Agenda and draft minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Joint Community Safety Partnership Overview & Scrutiny Committee, and all attendees introduced themselves.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Aslam, Jackson, Maxwell, Moseley and Richardson from Blaby District Council and Councillors Bill, Bray, Crooks and Richards from Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, with the substitution of Councillor Cartwright for Councillor Bill.

No interests were declared at this stage.

Report of the Director of Community Services (Hinckley & Bosworth) and the Director of People and Finance (Blaby) attached.

Members were presented with a report which provided the background to the merger of the community safety partnerships, the structure of the partnership and information on performance, priorities, the action plan, challenges and successes. Attention was drawn to the strategic priorities and the importance of protecting vulnerable people, including a greater focus on more harmful crime (ie leading to injury).

Concern was expressed that there was uncertainty about the level of funding available for the next financial year from the Police & Crime Commissioner and it was suggested that a letter should be sent to the Commissioner from the partnership about the importance of early notice of funding. Members were reminded that the PCC was in the same situation as local authorities who, at this point in the year, were still finalising budgets for 2017/18. It was also noted that indication had been received that there would be a slight increase in funding, but this was specifically to deliver an extra element of work.

In response to a member’s question, the committee was informed that a ‘hate incident’ referred to an incident that was perceived, by the victim or someone else, to be based on someone’s prejudice against them. It was noted that there were very few hate crimes, but that reporting of hate crimes and incidents was increasing, which may be due to raised awareness of what constitutes a hate incident.

A member referred to cybercrime and child sexual exploitation and noted that these were not included in the table. In response it was explained that a breakdown of these figures was not currently available at partnership level, however a new team at force level was currently undertaking a great deal of work on this, including data collection, so it was hoped that figures would soon be available.

It was felt that it would be helpful to be able to see a breakdown of crime numbers by authority which, officers explained, was provided at Executive Board level and could, therefore, be provided to members. It was agreed that this would show whether there were particularly different issues between the two authority areas and where they could learn from each other. It was also requested that year on year increases be shown as a percentage, that historical data (for example, the last five years) be shown, and that the national trend and other (for example, county) comparators be included.

There was some discussion about links with Leicestershire County Council’s due to their role in safeguarding, and officers explained that the County Council was an active member of the Community Safety Partnership and of locality meetings where specific matters were discussed in more detail and they had also been crucial in dealing with child sexual exploitation matters.

Concern was expressed that the focus on protecting vulnerable people and on harmful crime was at the detriment of tackling car crime and burglary. In response, Inspector Eveleigh explained that it wasn’t the case that these crimes were not taken as seriously and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.