A Draft Report of the: Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee.

Review of Community Engagement Activities of the Safer Partnership.

March 2012

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

PRS-220312-DWD 0 CONTENTS

CHAIR’S FOREWORD 3

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT 4

TERMS OF REFERENCE 5

APPROACH 6

KEY EVIDENCE 7

RECOMMENDATIONS 22

TASK AND FINISH GROUP MEMBERSHIP 24

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE 25

PRS-220312-DWD 1 CHAIR’S FOREWORD

This report presents the findings of the scrutiny review of the “Community engagement activities of the Safer partnership. This review is the first piece of work undertaken by the Committee under its Crime and Disorder responsibilities.

We think the recommendations contained within the report are realistic and achievable and can only further improve the current situation. The review has enabled the elected Members to engage with the public and hear their thoughts and ideas on this particular area.

This review demonstrates how important the Council feels it is to work in partnership. Each meeting of the task and finish group was attended by at least one ranked officer from South Police. The review also considered evidence from additional key partners. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all key stakeholders from the partnership for agreeing to be part of the review. I look forward to the Council continuing this important partnership approach in future years.

I would also like to thank my fellow Members who attended the meetings for contributing their time so generously.

Councillor Des Davies Chairperson Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee March 2012

PRS-220312-DWD 2 Background and Context

In 2009 the publication of the Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 by the Home Office brought into effect certain provisions of Section 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.

Section 19 of the 2006 Act requires that each Local Authority shall ensure that it has a Committee described as the “Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee”. This did not mean that Local Authorities were required to establish a new separate free standing Committee, the responsibilities could be allocated to an existing Overview and Scrutiny Committee if the Authority.

It was decided by Council in September 2009 that the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee undertake the responsibilities for Crime and Disorder Scrutiny.

In 2010 the protocol for Crime and Disorder Scrutiny was agreed by the Committee in consultation with all relevant partners including Police, Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and the Wales Probation Trust.

At a meeting in February 2011 the Scrutiny Committee considered a report on potential work areas for the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee. This was further discussed at a meeting in June 2011 when the Committee agreed to undertake a review of the communication activities of the Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership .

PRS-220312-DWD 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference agreed by the elected Members were:

To undertake a review of the community engagement activities of the Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership with a view to :

• Identifying good practice for community engagement with a view to any lessons learned being transferrable to other partners or partnerships; • Understanding the current initiatives; • Understanding what works and how do we know it works; • Identifying any gaps; • Identifying any potential improvements

PRS-220312-DWD 4

APPROACH

At a meeting held in June 2011 the Committee resolved to undertake this specific review along with two other pieces of work that were all deemed to be equally important.

It was agreed that this review would be undertaken outside the main formal scrutiny meetings through a task and finish approach. Membership of the group consisted of:

• Cllr. D Davies (Chair) • Cllr. D Morgan • Cllr. S Jones • Cllr. D Williams • Cllr. W Morgan • Cllr. B Richards • Cllr. L James • Cllr. K Davies

The first meeting was used to plan the review, agree the aims and develop the scope of the review. The Scrutiny Officer within the Corporate Strategy Unit of the Chief Executive’s Directorate has provided the research and administrative support. The officers consulted for specialist advice during the course of the review were:

• Mr Philip Graham – Head of Corporate Strategy • Mr Mike Goldman - Community Safety And Youth Offending Strategic Manager • Chief Inspector Andy Kingdom – South Wales Police • Inspector Mark Lenihan – South Wales Police

PRS-220312-DWD 5 Meetings of the group were held between December 2011 and March 2012, at which a range of evidence was considered from a number of key stakeholders:

 Lorraine Miles – Neath Port Talbot CVS  Sian Morris – Community Safety Projects Officer (NPTCBC)  Superintendent Joe Ruddy – South Wales Police  Stephen Routledge – Portfolio Manager, South Wales Police  Richard Watkins – South Wales Police  Vicky Bishop – Communities First Co-ordinator (NPTCBC)  Joy Smith – Road Safety Manager (NPTCBC)  Derrick Ford – Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service

KEY EVIDENCE

General Engagement Activities

From the outset of the review it became apparent that there were a number of communication channels available for the partnership to use. It was agreed that it was not possible to rely on one method of communication and that any chosen method needed to be specific depending on the message that needed to be put across as well as the intended audience. Members were advised that there was a very experienced worker with South Wales Police who had responsibility for dealing with the media, both on behalf of the partnership and the Police.

