Overview and Scrutiny Commission Held on Monday, 28 October 2019 (From 5.30 Pm – 6.59 Pm)

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION HELD ON MONDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2019 (FROM 5.30 PM – 6.59 PM)

PRESENT: Councillor Chris Aldred in the Chair. Councillor Sam Gibbs, Councillor Bernard Bateman, MBE, Councillor Michael Harrison, Councillor John Mann, Councillor Pat Marsh, Councillor Norman Waller, Councillor Tom Watson, Councillor Robert Windass and Councillor Victoria Oldham.

In Attendance: Councillors Philip Broadbank, Mike Chambers, Trevor Chapman, Jim Clarke, Phil Ireland and Stanley Lumley

Late Arrivals: Councillor Bernard Bateman at 5.36 pm.

53/19 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES: Notification had been received that Councillor Victoria Oldham was to act as substitute for Councillor Sue Lumby. Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Nick Brown and Councillor Nigel Middlemass. (5.31 pm)

54/19 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Councillor Sam Gibbs declared an interest in Minute 58/19 as he had worked as election agent for the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner. As this was not a pecuniary interest he remained in the room and took part in the discussion of the item. (5.32 pm)

55/19 – MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 30 September were submitted. It was noted that under Minute 49/19, in reference to the scoping document for Local Bus Provision, this was one of three ‘top priority’ items identified and so the Minutes should be amended to reflect this. The Minutes were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(Eight members voted for the motion and there was one abstention) (5.32 pm)

56/19 – EXEMPT INFORMATION: There was none. (5.32 pm)

57/19 – PUBLIC ARRANGEMENTS-QUESTIONS: Mr Peter Lilley submitted a question under Standing Order 27 on 25 October 2019. With the agreement of the Chair Mr Lilley read out the following question, which largely reflected the question as submitted with the exception of the first part and revision of subsequent paragraphs.

One of the very few serious pieces of work this committee has produced in the last couple of years was your review into the way the legal department handles Freedom of Information requests and Internal Reviews.

This took you months, yet to my mind, you skated around the core reasons why I brought this matter to your attention in the first place. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

But if you’re going to undertake a review – and make recommendations - surely, at the very least, those recommendations need to be observed and implemented? I want to highlight the legal department’s handling of a recent FOI request of mine. Despite the recommendation in your FOI review that “the Council should always inform requesters if responses are to be delayed in excess of the 20-working day target”, the legal department didn’t inform me why there would be a delay in responding to my request. Indeed, it didn’t provide any response until it was chased. And then its answer, essentially, comprised just 19 words.

When the matter went to an internal review, the Council director undertaking the review claimed: “It wasn’t the Council’s intention to be unhelpful.” I’ve since asked him, and the Chief Solicitor, and the Head of Legal & Governance: what was the intention then? As yet, I’ve received no explanation from any of them.

This is particularly concerning because this FOI request related in part to a complaint about the conduct of the Council’s Director of Corporate Affairs who, as you are aware, is in overall charge of the legal & governance department. How can it be right that she should, effectively, be overseeing the handling of a complaint about her own conduct? Also, this was a case of one Council director conducting an Internal Review which touched upon the conduct of another director. How does this inspire public trust & confidence in the integrity and impartiality of this Council’s governance procedures?

So my question is: what is the point of this committee undertaking reviews if they’re not done properly and comprehensively in the first place? And, if subsequently, it appears that your recommendations are not being fully adhered to? Aren’t you just wasting your time and, more importantly, wasting Council Tax-payers money?

The Chair thanked Mr Lilley for his question and gave the following response:

Mr Lilly, thank you for your question & I think it falls to me, as Chair of the Commission to answer it, although prior to responding to your direct question, I feel I should first comment on some of your observations on which the question is based. The Review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme, including the Internal Review process, was something the Commission did look at last year, as you state. As was explained in a response to one of your previous questions, the scope was agreed with you and was fully addressed as part of the review. All Overview and Scrutiny achievements are considered in the annual report, assessed as part of the overall governance procedures for the Council and subject to review as part of the external audit of the Annual Governance Statement. As you have stated in your question I cannot comment on individual FOI requests however I can confirm that the Commission will be receiving an update on the progression of the implementation of the agreed recommendations from its review and this will hopefully identify if there are any particular issues of concern. If you have a complaint about the handling of your FOI request and the internal review process, you are entitled to go to the Information Commissioners Office, as

