Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2012 and authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

In response to a question officers advised the Committee that the issue of prisoners with mental health problems had been referred to the Health OSC and Health and Wellbeing Board. When matters had progressed a report would be brought back to the Committee.

With the Domestic Violence Topic Group matters had stalled over the Christmas and New Year period with both Croydon Family Centre and the London Borough of Hackney being slow to respond to requests for visits and meetings. Officers would be pursuing matters in the next two weeks.

To receive an update from Dan Hayes, Youth Offending Service Manager, LBs Havering and Barking and Dagenham.

The recently appointed Youth Offending Service Manager, Dan Hales attended the meeting to provide an update on progress with responding to the adverse HMI report last year. In October the Council had merged its Youth Offending Service with the London Barking & Dagenham. A number of changes had been introduced to ensure the service provided to Youth Offenders in Havering was improved. A key issue currently was premises. The lease for Portman House was expiring and a decision need to be made as to where to locate the service. Current thinking was that it would be co-located in barking with the Barking and Dagenham team. However, satellite officers would be maintained in the borough e.g. at Youth Zone and My Place. Each satellite office would be manned by at least three members of staff.

The first meeting of the integrated Management Board had been held last week. The board were looking for a consistency of approach across both boroughs and a lot of positives had emerged.

Prior to the changes the structure had been very linear with little option to refer problems up to management. The new structure ensured adequate reporting lines were in place so support was easily available. The Committee were informed that Havering staff were embracing the changes and taking the opportunities offered for extensive training. Under the old regime Havering staff tended to work in clearly defined areas under the new arrangements they were being given the opportunity to provide a generic service thereby expanding their experience.

Although the two services were being integrated it was still two distinct services with a joint management system. Therefore when support was provided, i.e. by the Probation Service it was expected each borough would receive support.

The Committee noted the report and looked forward to receiving a further update n six months’ time.                     

To receive an update on the draft MOPAC Police and Crime Plan 2013-17 and consider its proposals (attached).

Officers had circulated a copy of the draft MOPAC Police and Crime Plan 2013/17 to all members for consideration. Natasha Plummer from MOPAC attended the meeting to provide a brief overview of the plan. A more detailed presentation would be delivered by the Deputy Mayor, Stephen Greenhalgh, and a senior Police Officer on 4 March, 2013.

The objectives and goals set out in the plan were to reduce key crimes by 20%, improve public confidence in the police by 20% and cut costs by 20%, all by 2016.  7 priority high impact, high volume neighbourhood crimes were identified, these were:

·         Violence with injury;

·         Robbery;

·         Burglary;

·         Theft from person;

·         Theft from vehicles;

·         Theft of motor vehicles; and

·         Vandalism/criminal damage.

The Plan identified 4 key areas which the Mayor was looking to change. These were:

1.    Policing – as set out above;

2.    Criminal Justice – the Plan set targets for London Criminal Justice agencies to:

a.    Reduce court delays by 20%;

b.    Increase compliance with community sentences by 20%;

c.    Reduce reoffending by young people leaving custody in London by 20%.

3.    Policing resources – the new Policing Model proposed aimed to put more police constables on the street, in to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams by reducing the number of senior police officers and sergeants.

4.    Police estate – a comprehensive review had been undertaken of police buildings to save running costs of £140m each year. Although police stations will be closed every London borough will host at least one front counter open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

Previously when being informed of proposals for the new Policing Model it had been suggested that some boroughs would be sharing a Borough Commander. Natasha Plummer advised the Committee that this was no longer the case, all boroughs would have their own Borough Commander.

Under the proposed arrangements each Safer Neighbourhood team would have one named PC and one named PCSO who could not be moved. The othe safer neighbourhood resources which would increase to 107 by 2015 would be flexed on a task driven basis. Across the borough Havering would benefit from 48 additional officers.

All the proposals would be implemented by 2015.

The Committee asked officers to draft a response to the consultation based on the comments made.

To receive a verbal update on the new funding arrangements for Community Safety.

Natasha Plummer advised the Committee the final details of the arrangements for the allocation of the London Crime Prevention Fund (formerly Community Safety Fund) was being sent electronically to all boroughs this evening by London Councils. Boroughs have not been allocated any specific allocation but boroughs would need to bid for the funds. This year boroughs would be able to bid for multi-year funding. All bids would need to address the Mayor’s priorities.

Concern was expressed that last year the process was slow and funding was not necessarily received in a timely manner. Natasha accepted that last year the process was slow, but this had been caused by the change over from MPA to MOPAC, this year successful bids would be paid quarterly on receipt of invoices, this should speed up the process.

