Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which outlined the findings of the recent report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) that had required a PCC comment, listed below:

·        Terms of reference: Inspection of the police’s handling of serious youth violence.

·        Policing inspection programme and framework commencing April 2022: For consultation.

·        Responses to ‘Safe to Share? Report on Liberty and Southall Black Sisters’ supercomplaint on policing and immigration status’.

Councillor R Potts asked if the ‘safe to share’ referred to when non-registered immigrants reported crime, that there was an obligation in terms of reporting their non-registered status.  The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted that was correct, with the Head of Private Office adding it was often seen as a barrier.  The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted section 4.3 of the report set out the operational response.

The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted that in respect of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), the Deputy Chief Constable would review the recommendations within the report and provide a further update to the OPCC.  Councillor R Potts noted that the IICSA was hard reading and was surprised that it would be another month.  He referred to former Officers and recording of incidents.  The Chair noted not to stray into operational matters, the Lawyer (Governance) noted that the role of the Panel was to hold the PCC to account, with the PCC to hold the Chief Constable to account.  Councillor R Potts reiterated his concern in leaving the issue for another month, adding he did not feel it was appropriate, given the role of DCC Members as corporate parents. 

The PCC noted that while the report was historical, there was no waiting in relation to constant review and improvement.  She noted the Force was being given the time to pull together they response, however, if any issues were critical or urgent, they would be addressed.  Councillor R Potts noted that the last time the Police had looked at issues and explained his concerns as regards no one being held to account.  He noted the current Deputy Chief Constable was looking at the last and asked why it was not being looked at independently.  The PCC noted the recruitment of the new Assistant Chief Constable, an Officer who had specialised in safeguarding.  Councillor R Potts reiterated that no one was being held accountable, noting the HMICFRS had noted issues, the IICSA had noted issues, with some incidents noted being crimed properly.  He added it was not outstanding for children and he felt those previously responsible needed holding to account.

Councillor D Boyes noted the terms of reference, inspection of the police’s handling of serious youth violence and asked who the partners were and who would lead.  The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted that the report directly quoted the HMICFRS.  The PCC noted that in any inspection Durham was different to North Yorkshire or Cumbria.  She noted that Durham did not have a Violence Reduction Unit, not having the funding, with Northumbria Police having a funded Violence Reduction Unit.  She added that therefore for Durham it would be based upon the structures in Durham and Darlington, with partners to include those such as the Youth Justice Service.  Councillor D Boyes asked how far it would drill down in terms of organisations, noting that the Safer and Stronger Overview and Scrutiny Committee had previous noted that the Youth Justice Service were excellent in keeping young people out of the youth justice system.  He asked if the Committee, and its equivalent at Darlington, would be able to ask questions.  The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted the process in terms of responses, Councillor D Boyes noted that for a fuller report there needed to be conflicting views from other organisations, not just established partners.

The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted Section 5 of the report also contained a breakdown of the grading allocated to each force under the pre and post PEEL grading systems.  He added only five forces had been graded under the new system, though Greater Manchester Police had been recently graded, with a 9 question inspection.

Councillor D Boyes noted he appreciated that the grading criteria had changed, however, he still felt that Durham had been downgraded from ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’.  He asked as regards Greater Manchester Police.  The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted it had remained at an overall ‘requires improvement’, adding that its highest grading was Durham’s lowest.  Councillor D Boyes reiterated he felt Durham had downgraded from ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’, adding West Yorkshire had improved from ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’. 

The Policy and Commissioning Officer noted he could not comment on West Yorkshire, however, he noted that the OPCC were learning from other PEEL inspections and noted that any perception of a ‘downgrade’ for Durham was not reality, with the grading not being mentioned as a downgrade by the HMICFRS.  The PCC noted that Durham had rated outstanding in two areas, disrupting organised crime and good use of resources, and reminded the Panel that previously there had only been three areas that were graded, now ten.  She explained that of the ten, two were outstanding, seven were good and with one being adequate.  She noted that was in the context of having lost Officers and explained that in respect of the adequate grading for supporting victims, there was investment in that area.  She added the question was how to get all areas as outstanding and noted that the Victims’ Champion would look at all HMICFRS inspections and learn from all force areas to improve.  Councillor D Boyes noted it was good to note that best practice would be looked at and reiterated that while there had been different grades, the Panel would wish for Durham to be ‘outstanding’, as it had been previously.  He noted that Durham had previously been ‘Constabulary of the Year’ four years running, adding he felt that was when there had been a focus on neighbourhood policing.

The Chief Finance Officer noted there had been some internal debate and explained all wanted the best for Durham.  He added that the Force continually reviewed evidence and explained that following the seven recommendations, there had already been improvement in six areas.  He noted the Force Management Statement articulated clearly demands and service delivery and was being updated.  He noted as regards the efficient use of the Force’s assets.  

Councillor J Dulston noted he had similar thoughts to that of Councillor D Boyes, in terms of the data suggesting that Durham had declined.  The PCC noted that if one was looking at an ‘apples to apples’ comparison, Durham was ‘top of the tree’, adding West Yorkshire had less ‘outstanding and good’ grades than Durham.  She added the challenge was obtaining outstanding in all areas, in terms of the cost and personnel required to deliver that.  She noted that best practice would be looked at in terms of other Force areas.

Councillor D Nicholls noted he was impressed with the report and noted that when looking at best practice, some forces, such as Greater Manchester Police and the Metropolitan Police, may not be good comparisons, given their different demographics and the different issues they faced.  He noted the ‘outstanding’ grading in relation to value for money was excellent and supported looking at areas of best practice.  He noted the work in relation to smart water in tackling domestic violence and added that people locally wanted the best and he felt that Durham was very good.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.