Agenda item

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced his Draft Annual Report.  Members of the Panel were required to review the Report and make recommendations to the PCC for consideration, following which, the PCC must then respond to any report or recommendations that the Panel has made prior to publishing the final version of the report.

In presenting his Annual Report, the PCC highlighted that in the last year there had been an increase in funding of £15m for policing and a significant rise in numbers of police officers for West Mercia. Whilst there had been an increased level of confidence in the West Mercia Police (the Force) in the last year, the PCC remained frustrated at the pace of the delivery of improvements. There were changing demands from communities and the PCC expected to see a greater pace of change in the year ahead.

The PCC drew attention to a few specific areas including:

·         The lack of progress in respect of improving the visibility and access to police officers, an area that the Chief Constable was committed to seeing change.

·         The reporting of poor behaviour of police officers nationally had impacted the reputation of the Police Force in general and public confidence. This behaviour was unacceptable, and the PCC was supportive of the work being done to drive improvement.

·         The importance of continuing to fund services to support victims and securing additional funds for this purpose. This year more than £2m had been secured to tackle sexual and domestic violence and create safer spaces within communities. The PCC’s mission was to continue to support those who needed it at a level that was expected and deserved by communities.

In the discussion that ensued, the following points were raised:

·         With reference to the 500 new police officers highlighted in the report, a Member asked for details as to how many of them were front line officers. The PCC was not able to give an exact percentage but confirmed that it was not 100% as not all police officers were visible in the community and had other roles for example pursuing criminals on the dark web and therefore were out of sight of the public. The Panel would be provided with details following the meeting.

·         Members were keen to see police officers being more visible within their communities, which would also benefit residents who had a fear of crime. The PCC explained that the number of police officers in an area varied according to activity levels, and that the Police response was relative and proportionate. The PCC acknowledged however, that public perception needed to improve and advised that some public perception work had recently been carried out in Pershore, and that he was keen to work with Councillors to improve public perception.

·         A Member suggested that there was a lack of police officer presence at some Parish Council meetings, although it was highlighted that this was not the case at all Parish Council meetings. The Chief Executive explained that the Local Policing Charter including an agreement to provide timely updates to Parish Councils. If this was not happening, Councillors were asked to advise the PCC.

·         A Member highlighted that the PCC’s visit to a farm in Shropshire and interest in rural crime issues had been well received within the local farming community.

·         Although there were some issues with policing in Telford, particularly with a lack of police attendance, a Member wished to highlight that the partnership working with the Police on the Safer and Stronger Communities programme was a very welcome initiative. The PCC agreed that the programme was proving successful, and that it was central to the aims of the Community Safety Partnership legislation.

·         A Member advised that many of the issues highlighted in the report had been seen first-hand and referred to some positive diversionary and street work that was taking place and the mutual benefit of ward walks with the Police.

·         In response to a Member question about the outcomes of the investment in technology, the PCC advised that by October the benefits would be realised, and a report would be brought to the February Panel detailing the outcomes of the investment.

·         Referring to the year in numbers set out in the report, a Member requested that future reports included comparative figures from previous years with some context as to whether progress was ‘on track’ for these indicators. The PCC explained that he had adapted the reporting over time to suit the Panel’s needs and was happy to try and meet new requests.

·         The Chairman reminded the Panel that its role was one of critical friend and of holding the PCC to account. The PCC added that he saw the Panel’s role as being one of support and challenge of his  commissionership.

·         A Member set out their observations on the figures used in the report, for instance the reliance on the use of estimates, despite the numbers of crimes reported having increased. It was suggested that public satisfaction with visibility was an outdated way of judging performance with the increasing importance of cybercrime. The low proportion of offences where action had been taken was also highlighted, and it was questioned what blockages were in the system and what was being done to influence this situation. The PCC agreed that the outcomes in the UK for lower-level crime were poor, although the Police did well with outcomes relating to serious crimes. Following some significant investment in investigative work, the updated performance figures which would be presented to the September Panel were showing some improvement in the quality of outcomes. The PCC concurred that cybercrime and online fraud were important areas and that a weekly fraud update was provided via ‘neighbourhood matters.’ 

·         A Member highlighted that PCC’s reflective summary of the previous year was appreciated, as was the use of case studies and the breakdown for each area. It was however disappointing to note the PCC’s frustrations and the PCC was asked what actions were being taken to overcome these. The PCC set out his frustration that the organisation did not adapt quickly to emerging threats and he would prefer it to be ‘live’ to challenges that came along. The biggest frustration was with the lack of consistency and priority given to the commitments of the Chief Constable as set out in the Local Policing Charter, which meant that residents were not always getting what they should expect.

·         Referring to the support for women who had suffered sexual and domestic violence, a Member asked for further details of the practicalities of victims accessing the support.

·         In response to a question about the availability of ‘Crucial Crew’ in Shropshire, the PCC advised that he thought it was available in all areas of Shropshire and advised the Member to approach the local policing team, or his Office if her local team were not able to help.

·         With reference to ensuring the accuracy of recording of outcome data, this was an area the PCC reported was being worked on. If ethical recording were an area of interest to the Panel, the PCC could provide a report at a later date.

·         A Member expressed concern about the lower crime detection rate in Shropshire. The PCC advised that work was being carried out on this and the disparity was reducing.

·         A Member requested detailed information on the average waiting time for 101 calls to be answered, as the figures quoted in the report did not reflect the local residents’ experience. The PCC advised that further details could be found in the public call handling section of the performance monitoring report hyperlink in the report.

The Chairman confirmed that a formal letter would be sent to the PCC setting out the Panel’s comments on his draft annual report.