Agenda and minutes

There were no Declarations of Interest to report.

There were no questions from members of the public or the press.

Steve Parry, Neighbourhood Crime and Justice Manager, gave a presentation which highlighted the current Safer Rotherham Partnership performance and how it rated amongst its particular family of similar Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships.

The presentation drew specific attention to:-

·              Priorities for 2009/10.

·              Headline Performance.

·              Challenges,

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – All Crime.

·              Number of Crimes.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – All Crime.

·              Number of Sanction Detections – All Crime.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Most Serious Violence Excluding GBH Without Intent.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime - Most Serious Violence Excluding GBH Without Intent.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Serious Acquisitive Crime.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – Serious Acquisitive Crime.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Households – Domestic Burglary.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – Domestic Burglary.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Robbery.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime - Robbery.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Vehicle Crime.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – Vehicle Crime.

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Other Wounding.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – Other Wounding..

·              Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Racially or Religiously Aggravated Offences.

·              Sanction Detection per Crime – Racially or Religiously Aggravated Offences.

·              Confidence in the Police – Interviews.

·              Police Statistics – Baseline and Targets.

A discussion and question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and subsequently clarified:-

-                 Trend analysis and the inclusion of further information to show key timelines, such as introduction of the PACTS and Police Community Support Officers.

-                 Fear of crime statistics and the possibility of this being reported to the next meeting.

-                 How the priorities of the Safer Rotherham Partnership fed into South Yorkshire Police priorities and how these were addressed through the PACT meetings.

-                 The positive improvement in performance, but how this compared with the fear of crime and perception indicators.

-                 Number of racially aggravated incidents, which would suggest that reporting structures were more robust following implementation of a Community Cohesion Services.  An evaluation of this Service was pending.

-                 How public awareness recording was fed into the Safer Neighbourhood Teams and whether there was room for improvement.

-                 Engagement and involvement in intensive neighbourhood management and the good progress to date.

-                 Promotion and publicity of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams and their activities.

-                 Confidence and assurance the reporting figures showed.

-                 Evaluation of the PACT process.

Resolved:-  (1)  That Steve Parry be thanked for his informative presentation.

(2)  That the contents of the presentation be noted.

(3)  That a further presentation on the fear of crime statistics be presented to the next meeting of this Scrutiny Panel.

(4)  That a further report be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel on evaluation of the PACT process.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Head of Scrutiny and Member Support which advised Members of the Government’s intention to commence Sections 19 - 21 of the Police and Justice Act, 2006 by 30^th April, 2009 and highlighted the implications for scrutiny in Rotherham.

The provisions extended the remit of Local Authorities to scrutinise the functioning of the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) in England from the 30th April, 2009. 

The provisions also put in place arrangements that ensured every Local Authority had a committee with power to review and scrutinise and make reports or recommendations regarding the functioning of the responsible authorities (local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, police authorities, the police, primary care trusts in England) which comprised a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership. The arrangements for this had been made here in Rotherham and it was the responsibility of this Scrutiny Panel to carry this out.

The Police and Justice Act, 2006 also made provision for the Councillor Call for Action (CCfA) which gave Members a new right to raise matters of local concern with their Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Overview and Scrutiny Committees could then decide whether to use their powers to investigate the issue.

CCfA was, therefore, a valuable tool in equipping Councillors to act as powerful advocates for the communities they served and to strengthen still further their role as community champions.

The regulations also allowed the Crime and Disorder Committee to co-opt additional members to serve on the Committee. These co-optees could be specialists in particular areas and bring great value and expertise to the Committee’s work.  Members could, therefore, be co-opted in accordance with the Regulations, which allowed a committee to co-opt additional persons, but it would be up to the Committee to decide whether they should have the right to vote.

It was noted that a protocol was being developed at a local level with the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership with work taking place with the Area Assemblies, through the Co-ordinating Groups.  Involvement of this Scrutiny Panel in this process was welcomed.

Discussion ensued on the provisions within the Police and Justice Act, 2006 and the suggestion that someone from the Police Authority be co-opted onto the Committee.  This Scrutiny Panel was fortunate in that one of its own Panel Members was also a Member of the Police Authority.  In this event it was suggested that co-options only be sought for specific areas of work requiring certain expertise.

It was also noted that every effort should be made not to duplicate some of the work being undertaken by the Police Authority themselves.

Added value could be given to the commitment to changing culture at an early age and delivered through the education system.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the information and guidance be noted.

(2)  That Councillors Austen, Currie, J. Hamilton, Johnston and Littleboy be invited to assist in the development of the protocol of working with the Crime  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Consideration was given to the report submitted by the Head of Scrutiny and Member Support which detailed how under the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, 2007, the Council had to adopt new executive arrangements from May, 2010.

The legislation provided that the executive of the Council must take one of two forms, this being:-

·              A Mayor and Cabinet Executive Model, where the Mayor was directly elected by the public for a four year term and Cabinet Members were appointed by the Mayor from Members of the Council.

·              A Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) Model, where the Leader was elected from among the current Members of the Council for a period of four years or until the Leader’s current term of office as a Councillor ended and the Leader appointed the Cabinet from Members of the Council.

There were many similarities between the two models.  The key difference was that under the Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) Model, the Council could include in its constitution a provision to allow the Council to remove the Leader, if necessary, during his or her term of office.  A directly elected Mayor could not be removed by the Council during his or her term of office.

The Council expressed its preference for the Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) Model at its meeting on the 22^nd July, 2009.  However, before drawing up proposals for change the Council was obliged to take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors and other interested persons in the area.  Having considered responses, the Council would then draw up the proposed changes to the Constitution and make them available to the public.  The Council must then resolve to implement the proposals by 31st December, 2009, to take effect following next year’s local government elections.

Discussion ensued on the consultation arrangements and attention was drawn to information be provided via press releases to the local media, on the Council website, an article in Rotherham News, stakeholder and partner meetings, meetings with the Chief Executive Officers Group with the Local Strategic Partnership, involvement of young people in Local Democracy Week and information provided to all Parish Councils.

It was noted that the deadline for responses/comments was the 16^th October 2009, with a report being presented to the Council at its meeting on the 21^st October, 2009.

The Scrutiny Panel were happy with the model proposed for implementation.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the report be noted.

Further to Minute No. 17 of the meeting of this Scrutiny Panel held on 16^th July, 2009, Cath Saltis, Head of Scrutiny and Member Support asked Members to suggest any further areas they would like to initiate scrutiny reviews.

Those areas already suggested included devolved budgets and perception indicators.

It was, therefore, suggested that these two areas go forward and that work commence on a scrutiny review of devolved budgets.

Resolved:-  That a scrutiny review on devolved budgets commence and membership include Councillors Austen, Currie, J. Hamilton and Johnston, in addition to Joanna Jones (co-optee).

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of the Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel held on 16^th July, 2009 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

With regards to Minute No. 20 (Debt Recovery) it was noted that the report relating to the scrutiny review was to be submitted to Cabinet on Wednesday, 23^rd September, 2009.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 10^th and 24^th July, 2009.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of the New Arrivals Working Party held on 22nd July, 2009.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings of the Members’ Training and Development Panel held on 23rd July, 2009.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.