Officers advised the Committee that the Havering Community Safety Partnership had agreed the Strategic Assessment and agreed the form of the bids which would be submitted by the Council. Natasha confirmed that funding for the Community Engagement Fund was separate from the Crime Prevention Fund.

The Committee noted the situation.

To receive an update on the proposals within the draft Police Estates Strategy (attached)

Details of the draft Police Estates Strategy had been circulated to the Committee for comment. Natasha Plummer from MOPAC talked the Committee through the proposals.

In financial and space terms, to achieve MOPAC’s strategic objective the Metropolitan Police Service will need to:

·         Enhance the opportunities for members of the public to meet with the police providing suitable access facilities in buildings that are already within the estate or local civic facilities, whilst also raising the profile of public facing properties through consistent standards of signage and corporate ‘look and feel’.

·         Reduce the running costs of the MOPAC estate to £140m each year by 2015/16 – a 30% reduction on 2012 costs.

·         Reduce the amount of space occupied by 300,000 sq m by 2015/16.

·         Provide up to 950 modern cells, reducing the cost of the custody estate, and providing suitable facilities to support the reduction in the time it takes for a detainee being taken into custody to be processed.

·         To reduce the amount of residential accommodation owned by MOPAC to no more than 200 units whilst working with Residential Providers to provide affordable accommodation to officers and staff close to where they work.

What does this mean for Havering? The proposals include the closure of Rainham Police Office, Havering PASC, 84-86 Straight Road and Hornchurch Police Station. This would leave the borough with one Police Station, Romford Police Station which would provide an operational front counter 24/7. What would be the effect on the borough? The Acting Borough Commander, Tony Bennett, did not believe there would be any difference. The emergency response teams would still response to 999 calls from the Patrol Base in Jack Brown House in Harold Hill. The Borough Commander would determine the requirements for bases out of which the Safer Neighbour Teams would parade. He would also work with local partners to ensure suitable facilities were available for members of the public to meet the police.

Te Committee noted the report and agreed that the borough would submit one response to the two consultation papers.

To receive an update from Lucy Satchell-Day, Assistant Chief Officer, Barking and Dagenham.  London Probation Trust, on the transforming rehabilitation consultation.

Lucy Satchell-Day (LSD) briefed the Committee on the government’s proposals to transform the Rehabilitation Services. The Coalition government had committed themselves to introducing a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that would pay independent providers to reduce reoffending. In December 2010 they had produced the Green paper ‘Breaking the Cycle’ in which they stated their intention to extend the principles of payment by results to all providers of services for offenders by 2015 and improve the rehabilitation of offenders. This was followed by a further consultation ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services’ which proposed changes to the way probation services were commissioned and delivered. The latest document ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ was a response to that earlier consultation.

Why do the Government believe change is necessary?

·         57.6% of prisoners sentenced to under 12 months re-offend;

·         35.9% of prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more (excluding imprisonment for Public Protection and life sentences) reoffend; and

·         34.1% of those starting a court order reoffend.

The evidence suggested that even those who do not reoffend in the first year will often go on to commit further offences. For adult offenders released from custody in 2000, 45.8% reoffended in the first year, and this rose to 66.1% within three years and 72.5% within five years. LSD reminded the Committee that the Probation Service were not involved with those offenders who were sentenced to under 12 months once pre-trial assessments were undertaken.  

The consultation paper was looking to promote greater flexibility in delivery. The government wishes to incentivise providers to innovate and to make best use of approaches and services that have demonstrated they can work to reduce reoffending. Providers will be freed to do what works to rehabilitate offenders, and incentivised to deliver real results with part of the contract payment dependent on reducing reoffending.

Nearly 58% of offenders sentenced to less than a year in custody reoffend within a year of release, yet the system currently provided few opportunities to make them address their reoffending. The rehabilitation services will be extended to make those who go in for short sentences but reoffend time and again part of the approach. There will be a statutory basis to require them to engage.

There is a need for more efficient services. The proposal is to introduce a widespread programme of competition, and invite providers from the private and voluntary sectors to bid to deliver the majority of the current probation services. Contracts would be awarded to those providers who can demonstrate that they could deliver efficient, high-quality services and improve value for money. The Probation Service will not be able to bid for these contracts. It was estimated that 70% of the current Probation Trust workload would be put out to contract i.e. services for low to medium risk offenders. The Probation Trust would continue to write risk assessments for courts and be responsible for managing high risk offenders.

A positive side to the proposal was that offenders who were sentenced to less than 12 months would be supervised on release. This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The Committee were advised that Chief Superintendent Mike Smith was leaving the borough. The Committee agreed that a letter of thanks be sent to Mike regarding his dedicated service to the borough.