rushbridge, Chief Finance Officer of the

OSPCC; and Ninesh Edwards and Matthew Evans (Host Authority - West Sussex

CC).

Declarations of Interest

37. In accordance with the code of conduct members of the Panel declared the

personal interests contained in the table below.

Panel Member Personal Interest

Brad Watson Member of Horsham Safety Partnership

Graham Hill Senior Service Delivery Manager for Victim Support

Charity

Member of Crawley Community Safety Partnership Board

Dave Simmons Chairman of Safer Communities Partnership, Adur and

Worthing

Chairman of Safer West Sussex Partnership

Bill Bentley Chairman of East Sussex Safer Community Board

Paul Wotherspoon Member of Safer Arun Partnership

Claire Dowling Chairman of Safer Wealden Partnership

Emma Daniel Member of Brighton and Hove Safe in the City

Partnership Board

Eleanor Kirby-Green Member of Safer Rother Partnership

Eileen Lintill Member of Chichester Community Safety Partnership

 

Tony Nicholson Chairman of Lewes Community Safety Partnership

Val Turner Member of Safer Communities Partnership, Adur and

Worthing

Michael Jones Chairman of Safer Crawley Partnership

Kate Rowbottom Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership at

Horsham

 

Warren Davies Chairman of the Safer Community Partnership at

Hastings

Minutes

38. The Panel noted a correction to the minutes of the last meeting. Claire

Dowling’s declaration of a personal interest as Chairman of the Safer Wealden

Partnership required inclusion in the record.

 

39. Resolved – That subject to the inclusion of the correction in minute 38 above

the minutes of the meeting of the Sussex Police and Crime

Panel held on 3 July 2015 be confirmed as a correct record.

Road Safety

40. The Panel received a report from the Commissioner regarding road safety

(copy appended to the signed version of the minutes) which outlined the role of

Sussex Police in relation to road safety and how the Force was held to account for

the reduction of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) statistics on the roads of

Sussex. The report was introduced by the Commissioner’s Office and the Panel was

informed that: a recent increase in the level of KSIs was attributable to the

increase in cycling rates; the road safety performance of the Police was scrutinised

by the Commissioner during Performance and Accountability Meetings (PAMs) with

the Chief Constable; and the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP) was the local

oversight body for road safety in Sussex and its membership included the

Commissioner and Local Authorities including highways authorities.

 

41. Val Turner joined the meeting at 10.43 a.m.

 

42. The Panel raised the following issues with the Commissioner:

• In a number of communities across Sussex there was a desire to see the

introduction of 20mph zones however such zones were often not supported

by Sussex Police as the speed limits were felt to be unenforceable. Although

20mph limits were considered unenforceable in some areas the Police should

take account of the wishes of local communities. The Commissioner

confirmed that local views were taken into account by the Police and the

SSRP could consider consistent enforcement within 20mph zones. The

Commissioner would be prepared to raise this issue at a forthcoming meeting

of the SSRP. Where 20mph zones were introduced there was an assumption

that the local highway network would ensure that the speed limit was selfenforcing;

Operation Crackdown and Speedwatch groups could assist with

enforcement. Speeding issues in 20mph zones could be raised with the

district commander and enforcement in these zones was a decision for local

policing.

• The involvement of local residents in speed safety. Speedwatch groups

across Sussex could operate where an assessment of suitable enforcement

areas had occurred and after appropriate training had been provided.

• How the Commissioner would monitor the effectiveness of the £24,090

passported from the Safer in Sussex Community Fund to the SSRP to support

road safety initiatives? The SSRP would decide how to allocate the funding

and monitor its use. The Partnership had recently been subject to an audit.

• In Kent speed cameras were introduced in areas where there were persistent

reports of speeding issues, the Commissioner was asked if she supported the

introduction of cameras in problem areas. The siting of speed cameras was

part of the responsibilities of the SSRP and the Commissioner did support the

siting of cameras in problem areas.

• Concern regarding the increase in KSIs relating to cyclists. The enforcement

of the use of cycle lanes by cyclists and if statistics were available for the

occurrence of accidents involving cyclists in areas where they was

infrastructure provision. There was no provision to enforce the use of cycle

lanes. A Cycle Safety Campaign would be taking place in November to

educate local cyclists around safety issues. The SSRP would have statistics

relating to accidents involving cyclists.

• It was queried whether the police had sufficient capacity to undertake

effective roads policing particularly at night. The issue could be raised with

the Chief Constable; the allocation of funding for road policing was the

decision of the Chief Constable.

