To consider and comment on the Community Safety Plan and Priorities for 2015/16.

The Community Safety Partnership Manager delivered the Community Safety Plan and Priorities for 2015/16 and clarified that the Committee was being asked to agree the priorities detailed within the plan. The manager explained why the priorities had been identified as such, highlighting that other aspects of Community Safety such as burglaries and Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) remained an operational priority. Increases in the reporting of certain offences were seen as positive as they were historically under reported crimes. The Community Safety Partnership wanted residents to have confidence in seeking support and they were working hard to ensure this was the case. They had identified a need to better understand substance misuse and domestic violence, working closely with other partners to provide support.

The Committee were also provided with details of a new task force which had been set up to tackle child sexual exploitation (CSE), expressly to analyse what the current measures for tackling the issues were and to formulate an action plan going forward.

It was also commented that terrorism, extremism and radicalisation were issues that Community Safety needed to be sighted on and have a clearer understanding of. As such a structure was being put in place to understand and tackle them better, along with intelligence gathering in order to combat organised crime groups.

In light of the report the Committee and other Members in attendance raised the following queries:-

How the proposed 15.8% police precept increase would enable the force to meet the priorities in the plan, how long it would take to recoup the money spent on a referendum and how the extra resource would be deployed across Bedfordshire. Concerns were raised that most resource would be allocated to Bedford and Luton, therefore not benefitting the residents and businesses across Central Bedfordshire.

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) responded by explaining that the precept would help deliver against the priorities in the plan as there would be more resource to tackle those issues. Bedfordshire Police was historically an underfunded, small force compared to the complexities it faced with CSE now identified as an emerging risk. The PCC stated that he was not comfortable in having to tackle the issue with the current funds and resource available as it would mean diverting both from other vital areas which would subsequently suffer. He was proposing a modest increase to enable more appropriate capability in the deployment of resource. A referendum would not be held unless there was significant public support for a rise in the precept and any cost would be covered by current reserves.

Members challenged the stated decrease in burglary figures as trends in Houghton Regis and Dunstable had shown a sharp increase of 29% and 39% respectively. It was felt that current measures to reduce burglaries were not robust enough given the increase in the South of Central Bedfordshire; Members queried what the police would do differently to improve the situation. Members suggested that consideration be given to implement a policy which supported a visible police presence in Central Bedfordshire.

The PCC highlighted that his main priority was a return to the old style of neighbourhood policing which would be a of a direct benefit to Central Bedfordshire. There were currently 7 neighbourhood teams with a proposal that warranted officers replaced the current PCSO provision. Another priority was to place more resource into offender management and preventative policing. The overall trend in burglaries in Central Bedfordshire was downwards with an increase in Luton and despite the apprehension of known offenders, this had been difficult to manage. 100 extra officers would enable the police to achieve better outcomes. It had been identified that the current method of policing was reactive rather than preventative which the PCC was looking to address along with visible policing which special constables would provide across Central Bedfordshire. New performance measures had been implemented which would hold the Chief Constable to account and enable a robust analysis of data.

Members queried what had changed since the recent inspection and how the precept would improve the situation for those victims, particularly children, of Domestic Violence (DV).

The PCC explained that the primary criticism of HMIC was that although the force was good at identifying those at high risk of DV, it was not as strong at recognising those at medium risk, thus preventing cases of DV was poor. The precept would allow for more resource to tackle DV and child protection issues including CSE.

Members asked that a full business case be developed so that the public could make an informed decision regarding the deployment of resource which the precept would be funding.

The PCC explained that there were no figures yet as to where the resource would be deployed, however it was acknowledged that the highest level of demand was in Bedford and Luton, hence the current deployment of officers in those areas.

Members challenged that public perception did not appear to support the statement that Central Bedfordshire was a safe place to live as confidence with regards to safety was below the national average. Concerns were raised that traditional crimes such as thefts in rural areas should not be overlooked in favour of emerging threats and pressures.

Chief Superintendent David Boyle responded to the operational queries by explaining that there was a central tasking team dedicated to known hotspot areas. This had been successful to a degree, there had been high profile arrests but there was still more to do. He went on to say that the Integrated Offender Management scheme would work to address long term issues such as drink and drug dependency. High visibility policing, identifying hotspots at a neighbourhood level and hitting known areas hard along with an active campaign to warn and inform residents as to how they could take precautions, were all measures being taken to address the issues raised. The police would continue to allocate resource to problem areas, the force was going through an organisational change and part of this would ensure that more warranted officers would be deployed within neighbourhood areas. Operationally the police were too reactive and they needed to learn how to address the route causes of crime and find long term solutions by analysing the available data.

The Community Safety Partnership Manager reiterated that traditional crimes such as burglary remained an operational priority.

RECOMMENDED that the priorities within the plan be endorsed.