Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Constance (Councillor Wilmshurst substituting) and Councillor Harrod (Councillor Owen substituting).

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2016 (PSC3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2016 were approved and signed as a correct record.

10.10

The Committee will consider material relating to the public commitment made by the Thames Valley Police in their July 2016 paper “Our Commitment: Working Together To Make Communities Safer”.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to consider CC Habgood’s letter of July 2016, and the associated paper “Our Commitment: Working Together To Make Communities Safer”, and to put any relevant questions to the Chief Constable and the PCC.

Mr Stansfeld presented the Police and Crime Commissioner’s challenges and issues for 2016/17 and beyond:

·         The PCC elections have resulted in a divided situation where the posts in larger conurbations are dominated by one party and the rest are mostly with another party.

·         National events have resulted in a changed team of Ministers and Shadow Ministers.

·         Finances should now be on an even keel following cuts made over the last four years.

·         Many special capabilities, such as air support for example, will have to be resourced at a regional or national level.

·         At a national level radicalisation and cyber attacks are major problems.  The IRA threat is under control but hasn’t gone away.

·         At a local level organised crime, modern slavery, prostitution, drugs and illegal sales of tobacco and alcohol are significant issues.

·         The Government has signalled its intention to legislate to enable PCCs to hold their local fire and rescue services to account if PCCs are able to demonstrate a clear business case for doing so.

·         The PCC is required by law to have a 5 year plan.  This is under consultation now and must be in place by the end of March 2017.

Members of the Committee challenged Mr Stansfeld’s intention to bring the Fire and Rescue Service under the PCC and asked that consideration be given to the way in which the Service works well with other council services such as Adult Social Care.  The point was also made that the Service is very representative of the communities it serves and this could be lost if centralised.  The Commissioner responded that the amalgamation of police forces into the Thames Valley Police was successful and the fire services are much smaller organisations.  It is estimated that savings of £8m to £10m could be made if there was one regional service.  The Chairman requested that the Committee have an opportunity to discuss the draft case being made by the Commissioner.

Members of the Committee questioned the appointment of a Deputy to the PCC without public advertisement of the post.  The Commissioner responded that the law allows him to make a personal appointment and he is not aware of any deputy positions being advertised in other areas.  The appointment is subject to a confirmation hearing.

Chief Constable Habgood presented slides outlining the force’s commitment to the public and made a number of additional points:

·         The current number of Community Support Officers will be maintained.

·         He conceded that the police website was a bit clunky for members of the public so they tend to revert to more traditional methods of contact.  That is being addressed with a new design.

·         Changes in recording methodology are mostly responsible for the increase in the figures for violent crime.

Members of the Committee asked about measures to improve safety on the A34.  The Chief Constable reported that the Transport Minister had decided to review safety on the road even though the accident level had not hit the point that would normally trigger a review.  Distraction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50/16

11.00

This paper outlines the development of proposals around three overlapping service areas (respite, carers, and daytime support), with a particular focus on the way that Oxfordshire County Council has engaged with people to develop plans, shape services, and co- design a new offer for Oxfordshire.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to note the report and provide any comments.

Mr Leigh introduced the report emphasising that the focus here was not on proposals but on the consultation process. This co-production process builds on previous work and developed the way that service users are consulted at an early stage to help shape the proposals.  Financial constraints do mean that the Council needs to get best value for the money spent, but this is not at the expense of shared design and effective services. In the case of the three services covered in the paper, members of the public often don’t see the organisational divisions between respite, daytime support, and carers support.  For example many carers say they see daytime support and respite as crucial  forms of carer support.

The Performance Scrutiny Committee

·         welcomed the approach being taken in the consultation;

·         asked about the feasibility of finalising the report from the daytime support consultation, and bringing it back to scrutiny, in time for the January Cabinet meeting and heard that staff were committed to working over Christmas to achieve this.  An outside agency has been engaged to look at the reviews;

·         discussed the demographic statistics on the participants and were reassured that the participants were a reasonably representative sample;

·         agreed that the Chairman will discuss with officers and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care how best to bring information from the consultation before this Committee in advance of the report going to Cabinet.

In the event that any Member or Officer wishes to discuss the information set out in the Item 9, the Committee will be invited to resolve to exclude the public for the consideration of that item by passing a resolution in relation to that item in the following terms:

"that the public be excluded during the consideration of the Annexes since it is likely that if they were present during that discussion there would be a disclosure of "exempt" information as described in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 and specified below the item in the Agenda".

