Agenda item

The Panel, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 12 and 28 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, received for consideration a report from the Police and Crime Commissioner setting out the progress being made in implementing the Police and Crime Plan.

The following questions/issues were raised on the report:

A query for further information was made regarding the statutory compliance of estates. The progress report notes a delay in compliance processing due to staff reorganisation, grading the item as ‘not compliant’. The Police and Crime Commissioner clarified that the reason for the grading lies with a delay in getting information from suppliers. He emphasised that the report predicts a rapid increase in the compliance rate, with full compliance being reached within a month. A query was raised regarding the Commissioner’s confidence in the robustness of these predictions. The Police and Crime Commissioner admitted that the predictions are based on very recent information and still await detailed scrutiny by his executive team. The Commissioner’s Chief of Staff added that management information provides a level of assurance for the predictions.

A comment was made regarding the ‘not compliant’ item referring to the register for risks to the Police and Crime Commissioner. It was suggested that the grading reflects the fact that the Force had failed to implement over 200 HMRC recommendations before the appointment of the new Chief Constable, and that this failure should have been addressed by the Joint Audit Committee. In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner clarified that the item in question does not refer to the Force’s risk register, but to risks in the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office such as data protection. The Commissioner emphasised that the Force’s risk register item would have been graded as fully compliant.

In relation to the Engagement Strategy and Action Plan, concerns were expressed that the Commissioner’s presence at rural summer shows only engages one type of community in the Dyfed-Powys area. It was suggested that the Commissioner diversify his public engagement and tailor message towards different communities. The Commissioner replied that an Engagement Team responsible for addressing the matter had been facing reorganisation and staffing issues. He also emphasised his involvement in various engagement activities in different parts of the Dyfed-Powys area and noted that progress towards higher compliance is underway. 

The Panel questioned how the Commissioner will be weighting the potentially conflicting aims of maximising value for money versus spending as locally as possible, especially with regard to the estates function. The Commissioner acknowledged that cost effectiveness is crucial but stated that local companies should be promoted unless trade-offs in cost-efficiency are too detrimental. He also announced that significant estates projects, such as the Carmarthenshire custody project, will provide local employment opportunities.

With regard to the issue of domestic abuse, concerns were expressed on whether there are sufficient provisions for offering services to people without internet access. In particular, it was asked whether police officers can supply hardcopy information when called to incidents of domestic abuse. The Police and Crime Commissioner agreed that using multiple channels of communication is crucial. He reported that a hardcopy multi-agency assessment form for domestic abuse cases is available.

In relation to Community Safety Partnerships, the Police and Crime Commissioner clarified that he is meeting partnership coordinators from each unitary authority on a quarterly basis. He also expressed his gratitude to Mr Alan Garrod for his engagement in the Ceredigion Community Safety Partnership.

Congratulations were expressed on the initiative, content and presentation of the Deep Dive Scrutiny Paper that accompanies the progress report. The Police and Crime Commissioner detailed how the report had been publicised and announced a further Deep Dive report into the Force’s drugs enforcement activities. The Panel asked for clarification of a recommendation in the Deep Dive Report relating to the equipment of the Force’s specialist sections. The Police and Crime Commissioner explained that the recommendation does not reflect a wider problem with inappropriate equipment, but reflects a very specific concern about flashing body worn cameras in the Dog Section.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the report be received.