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION the independent organisation set up to review responses to FOI requests on behalf of members of the public. As a further point the FOI internal review process was also considered in detail by the Commission and I understand that it concluded that it operated appropriately and indeed exceeded ICO guidance. You also mention a complaint about the conduct of the Director of Corporate Affairs. I would like to say that this is a separate issue to the FOI process and therefore I assume will be dealt with thorough the complaints process as an individual complaint - as you have pointed out the Commission does not deal with individual complaints and therefore I cannot comment further. My final comment is that the Commission always endeavours to fulfil the agreed scope for its reviews unless otherwise formally agreed, the reviews aim to be as comprehensive as required and I understand that HBC has an implementation rate for recommendations that compares favourably with most other authorities…Having said that, we are of course always looking at ways to improve the way that we work and as you are aware, from your attendance at our last meeting, are using the recent Government Statutory guidance as a tool to improve our effectiveness. I do not therefore consider that we are wasting our time or Council Tax Payers money. (5.32 pm - 5.39 pm)

CRIME AND DISORDER MATTERS

58/19 – THE POLICE, FIRE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER: The Chair welcomed Julia Mulligan, the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) for North Yorkshire to the meeting to provide a strategic overview of the current position of North Yorkshire Police and the Fire and Rescue Service.

The PFCC outlined the priorities for North Yorkshire as identified in the improvement plan. This plan had been developed from extensive and comprehensive consultation with both the public and partners, it could be summarised by the acronym CARE which represents the following focused areas:

 Caring about the vulnerable  Ambitious collaboration  Reinforcing local policing  Enhancing the customer experience

In relation to Harrogate the PFCC explained that the two specific areas of concern identified by members of the public were:

 Road safety  Drugs

Investments made to the Digital Forensics Unit (DFU) were coming to fruition. The DFU at North Yorkshire Police (NYP) HQ, Alverton Court, Northallerton was one of only three accredited units nationally. The department’s work involved analysis of information held digitally on various devices that was relevant to nearly all cases, the investment helped provide the relevant evidential standard necessary to provide

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION confidence when cases came to court. Investment in technology was also beneficial in combating fraud and online crimes often affecting the most vulnerable. Work had been undertaken to develop a joint high-tech crime unit with neighbouring forces across the North East. This collaborative work also involved the National Crime Agency and is able to tackle the most serious cases of online abuse/harm.

The University of York has been involved in securing funding of £1 million to collaborate with North Yorkshire Police in developing new approaches and training for officers with a focus on identifying and dealing with situations where mental health may be an issue. In her capacity as Chair of the National Rural Crime Network, Julia had been involved in commissioning research into domestic abuse in rural areas. This piece of research, findings and recommendations had received a great deal of media exposure and the recommendations were being embedded in training delivered by the College of Policing.

Referencing the identified priority of ‘ambitious collaboration’ the PFCC spoke about the forthcoming pilot of ‘Tri-service Officers’ in the district. These roles had been developed as a way of using resources more efficiently and could be especially effective in rural areas. This was essentially a ‘three in one’ role where an individual can act as a first responder with training to encompass some of the skills of police/fire/paramedic personnel.

The Evolve program had seen collaboration in terms of a shared legal department with Durham and Cleveland. On a more local level the PFCC reported future and ongoing work with North Yorkshire County Council and the Community Safety Hub based at Harrogate Borough Council.

Reinforcing local policing was addressed with the PFCC stating that there would be a total of roughly1400 police officers employed by April 2020, this was significantly higher than levels over recent years and was approaching record numbers. The PFCC identified that increased precept levels had a positive impact on front-line policing, it allowed for ring-fenced funding for local neighbourhood policing and the recruitment of 51 new officers. She clarified that the figure of 1400 was just police officers and that there were around two hundred PCSOs on top of that figure as well as a number of special constables.

Enhancement of the customer experience was being progressed both with £3m investment in the force control room and by looking at improving interactions with the public. The view was that a good service was provided.