• Previous concerns regarding the operation of the SSRP in the Commissioner’s

Annual Report considered at the previous Panel meeting on 31 July. Had the

Commissioner been reassured about the performance of the Partnership

since the meeting? An audit report had been conducted on the SSRP which

focused on Governance arrangements; the report had produced an opinion of

satisfactory assurance on the control environment of the Partnership.

 

• Some members of the Panel expressed concern regarding the emphasis

placed upon the SSRP which was an unaccountable body; it was suggested

that a member of the Partnership attend a forthcoming meeting of the Panel

which would include discussions relating to road safety. It was the

responsibility of the constituent local authorities to the SSRP to hold the body

to account. Further scrutiny of the Partnership would be conducted by the

CSPs and three Strategic Boards.

 

• The increase in the use of mini-motorbikes was raised as a concern. The

incidence of anti-social driving of mini motorbikes should be reported to

Operation Crackdown.

 

• The suitability of sites for speed cameras was raised and the importance of

using local intelligence to target problem areas effectively. The SSRP would

be able to provide advice on the policy for the location of speed cameras in

Sussex.

 

• It was noted that a balance was necessary between education and

enforcement in relation to road safety. Enforcement was only a small

element of road safety; of greater importance was education and road

engineering.

 

• Facilities to report dangerous and anti-social driving needed to be made

easier to use.

 

43. Resolved – That the Panel notes the Commissioner’s Road Safety report.

Medium Term Financial Forecast and Budget Timetable 2016/17

 

44. The Panel received a report from the Commissioner regarding the medium

term financial forecast and budget timetable 2016/17 (copy appended to the signed

version of the minutes) which outlined the latest budget planning assumptions in

2016/17 and included the Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) up to 2020. The

report was introduced by the Commissioner’s Office and the Panel was informed

that a further report would be presented to the Panel in January with further

information and a proposed precept for 2016/17. Currently the Commissioner’s

Office was awaiting the outcome of the Treasury’s spending review and an

announcement on how the Police Fund would be allocated in the future which would

impact upon future funding levels.

 

45. The Panel raised the following issues with the Commissioner:

• Further detail regarding the operational and corporate risk posed by the

proposed savings was required. This needed to be provided in accordance

with detail relating to the financial robustness of proposed savings. The

working group of the Panel had been engaged in the consideration of savings

proposals and budget and precept options.

 

• The financial modelling of 25-40% reductions was queried. The impact of

these levels of reductions would be significant and there was concern

regarding the effect on operational policing in Sussex. All unprotected

government departments had been asked to model 25-40% reductions as

part of budget planning for 2016/17 and a 25% reduction had been modelled

as part of planning for the next financial year. Confirmation was awaited in

the Autumn Financial statement of the grant from the Home Office in

2016/17 and changes to the police funding formula. Reductions in the Home

Office grant were anticipated and it was currently unclear what effect the

changes to the formula would have upon funding but it was predicted that

the changes could result in an increase or decrease in funding of 5%.The

fundamental nature of policing was changing within an era of increasing costs

(e.g. cybercrime and historical abuse cases) and reducing funding. The Panel

requested an update on the development of the new policing model to the

next meeting in January.

 

• The lack of clarity from the Home Office concerning the police funding

formula was felt to be unhelpful and the impact on reserves of a decrease in

the level of funding in 2016/17 was queried. Further information regarding

the identified risk, in the report, that reserves were adequate to meet

unplanned demand was requested. Before the use of reserves was

contemplated clarification regarding funding for 2016/17 was required. The

use of reserves was not a preferred solution to funding reductions but if

necessary they could be used. The use of reserves was a balancing act and

there was a need to highlight the risk involved in the allocation of reserves to

meet funding shortfalls. A recent audit of the reserves had concluded that

good practice was being followed with regard to the level of reserves.

Greater clarity regarding the financial context for 2016/17 would be available

at the next meeting in January. The Commission had lobbied the Home

Secretary on decreasing budgets and the need for adequate funding to

ensure the effective operation of the Force.

 

• It was recognised that local policing was under great strain with significant

savings identified within this element of the Police budget over the next three

years. It was requested that the report brought to the January meeting

provide an assessment of the impact of funding reductions on local policing.

It was felt that in light of savings and reductions in local authority services

there was a continuing and pressing need for local policing. The proposed

savings outlined in the report were subject to the completion of

comprehensive business cases. An updated savings table would be presented

to the January meeting which set out finalised savings priorities.

 

• Concern was expressed regarding the impact on morale of the changes

included in the Target Operating Model, the proposed savings and the limit of

a 1% pay rise. There was an awareness of the importance of morale in the

force and the Commissioner worked closely with the Chief Constable to

understand the impact of current circumstances on the force.

