Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings held on 21 May 2013 and authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2013 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive a presentation from Lucy Satchell-Day, London Probation Trust.

Lucy Satchell-Day, Assistant Chief Officer, Barking/Dagenham and Havering London Probation Trust attended the meeting to deliver a presentation on the Government’s response to the consultation on the proposed Transforming Rehabilitation Reforms.

The Government proposed the creation of a New National Public Probation Service to replace the existing Probation Trusts. The new National Probation Service will be responsible for:

1.    All cases assessed as high risk;

2.    All case and parole reports;

3.    Initial Risk Assessments;

4.    All MAPPA cases in the Community;

5.    A small number of public interest cases;

6.    Cases where risk of harm has escalated to ‘high’;

7.    Breach and Recall decisions;

8.    Victim Liaison Unit and Approved Premises; and

9.    Commissioning interventions for high risk offenders.

The Government were keen to keep local borough units.

The country would be divided into 21 Contract Package Areas (CPAs). London would be one CPA with approximately 33,000 cases.

Each CPA would include the following business:

1.    Management of all medium risk and low risk cases, in Custody and the Community, with the development of ‘through the gate’ services;

2.    Currently envisaged that most interventions, including Community Payback, Accredited Programmes and Specified Activity requirements would be included; and

3.    The management of ‘high risk of harm’ and MAPPA cases while in custody.

Existing Trusts could spin off into ‘Mutuals’ and bid for business as a sub not a prime. The London Probation Trust was looking to establish a ‘Mutual’ to deal with interventions.

All work and resources identified as being in the 21 CPAs would be established as 21 ‘going concerns’. These would be called Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). CRCs would be established as private entities which would be overseen by the Ministry of Justice until the CPA were awarded to the new providers. At this point the CRCs would be sold to the successful bidders. The Government would retain a small stake in the CRCs as an insurance policy.

The Government was also proposing to:

1.    Reconfigure the prison estate to establish ‘resettlement prisons’ in local areas;

2.    Establish a Professional Body for Probation Officers, although there was no guarantee new providers would subscribe.

3.    Make arrangements for Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons to oversee quality across the whole provider network, and

4.    Include Community Payback in the CPAs with the exception of London which would be considered separately.

The Committee expressed some concern that the companies who were likely to be bidding for the work were those which had recently received bad press for their mishandling of the electronic tagging contracts.

The Committee thanked Lucy for her presentation and noted the report.

Report attached.

Officers submitted a report outlining the measures included in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill in so far as it related to Anti-Social Behaviour. The idea behind the Bill was to simplify and speed up the process. There was a general consensus that the provision for a Community remedy would be dropped before the Bill became law as it created too mant problems.

The Committee noted the report.

To consider the revised report prior to submission to Cabinet.

Report attached.

Following the last meeting the Topic groups report on Domestic violence had been considered by lead members. A number of questions had been raised and officers had taken the report away for a rethink. The revised report was presented for the Committee’s approval.

The revised report was approved for submission to Cabinet.

To receive an oral report.

At the request of members officers updated the Committee on the up to date position with SERCO. Officers had experienced difficulties in contacting SERCO and more recently there had been issues with contracts and liability. Officers advised that these issues had been resolved and the Head of StreetCare was working with SERCO to utilise Community payback in the borough.

The Committee indicated they would like a report on progress to their next meeting and details of best practice within other boroughs.

The Committee asked for an update on progress with the remodelling of the Safer Neighbourhood teams. The Borough Commander advised the Committee that within each ward there would be three named officers, a Sergeant, a PC and a PCSO. Overall within the borough the number of officers available for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams remained the same but those not allocated to a specific ward would be flexed to areas of greatest need, as and when required. This will enable the police to be both more pro-active and more re-active.

The Committee noted the report.