Agenda item

The Panel was invited to make any final comments on the draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025.

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) reminded Members that they had considered a previous draft in September.  The consultation on this draft had now concluded and this was the Panel’s final opportunity to make comments before publication.

The Chairman congratulated the PCC on the broad range of consultation that had taken place.  Panel Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were made:

·         Concern was expressed that, although 690 comments had been recorded in response to the consultation, only 6 changes had been made to the draft plan.  In response, the PCC stated that in his view the responses suggested the need for nuanced amendments rather than fundamental changes.  He did not see anything in the comments that required significant change.

·         In response to a question about whether things were improving in relation to the participation of hard-to-reach communities, the PCC suggested that the voice of some communities was not being heard enough but added that this was an issue for all parts of the public sector.  To be truly representative of the community, the approach to engagement needed to be broader.  Consideration should also be given to how information was made available as not all people would read such a lengthy document.

·         The importance of understanding the concerns of hard-to-reach communities was emphasised.  The PCC told the Panel that he valued the opportunity to visit communities, something that had been interrupted by the pandemic, and he was looking forward to meeting people again with the new Chief Constable.  They had a joint commitment to reaching communities that had previously been missed and he told the Panel about a recent visit to meet Afghan refugees in Telford.  He wanted people to trust the police and engagement was vital in this.  The PCC reminded Members about the changes he had made to the Ambassador scheme including the introduction of the role of Assistant PCC which aimed to increase capacity to engage with communities.  The personal connection was important in building relationships.

·         In response to a question about whether recent increases in the number of police officers represented a true growth in numbers or simply returned the force to the situation before previous cuts, the PCC reminded the Panel that he could only comment on the period that he had been in office, as that was what he was accountable for.  Since he had been in office, numbers had increased and would increase again in the next financial year.  He went on to suggest that a focus on police numbers was ‘a red herring’, as numbers were irrelevant if communities did not feel they saw enough police officers.

·         It was suggested that there had been an increase in petty crime in Shrewsbury town centre since the closure of the police station there.  In response, the PCC suggested that the closure of the station did not mean there were fewer officers in the town and it was important to have officers out in the community rather than in police bases.  Officer visibility and accessibility were important.

·         A Member stated that she was not convinced that the plan showed any improvement on previous versions as it was not clear what actions would be taken or what success would look like.  She suggested it would be helpful to see the performance management structure that sat behind the plan in order to ensure actions were taken.  The PCC reminded the Panel that this focus would come in the delivery plan.  He did not want the Police and Crime Plan to be a rigid, prescriptive document.  The Panel Member suggested that the Panel would find it useful to have some form of assurance so that Members could see progress on achieving the aims described.  The PCC said that he would look again at this but had previously taken a clear decision to keep performance information out of the plan, allowing the performance framework to be adjusted or refocussed as required.

·         The PCC confirmed that the use of bicycles was still a key part of the force’s assets and he had recently signed off a £50k investment to upgrade and invest in pedal and electric bikes.

·         A Member welcomed the proposal to invest in community speed reduction schemes and expressed frustration about the effectiveness of Community Speed Watch groups suggesting that, although they could be a short-term fix, they were not a sustainable solution to problems of speeding.  The PCC agreed that Community Speed Watch groups were only part of the solution and reminded the Panel that 19 additional specialist road policing officers were being recruited.  He also noted the role of effective road design and would work with the highways authorities on this.  His aim was to be a more effective leader in the system.

·         With reference to the recent meeting of Worcestershire County Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board which had discussed road safety, the PCC said that he would wish to be supportive but needed to be clear what the tangible outcomes of the meeting were.  He confirmed that more resources would be available in this area but wanted road policing to be every police officer’s responsibility, not simply seen as a specialist area.  This was not necessarily currently the case.

·         The proposed metrics were welcomed as being very comprehensive and it was confirmed that these would form the basis of reporting back to the Panel at future meetings.

·         Concern was expressed that, by placing warning signs in Community Speed Watch areas, drivers were able to slow down meaning that not all potential speeding motorists were caught.  The PCC reminded Members that the aim was for everyone to be complying with the speed limit and speed enforcement was predominantly visible and overt.  The force did have the ability to undertake unmarked speed enforcement but this was a much smaller resource.

·         He also noted the role of citizenry through, for example, dash cams or helmet cams, reminding the Panel that footage could be uploaded via West Mercia’s website.  A Member reported favourably on the installation of a Speed Indicator Device in his local area and the PCC reminded Members that West Mercia ran a scheme which provided up to 50% of the cost of these signs.  With reference to solar powered signs, the PCC informed the Panel that, although he had no views on the power source used, if a sign was environmentally friendly that would be welcomed.

·         With reference to the consultation exercise, a Panel member queried whether repeat responses could be prevented.  The Deputy Chief Executive of the Office of the PCC confirmed that the online response system had used techniques to prevent multiple submissions from one person.  Although it appeared that some responses had been copied and pasted, this would have been picked up by the policy team as part of their analysis.  The Chairman of the Panel noted that, although it was important that responses were kept anonymous, it was also important that responses were not duplicated.

·         In response to a question about why there had been low levels of response in Herefordshire, the PCC acknowledged that it was important to hear a diversity of responses from across the whole of the West Mercia region and expressed concern about the level of engagement in some areas.  It would be important to aspire for better.