Members understood the decision to cease publication of the Community Spirit newspaper and appreciated that there are now many more options to get any messages across. There was also consideration given to how the media can have an alternative view to the one that is trying to be conveyed by the partnership. On a number of occasions this has resulted in poor press for the Safer Neath Port Talbot Partnership.

PRS-220312-DWD 6 The partnership has enjoyed success using both proactive and reactive campaigns. One particular example of a reactive campaign was following a spate of burglaries in the County. The partnership team visited particular areas and delivered crime prevention messages which resulted in no further burglaries.

The review was informed that www.ourbobby.com contains all the relevant information about all the PACT meetings in the County Borough. However, Members were advised that as local Members they should always have the information sent to them personally and if this wasn’t the case then they should contact the relevant Police contact immediately.

It was agreed that it is a case of “horses for courses” when deciding on what type of engagement model to try. The Police found that it was a good idea to hold community events such as an open day at Neath Police Station which attracted over 2000 people on the last occasion. Obviously this was successful in getting general messages across but in the case of smaller more specific messages this may not be as successful.

The Neath Port Talbot Local Service Board (LSB) has recently developed a strategy for engagement and whilst considering the formation of the strategy discussed various frameworks of engagement. Five different levels of engagement were identified as being the most relevant. When researching Community Engagement there are varying examples but the Local Service Board has identified the following as the most relevant:

• Information – Underpins all other levels of engagement, providing essential information to residents is vital to ensure they can make informed and considered choices. Information also underpins the dialogue and two – way communication that is required at all stages of participation. • Consultation – Offering people some choices for options on the desired outcomes or services that are proposed. Opportunities for

PRS-220312-DWD 7 people to develop their own ideas or take part in putting plans into action are limited – sometimes by legal obligations or by resource limitations. • Deciding together – People are encouraged to provide views and given opportunities for joint decision making on the future of their neighbourhoods and other decisions that affect their lives. • Acting Together – Deciding and acting together along with sharing responsibility for the results of the work. Different interests decide together what is best and work in partnership or short term collaboration to deliver common outcomes. • Supporting Community Initiatives – Supporting independent community-based initiatives to develop and carry out their own plans.

The points highlighted above are termed a communication ladder, which is a number of steps that assists in identifying which engagement activities to use for different purposes. It is essential to ensure that any message is put forward using the most convenient method to be satisfied that it reaches as many people as possible.

It is also necessary to ensure that the message is the right message and understood by all. This will assist in reducing any wasteful use of resources.

An example of the last bullet point above is in relation to PACT meetings in the area. As it is a designated Communities First area the community holds a meeting entitled Cwm Together and PACT meetings form part of this. It has resulted in regular attendance of over 50 people and is considered very successful.

A key aspect of discussions was how do we know when an event has been a success or that it has worked? When the events are smaller events there is the opportunity to provide feedback sheets. It is difficult to get feedback from larger events and this is something that could be explored with a view to highlighting areas for improvement.

PRS-220312-DWD 8

On consideration of evidence from other areas of the Council and partners the Members were informed that it was standard practice to establish what the best tool for the specific communication required is.

In relation to Communities First areas it did highlight a difference in engagement activities compared with non Communities First areas. This is largely down to resource issues. Each Communities First area has its own newsletter, but it was stated that no evaluation has been undertaken as to whether people are reading the newsletters and whether they are of benefit.

It was agreed that when a communication activity has an informal feel to it, it is seen as a strength. People prefer to be spoken with instead of talked at.

Members were told about the newer ways of engaging with people through Social Media i.e. Facebook and Twitter. This has been a great success in reaching those of the younger generation. However, training has been undertaken with older people to open this avenue to them. Each of the Communities First areas has their own website or Facebook page.

To ensure success in getting messages across it is just as important to consider the branding of the event/initiative as it is to consider how the communication will look.

