The Council is to welcome Sir Graham Bright, Police and Crime Commissioner to lead the Council debate.
As part of his address Sir Graham has been requested to focus on -
¨ his plans for Cambridgeshire as they might impact on Huntingdonshire;
¨ how the Police will work in partnership with the District Council to create safer, stronger communities;
¨ how the Commissioner will allocate resources to policing in the District; and
¨ how the Commissioner plans to engage with the public.
(It is envisaged that the debate will comprise an opening address [10 minutes], questions [45 minutes] and summing up [5 minutes].)
Minutes:
The Chairman reminded Members of the decision by the Council to suspend Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) to enable headline debates and ‘Green Paper’ proposals to be discussed by Members in an open manner. The Council, therefore,
RESOLVED
that Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) be suspended for the duration of the discussion under Minute No 18 and 20 during which time the common law rules of debate be observed by Members and applied by the Chairman.
The Chairman welcomed Sir Graham Bright, Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire to the meeting and invited him to address the Council and to open the debate on –
¨ his plans for Cambridgeshire as they might impact on Huntingdonshire;
¨ how the Police will work in partnership with the District Council to create safer, stronger communities;
¨ how the Commissioner will allocate resources to policing in the District; and
¨ how the Commissioner plans to engage with the public.
Sir Graham began by suggesting that it was a vital part of his role to engage with the community and that with this in mind he had addressed the County Council and spoken to several other community groups. Since his election, he had established a PCC office and agreed a total budget of £131.579 million. As an organisation, the Police Authority was responsible 2,400 employees and it was his priority to ensure the Chief Constable had sufficient resources to manage the police operation in Cambridgeshire. He explained that whilst he was responsible for holding the Chief Constable to account he had no authority over operational matters. A Police and Crime Plan had been published and was available to view on the website of the Police and Crime Commissioner. This described what the Chief Constable was expected to provide in terms of policing in Cambridgeshire and one of the objectives was to maintain local police performance. He contended that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was a good force, that the County was a safe place to live and that it was part of his challenge to maintain this position. He added that it was also his objective to deliver policing within the available budget and that to continue to do so, as well as improve services, would be a constant challenge.
Mention also was made of his desire to make best use of technology, to introduce ‘paperless’ working and to increase efficiency by reducing reliance on completion of forms. Sir Graham indicated that he was determined to continue to work with neighbouring forces to provide joint services such as road traffic and fire arms support as a way to maximise resources and make savings. Essex and the Metropolitan Police also had expressed an interest in sharing services. It was also his desire to promote partnership working within Cambridgeshire to promote preventative initiatives to tackle homelessness, anti social behaviour and drug misuse for example. He spoke specifically about encouraging involvement with Neighbourhood Watch Groups and promoting greater use of software to improve communications. Great progress had been made in improving call handling processes such that 95% of emergency calls were answered within 10 seconds in December 2012. Work was underway to develop an ‘App’ to enable prompt reporting of crime. The introduction of a proactive approach to protecting young people and positive measures to distract youngsters from congregating on streets after dark to help prevent young people from getting into trouble were described. Specific mention was made of a project in South Cambridgeshire which encouraged youngsters to become involved in community work. Focus would also be placed on tackling hate crime, protecting young people from domestic violence and sex offences for instance as well as the more serious crime prevention.
Sir Graham concluded by describing himself as the ‘voice of the people’ and whilst not responsible for operational matters it was up to him, working in conjunction with the Chief Constable to hold the police to account for their performance.
The debate opened with a question from Councillor M F Shellens which suggested that Sir Graham had spent the equivalent of three PCSOs on office furniture. Sir Graham denied that this was the case but contended that he was required to set up an office and recruit staff necessary to manage correspondence and respond to enquiries. In terms of community presence, Councillor T V Rogers referred to the absence of a police presence in his village or at meetings of the Parish Council and asked whether it was Sir Graham’s intention that this level of support be reinstated. Sir Graham regretted that the cost of this level of support was prohibitive and that, in any event, he would prefer to see constables spend time on local policing and not in parish council meetings. He assured the questioner that the Police Authority was committed to neighbourhood policing and that he was hopeful that a new ‘alert’ system would provide parishes with all the information they required about policing matters in their areas. Ultimately, he hoped to visit all Parish Councils in Cambridgeshire but it would be impossible to repeat this exercise regularly. He had envisaged that the efforts he had made to make it easier for the public to contact the police had helped, so whilst sympathetic, he preferred Constables to be working on the streets. Councillor Rogers considered that it was important for the police to be seen in villages but he acknowledged that this would not occur unless there was a known hot spot of crime at a particular location. Sir Graham reminded the Council that he had a duty to police the County, that the local commander would deal with specific problems and that regrettably he did not have the resources to patrol every village.
