Agenda item

To consider the annual update report from the Community Safety Partnership.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 19 to 34, which gave an update on the work of the Community Safety Partnership.

The report outlined the strategic priorities of the partnership, including listening to the needs and concerns of local residents, and intervening early and preventing issues from escalating. The Wokingham Domestic Abuse policy had been adopted, which was in line with the new duties under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Despite an overall increase of 10.9 percent of total reported crime, Wokingham Borough still had one of the lowest levels of recorded crime in Thames Valley and the Southeast, whilst 2020-2021 had seen some of the lowest reported levels of crime both locally and nationally due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Narinder Brar, Community Safety Manager, attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         Was funding for the ‘Here4You’ team still in place? Officer response – The ‘Here4You’ service was the young people’s specific service which sat within the youth offending service. The service had supported around 91 new young people this year alone, and was fully funded and looking to enhance its offering. The service was promoted directly via the youth offending team, at schools, via social media and via referrals from other health related services. Information was also made available to parents.

·         Was liaison underway with housing associations to help combat antisocial behaviour within social housing? Officer response – There was a very good and well-established relationship with housing associations, however the main issue was the turnover of staff and understanding who was in charge of each property. The service being delivered had improved, hence the light-touch of this issue within the report.

·         Was the increase in hate crime a result of people feeling more confident to report these incidents? Officer response – People were being encouraged to report hate crime via police colleagues and voluntary sector colleagues and third-party recording mechanisms. It was crucially important to get a community feel on these issues, and there was a way to go to get more third-party reporting at buildings including community hubs and the Council offices. In general, there had been a 5-to-6-year Borough wide trend of increasing hate crime including racial, religious, and disability related crime.

·         Were there any measures with regards to the success of the prevent program, or was this confidential? Officer response – This was quite confidential, as the Home Office was very careful with the information that was recorded and circulated in terms of the numbers of people coming into the prevent program. Case updated were provided to the prevent board, which outlined the types of risk being faced and the types of risks being de-escalated. The programme had expanded and influences including right wing terrorism, cyber-crime, and influences through gaming were now being investigated and dealt with.

·         What training was being provided with regards to the prevent program? Officer response – There was a clear recognition that the word ‘prevent’ caused mixed feelings, especially within the Muslim communities. There was outreach towards local communities, and officers were always open to hearing how this could be increased and done in a more sensitive way. The programme had come a long way, and the year before last referrals from right wing individuals on a national level outstripped any other type of referral. The program was there to help individuals who may just be upset or confused about a range of different issues, and not just in relation to any specific radicalisation. There was a tiered training plan, which ranged from basic training all the way to specialised training for social workers. More granular information on the training program could be shared with the Committee.

·         What was the sense of achievement of the specific aims of the service, what was the baseline of reported rape and domestic abuse which would allow members to see whether the increase was due to more people feeling confident to report these crimes, and what was the long-term trends beyond the pandemic years? Officer response – Future reports would contain longer term trends, whilst it was noted that the pandemic years were unusually low crime rate years. In terms of strategic aims, the service was now in a very good place with strong leadership, and had developed the community safety plan, partnership and a strong team which was different from the place where it had historically operated quite poorly on a strategic and operational footing. Violence against women and girls was a key local and national issue that was being addressed, whilst Wokingham now had a 10-person strong antisocial behaviour team which allowed for work to be carried out on the ground. The Borough’s out-of-hours response for antisocial behaviour was previously quite poor, and it was expected to see an increase in reports as the public gained the confidence that came with a new service. Longer terms trends and information would be pulled together when the violence against women and girls action plan was developed, and it needed to be assessed as to whether the number of rape and domestic abuse cases were genuinely low or whether this was due to low confidence of victims. Nationally, rape cases were in a very bad place with an average of 600 days between a report being made and a disposal being undertaken.

·         Could local, such as South East England, and national trends be added for future reports in addition to data from the years prior to the pandemic? Officer response – Data would be provided via 1, 3 and 5 year trends in future to give all of the data meaning.

·         Could a table or graph be provided in future reports to show how Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) compared to other local authorities and to show how many of these crimes were being solved? Officer response – Detection rates would be provided in future where this data was available.

·         Whilst it was dreadful that anyone suffered from domestic abuse, it was good to see people having more confidence to report these issues and we should be setting ourselves targets to see how we could achieve 100 percent reporting.

·         Why was fraud excluded from this list? Officer response – This was dealt with by action fraud, which was a separate entity for dealing with such cases. These were often very complex national and international cases which required specialist officers to investigate each case.

·         It was commented that excluding fraud from WBC’s Community Safety Partnership would be doing residents a disservice. Officer comment – As a partnership, funding had been made available to Trading Standards colleagues and there was some very close working underway to work through a list of vulnerable people within the Borough. A separate agenda item could be scheduled specifically on this issue, including specific data regarding how many instances of fraud and cyber-crime were occurring and the cost implications.