THE ANNEX TO THE ITEM NAMED HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THEM.

THIS IS FOR REASONS OF PROTECTING CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OPERATIONS.

THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THE CONTENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED WITH OTHERS AND NO COPIES SHOULD BE MADE.

RESOLVED: to agree that the public be excluded during the consideration of the report since it is likely that if they were present during that discussion there would be a disclosure of “exempt” information as described in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 and specified below the item in the Agenda.

PUBLIC SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC.

12.00

This report provides a strategic update on the number of children reported as missing from home, care and school in Oxfordshire, including children looked after by Oxfordshire County Council.

The information contained in the report is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime

and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, in that confidential police operations could be compromised.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to note the report and provide any comments.

The Chairman proposed, and it was agreed, to take item 9 before item 7, to facilitate the Officer, following the late running of earlier items.

The information contained in the report is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime

and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, in that confidential police operations could be compromised.

Mr Ruaux explained that the report needed to be restricted due to the information on police operations in paragraph 18.  In future, he will ensure that such sensitive information is included in a confidential annex so that the main paper can be made publicly available.

Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr Ruaux and Ms Farncombe made the following points:

·         Typical ages of children who repeatedly go missing are 12 to 17.

·         Many unaccompanied minors go missing when they reach 18 and face deportation.

·         Police staff have a list of 10 questions to ask a person who reports a missing child to determine if they are missing or absent.

·         Children can be deemed to be absent “not where expected” rather than missing, again there is clear guidance on this that the police go through with the person calling to make a report.

·         The Missing Children’s Panel can identify over-reporting and respond to it.

·         With regard to Looked After Children, the Council has no more legal right than parents.

·         Power of entry can be granted by a court or other police-issued orders where there is concern that children are visiting a risky address.

·         Missing Children are not solely dealt with under the MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) but there are daily operational links between the missing children’s co-ordinators and the MASH.

In response to questions about involvement in dealing with the drug problems in East Oxford:

·         Adult Social Care colleagues are involved as well.

·         Early warning signs triggered a response.

·         It has the potential to become a very serious problem.

·         Relevant people in schools are involved.

·         District councils are helping with regard to addresses of concern.

·         It is not being dealt with under the MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) but there are daily operational links.

11.45

This report provides an update on the Oxfordshire-wide partnerships which are critical in progressing key countywide priorities, enabling partners to work across the themes of a thriving Oxfordshire, including economic growth, health and wellbeing, thriving communities, and support to the most vulnerable;

•              Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership

•              Oxfordshire Growth Board

•              Oxfordshire Environment Partnership (formerly Environment and Waste Partnership)

•              Oxfordshire Health and Wellbeing Board 

•              Oxfordshire Safer Oxfordshire Partnership (formerly Safer Communities Partnership)

•              Oxfordshire Stronger Communities Alliance

•              Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children's Board

•              Oxfordshire Safeguarding Adults Board

•              Oxfordshire Strategic Schools Partnership Board

Details of the current/future work undertaken by these Partnerships are shown in this report. Each is a snapshot at a particular point in time (with the completion date shown in the preface in each case) rather than a formal report for the financial or calendar year.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to note the report.

Mr Courouble introduced the report and reminded Members that it also has to go to Council on 1 November 2016.  The individual partnership reports refer to the time period from mid-2015 to mid-2016.  The Strategic Schools Partnership Board is new since the last report.  A new section has been included in the report template on governance arrangements.  He suggested that the Committee focus on identifying which bodies might be invited to come before the Committee for further scrutiny.

The Performance Scrutiny Committee

1)    expressed concern about the ability of elected members, particularly backbenchers, to engage directly with Partnerships, to have timely and accurate information about the decisions they are making, and their use of OCC's contribution to the partnership, whether in cash or in officer time;

2)    noted comments from a National Audit Office report similarly expressing concern at the lack of accountability for Local Enterprise Partnerships;

3)    recognised that the governance arrangements for many partnerships, in particular the Local Enterprise Partnership, are mainly a choice of central government not specific to Oxfordshire, but would welcome timely publication of the agenda and minutes for meetings, and regular updates about opportunities to input to key decisions and strategies;

4)    requested the Chairman to raise these points when reporting to the full Council meeting.