The PFCC invited questions from the Commission and Councillor Waller opened the Q&A session by asking what the benefits of having a combined Police and Fire Commissioner were. The PFCC explained that they would be reporting to government shortly with a formal analysis of the work done since the transfer of governance. This would identify whether the aspirations set out were being achieved. Some of the key benefits were savings of up to £8 million (against a target of £6.6 million). This had largely been achieved by the pooling of back office functions such as HR and accounting, streamlining of senior leadership roles, money saved on salaries and fleet management. She went onto explain that there were

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION many more opportunities to save money through the combined approach, including looking at the fire services skills associated with early intervention and preventative work. She made the point that investment was necessary particularly at fire stations across the district.

Responding to a further question from Councillor Waller the PFCC stated the cost of maintaining the Newby Wiske Hall site (NYP’s previous HQ) was £22,500 per month but this was more than compensated by other savings made by the move to Alverton Court. Savings from this move were around £500k annually. The sale of Newby Wiske Hall had not been finalised, however maintaining this site had no effect on operations and spoke of the benefits of the ability to invest and modernise the way the force works by operating from the new HQ. Adding that the infrastructure at the old site did not permit IT installation/upgrading. She welcomed Councillors to visit the new NYP HQ for a tour.

Residents’ wishes for increased camera enforcement to combat road traffic offences was raised by Councillor Harrison, he specifically asked about whether there were issues associated with where vans with cameras could park and whether motorbikes had more flexibility. The PFCC updated the Commission on the current speed management protocol and highlighted that the service delivered had been improved procedurally in terms of distance travelled to deployment, as this team now operated from both Skipton and Harrogate rather than from York as it had previously. There was also the intention to add one more motorbike to this team to increase flexibility. The PFCC clarified that the fleet of camera vans do not turn a profit, they are effective in decreasing violations and have been shown to change driver behaviour she added that the police understood the benefits of listening to the public and were open to positioning the vehicles at sites of community concern.

Councillor Waller asked for clarification around the costs and positioning of speed activated signs. This issue was specific to arrangements between NYCC and parish councils, Councillor Stanley Lumley was in attendance at the meeting and spoke in his capacity as Chair of NYCC’s Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Commission. NYCC had recently revised the protocols after the issue had been through scrutiny. Councillor Lumley briefly advised on the protocol, it comprised - a NYCC officer would attend and agree on the allocation of a sign, the sign can then be bought by the parish council/organisation, the signs are considered ‘temporary’ in that they can be moved (and have been found to be most effective when moved regularly), there was a £500 fee for someone to visit from NYCC when relocating a sign.

A further traffic related issue was raised on behalf of residents by Councillor Watson, this concerned inconsiderate/dangerous parking on pavements. The PFCC confirmed that HBC was the district’s parking enforcement agency and as such there were limitations in terms of how this issue could be addressed by the police. She reported that in the past there had been some successful partnership work undertaken to combat this particular issue in problem areas. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was also discussed with the PFCC saying that there had been investment here and the system was good with links to the control room being particularly necessary as criminals often exploited the road network North Yorkshire. There was some concern about the use of ANPR in the future however it was hoped

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION that this could be resolved.

Councillor Marsh raised concerns around neighbourhood policing, the PFCC said that the policy position was clear and that she had ring-fenced funding to bolster local teams. The Commission also heard that compared to some areas, namely Lincolnshire and Merseyside, North Yorkshire maintained relatively good levels of local neighbourhood policing. She highlighted to the Commission a forthcoming review of ‘community policing’ from the Chief Constable NYP.

Discussion took place around mental health and the impact of the loss of emergency inpatient services (mental health beds) affecting Harrogate, Northallerton and York. The PFCC stated this was a significant concern and she was a member of the North Yorkshire Crisis Care Concordat Board and had just attended a meeting in York. This was a complex issue that needed to be viewed in the context of the broader changes to the health landscape across North and West Yorkshire and the City of York, work was being undertaken by North Yorkshire Police to better understand the implications.

The PFCC stated that she did Commission some mental health services and she indicated there was potentially some funding to support the implementation of ‘street triage’ services in Harrogate and this service was being reviewed with a report expected in December 2019. A mental health triage service was operating the in the force control room with the exception of Craven. The relevant Clinical Commissioning Group was looking at alternatives to hospital beds, this included ‘places of safety’ and other community care options. Lack of hospital beds was a big issue for people attending A&E and for Yorkshire Ambulance Service.

