Agenda and minutes

Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel - Friday 14 September 2018 10.00 am

Venue: Cabinet Suite - Shire Hall, Gloucester. View directions

Contact: Stephen Bace  01452 324204

No. Item


Minutes of previous meeting pdf icon PDF 98 KB


Signed as a correct record.



Declaration of Interests


No additional declarations were made.



Chief Executive Report pdf icon PDF 535 KB


24.1    Paul Trott, presented the report for the Panel.


24.2    One member asked a question relating to the Badger Cull and the announcement of an extension. The member asked what consultation would have been undertaken between Natural England and the Police when extending the cull and what resources were allocated to it. In response, it was explained that consultation was undertaken between Natural England and Police and that it was an operational matter which didn’t come under the remit of the Commissioner. In recent years it had been a fairly low scale operation with the risk of conflict diminishing. It was noted that Stroud was a new area to this. The resources required were paid by Defra to the Constabulary, this was not about resources being allocated from another part of the budget. In the past the Police had advised Defra of when major commitments were. The approach from the Constabulary was business as usual.


24.3    Members noted the topics raised between the Commissioner and Chief Constable including the RHPG funding letter to Home Secretary.


24.4    One member commented on the excellent ISVA Service.


24.5    There was some discussion around safe and social driving and the initiative to take more notice of dash cam footage. It was asked what opportunities had been explored to involve the general public with this. It was explained that the strategic priority was to go digital. Currently the Constabulary would find it challenging to receive a large volume of data providing video evidence. The Constabulary was aspiring to have a system that could handle these submissions, with the timeframe suggested as the next 12 months. One member raised a concern about the danger of a two tier system developing which meant that those with dash cams or technology could potentially be taken more seriously when reporting an incident. In response it was explained that this was something the office was mindful of and needed to be prevented. In many incidences the use of technology through dash cams or body cams was a deterrent.


24.6    One member commented about the good work of the Neighbourhood Engagement Vehicle. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had met people over the summer period using the vehicle.


24.7    In response to a question, the Commissioner emphasised the importance of rural policing. The decision taken on all terrain vehicles (quad bikes) had been to allow officers to get to the harder to reach locations. A tractor was being used at county shows to draw people in and promote the green pledge and compassionate approach to animals. This only cost the Constabulary the price of fuel but nothing in addition to that.


24.8    Members noted that 38% of FOIs were categorised as ‘other’. They requested additional information to show a breakdown of what was represented in that group.

ACTON                      Ruth Greenwood


24.9    Members recognised that some decisions were not published, with it being noted that they were not of significant interest to the public. Legislation dictated what information could be made public, although  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.


Child Friendly proposal pdf icon PDF 303 KB

Additional documents:


25.1    Ruth Greenwood and Nigel Hatten introduced the report and the background to the proposal. It was explained that the HMIC report into vulnerable children which had been critical of the approach had also coincided with the Ofsted report into child protection in the County Council. Members understood there was a Commissioner’s Forum which helped to ensure the Commissioner’s Office looked at other perspectives and other issues. This forum had put it to the Commissioner that he should use his office to make a difference on this. Agencies were already getting on with a significant amount of work so this was not about duplicating or ‘stepping on toes’.


25.2    Nigel Hatten was a former detective with specialism in safeguarding. He acknowledged that each partner working with young people had action plans or improvement plans to improve their response to safeguarding. Through many discussion with staff thought, five gaps were identified though:


·         True voice of young people – agencies often go to easy to reach groups of  young people. It was  important to get a true voice of young people and include hard to reach groups..

·         Voluntary Sector – actively working with young people, they felt that their contributions were often overlooked by some of the statutory agencies and that there this could often lead to a divide. If joined up better this would improve outcomes.

·         Intelligence gathering – how do we ensure safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility? Ensure we can get intelligence from communities in a safe and effective way.

·         How do we involve communities and business in safeguarding children?

·         A need to map what work was being undertaken in Gloucestershire


25.3    The team attended a showcase event in Leeds to look at what they had done and what they had achieved.. Their starting place had been similar to Gloucestershire in terms of the challenges. Leeds reached out to all sectors, including businesses via their social  responsibilities. Businesses had been overwhelmingly supportive of the scheme as they recognised that it heled them develop future leaders in their companies. Ruth and Nigel drew parallels with the aspirations of Gloucestershire 2050. The basis of the work in Leeds was an understanding of what children said they wanted and what their aspirations were and therefore meaningful consultation was at the heart of their approach. 