·         What was being done to help LGBT children in homes, who were being abused because of their sexual orientation or identity? Officer response – This would be provided as a written answer.

·         How was treatment of victims by the police being measured? Officer response – There were a number of different ways that quality control of police officers was being undertaken and monitored, including body cameras and positive actions that police officers must carry out. If a victim was unhappy with the response given, they could ask for a more senior officer to assess the case and body footage, and a formal complaint route was available if required. The partnership wanted to hear any instances of poor experiences with the police.

·         How was the issue of inappropriate behaviour within the workplace being dealt with by the police? Officer response – This would be provided as a written answer.

·         Was the partnership putting out advice to residents regarding keyless car thefts, and was this a growing issue? Officer response – As an affluent Borough, car ownership was high and investment in technology was high, which was attractive to criminals. Messaging was going out in conjunction with Thames Valley police in terms of the targeting of keyless car thefts.

·         Were family gold thefts a priority for the police, and could anything be done to reassure residents? Officer response – This was a priority, however this was particularly difficult to deal with as it was linked to organised crime activity who had information about exactly which houses had gold and where it might be hidden. Insurance companies tended to replace the gold, and when the family took the gold back to the house the cycle often restarted once again and the victims were often repeat targeted, whilst very little proof was required to sell gold. The best thing people could do would be to store gold at a safe location such as a safety deposit box.

·         Which category did bike and e-bike theft sit within? Officer response – This could be recorded in a combination of places dependant on where they were being stolen from. Bike theft was less of a concern within the Borough recently as a lot of messaging had been distributed to the public over time.

·         Could a value be placed on investigating and dealing with issues in terms of officer time and community value, in addition to prosecution rates being provided? Officer response – This would be provided by a written answer.

·         A number of questions were provided to the Police in advance of the meeting, which can be found below.

·         I have a question about the police's 101 number for non-emergency cases. What value does it add, what are the answer times, what resolutions come out of it? I ask because when asking residents to report issues via 101 there is a tendency to say it does not work. And thus, it is not used leading to other issues. To quote one case I tried to contact one Saturday evening and essentially just gave up.Police response - 999 calls to police are for emergencies where life is at risk, or a crime is in progress. 101 calls to police are to report crimes and incidents to Police where life is not at immediate risk, but a police response is required. Examples are far too numerous to detail but include a crime that has already occurred where a suspect is no longer on scene, a missing person where there is no immediate risk to life, a concern or fear for someone’s welfare, an ongoing antisocial behaviour issue that requires police intervention. Our force target is to answer 101 calls within 3 minutes.  In the year 21-22, 66% of 101 calls were answered within the 3-minute target and there is significant work going on to improve this. When a 101 call is answered, the call taker will go through a series of questions to determine the level of threat, harm, opportunity and risk and to determine how the call will be directed according.  This will largely depend on the type of crime or incident that is being reported.  For example, someone reporting a domestic violence offence will be prioritised over someone reporting that their neighbours parking is annoying them, but both are reported through 101. The nature of the call and often the crime type will of course dictate not only the response grading that should be applied but the best department to deal with the crime or the incident being reported (E.g., Uniformed response units, CID, specialist domestic abuse teams, local PCSO from dedicated neighbourhood team, traffic officers, safeguarding teams etc.). I have never known 101 not work. At times of high call volume there may be delays in getting an answer. Members of the public can visit the force website and submit an online report if they do not wish to hold on 101. Crimes, Incidents, road traffic collisions (non-injury), updates to ongoing incidents amongst many other things can be reported via the online tool. The online submissions are dealt with in a timely manner and can reach the correct department just as quickly as a 101 call can do.

·         How will the police deal with e-scooters once the legislation changes to allow them? Police response - At present E- Scooters that are not part of a local government initiative are dealt with through road traffic legislation. E-scooters that are causing Anti-social behaviour can also be dealt with through Section 59 of the Police reform Act 2002. This provides Police the power to seize any vehicle being driven in an Anti-social manner. Our Neighbourhood Team recently ran two E-Scooter police operations to target areas where there were high usage of E-Scooters causing significant ASB. Even when legislation changes, police will still use Section 59 to target improper use.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Narinder Brar be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      More granular information with respect to prevent training be provided to the Committee;

3)      Future reports contain longer term trends, and detection rates where available;

4)      A separate agenda item be scheduled specifically on the issue of fraud, including specific data regarding how many instances of fraud and cyber-crime were occurring and the cost implications;

5)      A written answer be provided as to what was being done to help LGBT children in homes, who were being abused because of their sexual orientation or identity;

6)      A written answer be provided as to how the issue of inappropriate behaviour within the workplace was being dealt with by the police;

7)      A written answer be provided as to whether a value be placed on investigating and dealing with issues in terms of officer time and community value, in addition to prosecution rates being provided;

8)      The Committee receive a further update during the next municipal year.