Agenda item

The Panel considered a report which set out details of a new policy and procedure referred to as, ‘Most Appropriate Agency’ which the Force had introduced on 3 April 2023. The Panel was informed that the policy was based on Humberside’s Right Care Right Person (RCRP) policy and was intended to ensure that everyone, including the most vulnerable members of the community received the correct service, by the most appropriate agency, first time and every time. The PCC advised that there was a national launch event the previous day and whilst supportive of the principles behind the policy, he did have concerns regarding its implementation and how the system would work. The PCC had taken time to understand the way in which Humberside had implemented their policy and was clear that a partnership approach with all the local authorities in their area, was key to a successful approach. The PCC was keen to know if the Panel had any suggestions about the implementation of a partnership approach and ‘bringing the partnership to life’, perhaps involving local authority scrutiny bodies in the process.

Members raised a few issues and questions, to which the PCC responded as follows:

·         The speed with which the policy was being implemented was raised as a cause for concern. A Member also highlighted the views of the Local Government Association, which whilst welcoming the plans, had expressed concerns as to who would be left to foot the bill.

·         Members were very concerned about the impact of this policy on vulnerable people in the community, especially those with mental health issues. It was felt that the conditions set out for a duty of care to arise for the Police to intervene, did not come across as a partnership approach.

·         A Member asked whether the Equalities Impact Assessment referred to under the Equality Implications had been completed yet. The PCC advised that this had been completed by the Force and he would check whether it had been published.

·         Whilst acknowledging that mental health was not a Police role, a Member suggested that the Police had powers to hold a person which were useful in certain situations, and examples were provided of a recent incident where Police intervention had been required. It was suggested that Telford & Wrekin Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme could have a role in a partnership and that drop off points with the IAPT team might be part of a solution. Also, greater involvement of place-based community groups as a source of engagement and for feedback purposes could be useful.

·         A concern was raised about how the process for determining the best provider of a service would be managed and also the need to be able to respond to emergency situations, especially given that all partners could not necessarily act as an emergency service.

·         A Member questioned, given the limited response to the consultation carried out by the Force, how partners had been engaged and challenged to roll out this policy. The PCC commented that the low engagement rate with the survey suggested to him that it did not reach the right people for completion.

·         A Member suggested that the conditions required to be met before the Police had a duty to act was a major concern (paragraph 40 of report) and was unreasonable. The PCC advised that whilst he felt the Chief Constable was right to implement the policy, he had consistently expressed concerns in his holding to account work. He also agreed that there were some contradictions in the Force’s policy, and he would ensure the concerns were taken on board.

·         The PCC confirmed that the RCRP Toolkit (College of Policing) had been launched the previous day and that all the major partners had signed the agreement. It was intended that this policy would be cascaded through organisations, but the alignment of funding and services was not yet being seen.

·         Another Member shared concerns that the process of implementing the policy was being rushed and whilst partnership working was the key, some sectors had little awareness of what was expected. It was suggested that local authority scrutiny committees could play a key role in helping this to move forward. The PCC welcomed this suggestion and advised that his Office could provide information or support to help partners to engage. It was agreed that the Chairman would write on behalf of the Panel to all Councils to encourage their engagement in this process.

·         Further concerns were expressed about vulnerabilities in the community, for instance for the ambulance crews having to deal with difficult situations.

·         A Member referred to a press release which the Force had issued about reducing police involvement in mental health care and commented that the Chief Constable was not present at this meeting to hear the Panel’s concerns. The PCC advised that he would liaise with the Chief Constable to ensure that the Panels concerns were shared.

·         A Member referred to the ‘Mend the Gap’ programme with different authorities and suggested that it may be of interest in this context too.