25.4    There were some fundamental differences between Leeds and Gloucestershire, for example the system of local authority governance, but it was important to have these conversations about how it could be applied to Gloucestershire. There was a lot of positive work going on there and it was about gaining a commitment from agencies that we want to put young people at the heart of what we do. The aim was to understand what people feel they could contribute  culminating with a launch event in 12 months. A steering group had been set up including the Chief Constable, Lord Lieutenant, Director of Children Services, the Bishop, the Police and Crime Commissioner and other to help oversee the development of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.


Criminal Justice pdf icon PDF 233 KB

An update on the work taking place around Criminal Justice.


26.1    Amanda Segelov, Criminal Justice Policy Officer, presented the briefing note providing an overview of Criminal Justice. The Commissioner chaired the Gloucestershire Criminal Justice Board. Three delivery groups had been set upon the specific aims and focus:


·         Delivering Justice Group

·         Victims and Witnesses

·         Reoffending and rehabilitation


26.2    Members received details of the activity in these areas, understanding the importance of putting the victim first and ensuring that an overarching strategy was developed for the country to reduce reoffending. There will be a focus on transition groups (those between ages 18-21) to ensure they did not fall through the gaps as well as specific work around female offenders.


26.3    One member asked about those with mental health difficulties going through the court process. In response it was explained that this issue was recognised and the relevant partners were in the process a mental health protocol to better deal with those entering the system. Hoping this would be less stressful and reduce re-appearances in court.


26.4    Richard Bradley provided an update in terms of Gloucestershire and the devolution of key elements of the Criminal Justice system by the Ministry of Justice to the Commissioner.. An important factor was the probation service. Currently high risk offenders went to the national probation service, while a private organisation dealt  medium to low risk offenders. This approach had failed. The current for the latter service would be terminated at the end of 2020 and work was now being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice working with key stakeholders to determine the best way forward. It was likely that PCCs would be involved in the design of the new system, the commissioning of this service and the subsequent contract management.



26.5    The Commissioner raised the issue of access to Justice for those most vulnerable and those who have a disability.




Police and Crime Plan Priorities Highlight Report pdf icon PDF 832 KB

The purpose of the Police and Crime Plan Priorities Quarterly Highlight Report is to provide all stakeholders with an update that monitors progress in respect of each of the Priorities, to include:


·         Activities achieved during the current quarter;

·         Activities expected during the next quarter;

·         Any risks or issues identified will be managed through the risk and issue registers;

·         Overview of budget


This report is a summary against activities. Members should note that this information is retrospective for the reporting quarter mentioned; as such it is an executive summary.


27.1    Richard Bradley introduced the report which detailed that for each of the six priorities within the Police and Crime Plan there was a priority lead. The plan worked across Gloucestershire and heavily involved partners.


27.2    Members were informed of the introduction of the school ‘beat’ officer with four in post and two more in the new year.


27.3    One member commented on the good work of the Force cadets.


27.4    Members were informed of the changes to staffing within the Force control room with a new appointment in place.


27.5    Responding to previous concerns around challenges relating to Children First, it was explained that this was due to a change of approach and culture and the way that resources had been administered but was now resolved.


27.6    One member asked where young people fitted into the Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan. It was explained that it was integrated throughout the plan.


27.7    It was clarified that the all-terrain vehicles referred to earlier were on the block insurance for Constabulary vehicles.


27.8    There was a further discussion on resourcing from government for the police and the burden on the local tax payer. Understanding the Commissioner’s intention to increase the precept, members discussed the impact on the people of Gloucestershire. One member commented that this equated to only a small amount of money a month.


27.9    One member welcomed the Commissioner’s Fund and the way it supported a number of scheme that had real outcomes.


27.10  One member asked the cost of the horses that were part of the Constabulary’s ‘fleet’. In response the Commissioner explained that this had been provided to the panel before. Further details could be provided but reference was made to the information that had been provided at the previous Panel meeting.