Referring to the use of the former St Ives Police Station building for community purposes and the opportunity that existed to develop similar facilities elsewhere, Councillor D B Dew questioned the ability of the police to adequately respond promptly to issues which might arise in St Ives town if there were also problems in Wisbech on the same evening given the large geographical area that the surveillance van would be expected to cover. Sir Graham suggested that policing Saturday night activities were a priority and that a number of special constables had been recruited to supplement the permanent force for these purposes. He described a project which had operated in conjunction with Sainsbury’s supermarkets to encourage the recruitment of special constables trained to deal with those issues likely to arise at weekends. It also was possible to call on neighbouring forces for back up if necessary but this would be an operational decision. In terms of reuse of former police stations, the authority’s estate management function was seeking to maximise, together with neighbouring authorities, use of all property.
Given the low turnout at the PCC elections, Councillor Mrs P A Jordan asked whether Sir Graham considered that he had a mandate to undertake the duties of the Commissioner effectively and in response Sir Graham confirmed that everyone had had the opportunity to vote so he had no concerns in this respect.
Commending the wide range of strategies contained in the Police Plan, Councillor R B Howe asked for Sir Graham’s views on the use of Speedwatch given the proliferation of speeding problems in villages and the difficulties these presented for Parish Councils. Sir Graham commented that where operating, Speedwatch appeared to be an effective means of influencing drivers to curb their speed but he admitted that there had to be a balance between the actions that could be taken by the police and a local Speedwatch group in these circumstances.
In terms of the vulnerability of an isolated property to crime, Councillor R J West asked whether Sir Graham had any intention of allocating additional resources to the Rural Crime Group. Sir Graham was of the opinion that the Cambridgeshire force had been successful in tackling rural crime with the help of a dedicated police team and a Farmwatch Group.
Sir Graham was asked to comment on his plans for working with troubled families and in reply he indicated that it was his intention to put in place arrangements through community safety partnerships which would trigger the involvement of relevant agencies in the event of contact from known individuals/families in need of assistance.
Regarding response times to 101 calls, Sir Graham confirmed, following a question from Councillor Mrs M Banerjee that these had improved and that he had particularly insisted that the police should attend domestic burglaries on the day they occur. He indicated that he would focus on victim support as a future target.
It having been suggested that there was a high incidence of knife crime amongst migrant communities, Sir Graham advised that this was a matter for the Border Agency, that he was aware of problems in certain towns and that the force was using trained PCSOs to address these.
As the Neighbourhood Forums had been discontinued, Councillor P Kadewere asked Sir Graham to comment on the way in which the police would consult with the public in the future and whether he was prepared to release funding for this purpose. Sir Graham was aware that the Area Commander was considering ways to consult with the community to overcome the absence of Neighbourhood Forums but that he personally believed in Constables speaking to people whilst out on the beat. However, he would consider the question of funding such meetings should he be approached in the future.
Regarding the appointment of Special Constables, Councillor R Harrison asked if these Officers were eligible to receive the same equipment and training opportunities as ordinary constables. Sir Graham confirmed that the Cambridgeshire force consisted of up to 350 PCSOs and that each had been equipped to a value of £2500 and been trained in a particular specialism. There was also no barrier to career progression.
Having commended the success of community policing and Speedwatch locally, Councillor P D Reeve asked whether Sir Graham would be open to reducing back office costs by entering a shared services arrangement with other authorities. In reply, Sir Graham confirmed that he would consider every opportunity to reduce costs and undertook to investigate Councillor Reeves’ suggestion that Speedwatch was not operating as it could due to ‘red tape’ issues.
Lastly, Sir Graham confirmed that he was prepared to hold regular public surgeries but he admitted that the response to these had not been great.
The Chairman thanked Sir Graham for his interesting and thorough presentation and for attending the Council meeting.
Actions:60 minutes