Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

No declarations of interest were made.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 10^th January 2012.

The notes from the 10 January 2012 meeting were agreed as a correct record.

To receive a presentation from Chief Superintendant O’Mally and Superintendent Coombs on the progress of the Essex Police reform programme.

The Panel welcomed Chief Superintendant C. O’Malley and Superintendant A. Coombs, from Essex Police. They were present to talk about the progress of the Essex Police reform programme resulting from the budget cuts which obliged the police to make £41million of savings over the next 4 years. A copy of their presentation is attached to these minutes.

Essex Police at present have 3,500 police officers; over 350 Police Community Support officers and will soon have 600 special constables. They also have 877 vehicles travelling 15.8 million miles per annum and 112 operational buildings (twice as many as Kent own). There were 1.7 million residents in 730,000 households with 25,000 emergency calls handled per month.

They were already improving productivity, reducing costs, increasing availability and at the same time reducing the size of the force.

They were moving away from their traditional model and to the concept of ‘Borderless’ policing, which in practice meant that the nearest vehicle would be sent to an incident and not as before, when it would be the nearest vehicle belonging to the area that the incident took place in. These would be co-ordinated by response hubs.

The Panel noted that they had reduced senior management by 25%, but were having difficulty in targeting middle management as they had legal obligations in that only certain ranks could authorise certain things. They had reduced the number of Chief Superintendents to five.

There was to be an increase in designated Neighbourhood Policing Officers and a focus on anti-social behaviour and non-emergency, no crime incidents as well as in depth public engagement. There would also be additional support from a larger Neighbourhood Team to deal with the demand. Every area will have a Community Safety and Partnership Unit to be led by a designated Inspector and Sergeant. The unit was to be based at Epping police Station with satellite offices at Brentwood, Ongar and Loughton. These units would bring Crime Reduction Officers, Essex Watch Administrators together with Local Licensing Officers making for multi-agency working.

In order to publicise the new arrangements they had spoken to several newspapers and all MPs in the county. They were getting around as much as they could over the county. However, it was noted that the local press did tend to play up the bad news such as the reduction of police officers over Essex. Members noted that it would be better to get information, not from the local press, but from the appropriate websites or local posters.

The remit of the new officers would change; the new ‘Investigative Command’ would handle the paperwork enabling the local PCs to stay longer out on patrol. With the new technology they could also work out how much time an officer was spending at their locations.

Essex Police were also reviewing and reforming their estate portfolio. The Panel noted that they had a lot of property and were actively selling surplus buildings, enabling them to reduce their annual revenue costs for maintenance of the Force Estate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

To receive a presentation from Councillor Anthony Jackson, Chairman of the Essex Police Authority, on the current position of the transition to the Police and Crime Commission.

Councillor Anthony Jackson, the Chairman of the Essex Police Authority, spoke about the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections. He noted that this had not really been publicised as much as it should have been, and that most people knew very little about what the new commissioner would do.

The time line would be that on 15 October 2012 the election for the PCC would be declared. On 15 November 2012 the elections would be held and on midnight plus one minute, of 22 November, the new PCC would take office.

In many ways the PCC would have the same role as the police authorities they replace. Their main responsibilities will be to secure an efficient and effective police force for their area; appoint a Chief Constable and hold them to account and if necessary dismiss them; set the Police and Crime Objectives for their area; set an annual force budget and police precept; produce an annual report; co-operate with the criminal justice system in their area; and work with partners and fund community safety activity to tackle crime and disorder.

A large organisation would then be put in the hands of one person, the new Commissioner, looking after 1.7 million people of Essex. The success of this would also depend on a lot of co-operation and good will from the forces. The Panel noted that:

• The  PCC will be the budget holder;
• A PCC Transition Board will be put in place to hand over the baton so that the new PCC could hit the ground running;
• The PCC, in consultation with the Chief Constable will have to produce a five year Police and Crime Plan;
• The PCC would set the annual force budget and police precept, and produce and annual report setting out their progress against the objectives in the Police and Crime Plan;
• There was still a tangle of legal issues to sort out, such as who owned the property;
• The PCC will pursue collaboration to save money;
• Essex Police had already saved £8 million by collaborating with Kent Police; and
• A National Police Air Service was being formed.

Councillor Breare-Hall asked how important it was for a potential candidate to have a background in law and order. Councillor Jackson replied that what was more important was a keen intellect, energy and leadership. The policing aspects would soon be picked up.

The Director of Environment and Street Scene, John Gilbert, had attended a conference where it was established that the government were behind partnership working in a big way. It was also noted that the public were not very aware of what a PCC would be and what their responsibilities were and how important the job was. Home Office officials would try and ensure that the public are informed over the next few months so that they can make an informed decision in November. Generally, this would be a powerful role with potentially the power to sack Chief Constables. They were hopeful that the PCC would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

(Director Environment and Street Scene) To Consider the attached Government Consultation documents.

The Panel noted that that the government wanted to review waste related law on the premise that too many local authorities were unnecessarily penalising residents for what was seen as trivial offences.

The government had now come forward with its proposals for changing the law. It presented two main options:

(1)               the creation of mainly civil sanctions, but with the retention of some criminal sanctions; and

(2)               the removal of all criminal sanctions.

The government’s preference was to decriminalise, and the report suggested to members that this was the preferred way forward, but with some caveats.

This Council had always strived not to apply sanctions to householders but to educate and cajole them into behaving reasonably. The Council had also instituted weekly collection of food and garden waste to alleviate some of the more common complaints.

If option 2 was seen as the preferred way forward, then the questions were whether civil enforcement was sufficient to deal the problems which arose and whether it was practical and/or financially viable for councils to pursue civil debts.

It was thought important however, to ensure that the criminal powers which remain are fit for purpose and do enable councils to take action where appropriate.

The Panel considered the proposed response to the Defra consultation and made the following comments:

• This was an overreaction to what was printed in the newspapers;
• Officers were of the opinion that option 2 was preferable but were still to be convinced that harm to the local amenity was to be established. They gave examples of where failure to comply with recycling procedures could cause the load being rejected at the recycling plant. The council must maintain an ultimate sanction of a criminal offence where appropriate;
• The council at present permits a reasonably shut bin ( a smiley bin) and take a realistic view on this;
• Occasionally bins are rejected and a sticker is left explaining why it was not collected;
• It was noted that flats have problems recycling but officers were on the way to putting in a programme especially for flats;
• Members agreed that the harm to the local amenity test had not been properly thought through; and
• They noted that if needed officers could use other legislation to catch the prolific offender.

            RESOLVED:

That subject to the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel’s comments, they endorsed the draft response to the Defra consultation on waste related penalties.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme, which is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

(1)        The Panel would consider their Work Programme at their next meeting.

(2)               Councillor Webster suggested that the Fire Services should be scrutinised after the Olympics. They would be having to institute new ways of working as the Police have.  It would be a good idea to have them give this Panel a presentation.

However, it was noted that the main Overview and Scrutiny Committee  had such an item already on their Work Programme (item 12 of the WP). They should be asked if they were content for this Panel to take on this piece of work in their stead.  

The final programmed meeting of the Panel for this year will be held on 10^th April 2012.

The dates of future meetings of the Panel were noted.