Members considered information around surveys and it was suggested that not all people like surveys and is key to establish how to maximise their return. Asking the public what they want will also be important and this should be a way of identifying what works and what doesn’t work.

Partnership working is vital to successful community engagement. An example of this was Network Rail approaching Communities First in to deal with vandalism, railway safety and the education of young people.

PRS-220312-DWD 9 When considering the engagement activities of the Community Safety section of the Council, Members were advised that it was very different now to what it was in 1997. Previously there had been a large budget that allowed the section to organise any events as deemed necessary. As with all Council departments the budget has reduced significantly but due to alternative ways of working this doesn’t seem to have had an adverse effect on community engagement.

Members were informed that it is easier to go to the public than rely on the public coming to you. An innovative example of this was meeting with parents. They are one of the hardest groups to reach so the Community Safety section arranged to attend schools when they were holding their parent evenings. This assisted in getting across messages on internet safety.

It is widely agreed that face to face engagement is the best kind. Also if budgets allow then providing a marketing gift will help people remember a message. An example of this was providing bingo dabbers with a specific community safety message included.

A key issue that must be considered at all times before communicating is striking a balance between raising people’s awareness without raising their fear. People’s perceptions are also a major issue that needs to be addressed and the public will always remember something that is not the norm i.e. if there has been an armed robbery or an instance of knife crime.

Members considered information from the Youth Offending team and were informed that the team don’t usually court publicity due to the emotive subject. However there is publicity when young offenders are giving something back to the Community i.e. graffiti removal. It has been counteracted on occasions by the media who may use a negative headline on a positive story which skews the impact.

There was also discussion as to how we can ensure we get all relevant community safety information to householders in the County. It was agreed

PRS-220312-DWD 10 that it would be cost prohibitive to provide an information pack for any new home owners or residents in the County. There is also an issue about how we would ensure that the information is kept up to date. Funding is always going to be a factor in what engagement can or cannot take place.

The Members received a presentation from South Wales Police on two surveys that had been undertaken recently. The Police stated that they know that communication with the public is absolutely vital especially when getting good news stories across. Members were informed that there had been a great deal of work undertaken by the Police to reduce the number of surveys they publish. The rationalisation had been complex due to cross over issues involved in a force that covers a number of Local Authority areas.

The Police are fortunate to have a system (called Mosaic) that assists them in targeting the types of communication they should use e.g. letters, internet or face to face.

A key aspect of engagement from the Police is to identify how safe people feel and whether they feel safer now than they did sometime ago. If someone states they feel less safe it is highly likely that they have been a victim of crime themselves. Where the fear of crime is higher than actual crime figures, the Police will undertake specific work in this area to lower the perception/fear.

The current Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership is compared against a number of other partnerships across the UK and is the best performing of this cluster with 12 crimes per 1000 of population compared to an average of 18. It was acknowledged that whilst the partnership was performing well it is even more important to ensure engagement remains a high priority.

Particular Members found it beneficial to “walk the beat” with a an officer from the Police as this highlights how Community policing is working and it provides an opportunity to engage face to face with the electorate.

PRS-220312-DWD 11 When considering evidence from Neath Port Talbot Council for Voluntary Services (NPTCVS) the review group was informed that they had undertaken a review of their engagement channels and had found there were 97 different ways available and it was agreed this was excessive.

Members were made aware of a website called Talking Neath Port Talbot. This had been developed as part of the work of the LSB and had received sign up from all partners of the LSB. However, due to constraints it has not been utilised fully and it was felt that only the senior officers from specific organisations were aware of the concept and the information had not been cascaded to staff in the respective organisations.

CVS have at their disposal a system that can provide instant feedback to particular questions. This is particularly good for larger scale events when a number of consultation questions are developed. This system is one model used among many others including Newsletter, website, 13 particular interest forums, coffee mornings etc.

It was agreed that any engagement like all communication should be two way. Listening to people is just as important as talking to them. Collaboration also assists greatly in getting messages across.

Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service (MAWWFRS) felt in general that it was large scale events that assisted in getting their messages across. This included the Beach Festival and Neath Carnival. It is almost a case of the shock factor making people remember messages. An example is the chip pan demonstration when water is placed straight on a burning chip pan.