• An update was requested on when information regarding the future operating

model would be published and what the proposed intentions were. The

Target Operating Model was a five year rolling programme and consultation

was currently taking place with local authorities, CSPs, local residents and

departments of the police force.

 

• The proposed savings resulting from the reduction of the number of PCSOs

was a significant concern for the Panel. Greater detail on the proposals was

required. Work was on-going with the Sussex Association of Local Councils

(SALC) on a project to allow Parish and Town Councils to ensure the

continuation of a community presence in the form of a warden or village

agent.

 

46. Resolved – That the Panel notes the content of the report.

Police Complaints Working Group

 

47. The Panel considered a report by the Clerk to the Panel regarding a proposal

to establish a Police Complaints Working Group to assist the Commissioner in the

development of a response to the current consultation regarding Police Complaints

(copy appended to the signed version of the minutes).

 

48. The Panel agreed the establishment of the working group, the terms of

reference in appendix A and the membership. Dave Simmons volunteered to attend

the working group as the representative of the District and Borough Councils in

West Sussex. Graham Hill would act as the Independent Member on the Working

Group and Sandra Prail would act as his substitute as appropriate.

 

49. Resolved- that the Panel agrees:

• The establishment of the Police Complaints Working Group;

• The terms of reference in the Appendix to the report; and

• That Dave Simmons joins the membership of the Working Group as the

representative of West Sussex District and Borough Councils and Graham Hill

as the Independent member.

Quarterly Report of Complaints

 

50. The Panel received and noted a report providing an update on complaints

received in the last quarter and progress made on live complaints (copy appended

to the signed copy of the minutes). No new complaints received by the Panel over

the last quarter pertained to issues within the remit of the Panel.

Written Questions

 

51. The Panel received and noted the schedule of written questions submitted

prior to the meeting and the responses from the Commissioner’s Office (copy

appended to the signed copy of the minutes). The Panel requested a written

response to item 3 of the first question in the report submitted by Mr Nixon.

Members’ Feedback

 

52. The Members of the Panel provided feedback on recent visits to Victim

Support in Shoreham and to the Youth Commission event. Members were

impressed by the proactive approach taken by Victim Support and the quality of

service provided under the high level of demand-led pressure. Members who

attended the Youth Commission event spoke of the energy and professionalism of

the members of the Commission.

 

Commissioner’s Question Time

53. The Panel raised the following questions of the Commissioner:

• The Commissioner was asked whether she was in support of the proposal to

bring Fire and Rescue Services in Sussex under the authority of the Office of

the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Commissioner welcomed the debate

on the proposals and stated that the decision would not be taken unilaterally

and would only be implemented if it was shown to be in the public interest.

• A recent news report in Crawley claimed that charges only resulted from 1 in

10 burglaries in the Borough; the Commissioner was asked if this was

reflected across the rest of Sussex and whether there were sufficient

resources committed to the detection and prosecution of burglaries? The

Commissioner regularly challenged the Chief Constable over the performance

of the force in relation to burglaries. Operation Magpie was in effect in

Sussex which was in the top quartile for the detection and solving of burglary

cases.

• The Commissioner was asked about concerns expressed by the Police

Federation regarding the low level of morale in the force. The Commissioner

met regularly with the Police Federation and staff across Sussex to gauge

morale in the force. Morale had improved as a result of the introduction of

mobile technology. Enabling police with technology including handheld

devices and body worn videos has positively influenced morale.

• The Commissioner was asked about seemingly conflicting statistics regarding

the reduction of crime in Sussex and the increase in the reporting of crime.

Such statistics provided mixed messages and were confusing. The crime

survey across East and West Sussex had established that there had been no

increase in the level of crime and a decrease in crime in West Sussex. There

had been an increase in the accuracy of the recording of crime.

• The need for greater detail regarding the benefits of the Target Operating

Model was raised with the Commissioner. It was explained that local

meetings were being updated on the project but the information provided

was lacking in detail.

 

 

The meeting ended at 1.10 p.m.

 

Chairman

 

Minutes

56.    The Panelnoted two matters arising fromthe minutes of the previous meeting; underminute 49 a volunteer from EastSussexDistrictandBorough Councils was soughtto participate on the Police Complaints Working Group; and under minute 51 the outstanding response to the written question at the previous meeting had been tabled atthe current meeting(copyappendedto the signed versionof the minutes).

 

57.  Resolved– That theminutes of the meetingof the SussexPolice andCrime

Panel heldon 9October 2015be confirmedas acorrect record.