Councillor Jim Clarke was in attendance at the meeting and thanked the PFCC for her focus and commitment to the mental health agenda. He stated this was a very important issue and there seemed to be a lack of understanding around the benefits of early intervention and the requirement to invest and commit resources. Councillor Clarke went on to request that the PFCC lobby to prevent land that had been bought with the intention of the development of health facilities being used for alternative purposes. The PFCC confirmed she had campaigned on this issue since coming to office and indicated challenges around the high cost of facilities versus relatively low demand.

Councillor John Mann asked a question relating to ‘stop and search’, with particular reference to it potentially being an effective tool in responding to possible county lines related activity. He also stated that county lines related activity had been reported to him at Pannal and Hornbeam Park train stations. The Commission heard a brief explanation of the operational use of stop and search over recent years. The PFCC indicated that an independent panel was due to be established in 2020 to scrutinise the use of stop and search by NYP.

The PFCC went on to provide a more detailed update relating to county lines activity in the district. The police had high level strategies and techniques in place to combat this - Operation Expedite was a dedicated resource locally and there were also national weeks of action that had together achieved significant arrests and convictions in the area. She highlighted that whilst county lines drug-dealing was

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION typically related to the supply of heroin and crack cocaine there were also significant community concerns associated with ther drugs like ecstasy. It was acknowledged that county lines activity was having a big impact in local communities, over 200 people attending a recent resident’s meeting in Jennyfields, which had provided an opportunity to listen to the concerns of local people. The PFCC said there had to be balance in terms of a public health approach versus action in the community.

The issue of rural crimes was raised by Councillor Windass, he stated people in local communities may take actions themselves and could therefore be in danger of reprisals. He requested an update from the PFCC as to how this issue was addressed particularly referencing the change of seasons with winter being the worst time for activities such as hare coursing. The PFCC responded stating NYP was learning from neighbouring forces particularly Lincolnshire who have the largest dedicated rural taskforce. Some measures included ‘rural watches’ where information was shared, group messaging was also being used effectively. She also stated that there was evidence of links to other serious organised crimes and that intelligence and speed of response were critical in combating this. The National Rural Crime Network was about to appoint a research partner to look in-depth at serious organised crime in rural areas.

Councillor Windass questioned the PFCC about the recruitment process and the PFCC confirmed that they did recruit ‘transferees’ from other forces however a balanced approach was needed as this type of recruitment often incurred higher costs. NYP was keen to attract detectives but it was sometimes difficult to attract officers to the area due to the relatively high costs of housing in the district.

Councillor Marsh requested further details around challenges facing the operations of the Fire and Rescue Service and the PFCC stated that the biggest problem was finances. The Fire and Rescue service needed investment in facilities and modern safety equipment. She went on to explain that there was a proposed cap on the precept which would be problematic and that consultation with the public showed strong support. The PFCC was robustly pushing back against the proposed cap. It was stated that co-location with police and fire could provide additional opportunities to invest in premises through NYP funding. Work was also ongoing to look at vehicles that could be crewed by fewer people which could particularly benefit rural/on-call stations.

In response to a question about tactical response vehicles the PFCC confirmed that they were safe and there were three in place, the equipment on them was excellent and they were crewed by full cover.

A further question from Councillor Broadbank sought clarification about how long capital expenditure in the Fire and Rescue service would be on hold for. The PFCC explained that pressure was being put on central government to explain the implications, and work was being undertaken to assess level of risk in individual communities and to ensure the appropriate level of cover. There was also potential to explore joint (police and fire) capital budgets. The Chair requested feedback from the PFCC on a recent consultation over the use of tasers by NYP. She indicated there was public support but clarified that if they were to be used it would be the decision of the individual officer. She explained that

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION further work to look at some of the outcomes from the consultation would be undertaken and the government had confirmed some additional funding. When asked about the categories used to record crimes she was clear that these were stipulated by the home office, she went on to say that NYP had recently been inspected on this but the findings had not yet been made public.

Councillor Broadbank spoke to extend his thanks and praise to the PFCC for her direct responses to questions, her approach to the role and willingness to participate at meetings at HBC. This was supported by the Chair who thanked the PFCC for her participation, he extended thanks to all Councillors, including those who were not members of the Commission for attending and confirmed they would next meet on 11 November 2019. The PFCC stated that she would also be having a discussion with the Cabinet Member responsible for CCTV services. (5.39 pm - 6.59 pm)