Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth which provided an update on the Council’s Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance for Quarter one 2023/24(for copy see file of minutes).

Councillor Watson referred to the potentially violent persons register (PVPR) and asked why there had been an increase in the number of people registered.

K Lough responded that there had been an impressive amount of partnership working that had provided information that DCC had acted upon to include on the register hence the increased numbers.  DCC’s register was to be used as a point of contact for Officers and Members when they dealt with the public.

Councillor Watson queried if the information gathered had highlighted any change in the incidence of serious violent incidents.

K Lough stated that the information on incidents was the same with only a few variations. The main issues were related to persistent abusive or threatening language.

Mr Robinson asked about the process to remove people from the list and how robust this was.

K Lough confirmed that there was a policy in place to review those registered on the list after twelve months where information would be gathered to justify whether that person should remain on the list or be removed.   If within the review period a person committed another incident the twelve-month review would reset.  If an incident reported was significant that person would remain on the list.  He noted that all entries were thoroughly assessed before a person was removed.  The register continued to be monitored on a regular basis.

Mr Rudd questioned if the twelve-month review was carried out in association with the Police to determine if a person was still deemed as potentially violent.

K Lough replied that reviews that had originally involved the police were carried out in conjunction with them but not everyone on the list had an incident logged with the police.  In those instances it was difficult to involve them.

Councillor Ormerod asked if the PVPR could be compared statistically to other Local Authorities in the area. 

K Lough explained that other Local Authorities in the area were in different positions to DCC making it difficult to compare.  DCC had established one corporate register as a single point of information in 2016 whereas other local councils had five or six registers within their organisation and did not apply the same policy that would be hard to benchmark against.

P Darby noted that other local authorities had multiple registers and this meant that some people were potentially double counted, which was the case in DCC before the registers were brought together.

Resolved:

That the report be noted and the contents agreed