From their perspective when MAWWFRS have tried to undertake engagement activity in a supermarket for example they don’t get the response they would like as they find that people are there to do their shopping and don’t have time to talk.

PRS-220312-DWD 12 Partnership again is key to ensuring that hard to reach groups/individuals are met. When the service attends events that are organised by partners it is used to facilitate contact with individuals who may require some assistance such as fire safety checks. A lot of the work they undertake does come from referrals from partner organisations.

Like all organisations MAWWFRS service faces diminishing budgets and has to alter the way it delivers parts of its services. An example of this is the change to young fire fighter courses. Originally they were held over a period of two years but due to constraints it is likely these will be reduced to 12 week courses.

It is important to target the right areas and recently there has been a decline in the youth offending population so the service is increasingly working with the ENGAGE project and it is always apparent that there is a change in young people’s behaviours from the time they start an intervention to how they behave at the end.

A key area of partnership working has been the PASS Plus Cymru initiative set up and delivered by the Road Safety unit of the Council. There are also service level agreements in place with , , Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. It is an offshoot of the PASS Plus system in England but at a more affordable price. It costs £20 with the remainder topped up by . This cost is often paid by driving instructors once a young person passes their test.

This particular engagement activity tends to be focussed on the 17-25 age group who have recently passed their test. The topics included in the sessions are all relevant emotive subjects including texting while driving and drink driving. Part of the course is undertaken in a class room and is extremely hard hitting by showing videos and listening to specific real life examples of accidents.

PRS-220312-DWD 13 In an effort to increase participation in the scheme, the Council liaised with a number of driving instructors and established their own association within the County. In the first instance the Council chaired/facilitated the meetings but this has now changed so that the instructors facilitate the meetings themselves.

Both the Council and MAWWFRS also visit schools to get across the message of road safety to newly qualified drivers and those that could be passengers in vehicles of newly qualified drivers.

This can be seen as successful engagement as it has seemingly assisted in reducing the number of deaths on the roads from 46 in 2006 to 23 in 2010.

PACT Although the review was concentrating on the community engagement activities of the Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership there was mention on several occasions of PACT during the evidence gathering sessions.

The concept of PACT was brought in by the Westminster Government and it is likely that they will continue for the foreseeable future. They have always been seen as the responsibility of the Police. It was emphasised that the name is often misunderstood & PACT stands for “Partnerships & Communities Together”

Throughout the course of the review the meetings held in the Cwmafan area were highlighted as best practice due to the number of regular attendees. This has been achieved by making PACT a part of wider community meeting. It could be argued that the meetings are then of more relevance so encourage attendance.

The name of the meeting also may be a factor in the attendance. PACT meetings as a name sound very uninteresting and this may be why attendance is low. In the Cwmafan area the meetings are known as Cwm Together.

PRS-220312-DWD 14

There is a need to identify and address the public’s perception of the meetings. It was also suggested that previously it was Police Officers who attended PACT meetings but it was now generally Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s). An issue was then subsequently raised as to the accountability of PCSOs and whether they undertook similar duties to police officers. The review was informed that they do and at any given point in time through advanced technology the Superintendent can know exactly where a PCSO has been, how long they were there etc. It was suggested that this information could be presented to the public to highlight the work loads.

Members had particular experiences of PACT in their wards where attendance will rise when there is a particular issue, but once this issue has been dealt with the attendance declined again.

MAWWFRS informed the review that at the beginning of the PACT process they used to attend meetings but as time progressed it was felt that this was not the best use of their time as the issues that were raised were not relevant to the service.

Elected Member PACT Survey

During the course of the review each elected Member was asked to complete a survey to help the review understand the experiences of elected Members.

39 Members returned their surveys which is a return rate of 61%. There were a number of opportunities for elected Members to add additional comments on the survey and every response on at least one occasion offered additional comments.

All the respondents indicated that they knew when and where their local PACT meetings were held. There were a number of ways in which they hear about the meetings ranging from Posters, emails, previous attendance,

PRS-220312-DWD 15 newspaper etc. It should be noted that a number of responses stated that it was either the Police or the PCSO who informed them of the next meeting.

Out of the responses 71% of Members stated that they attend every PACT meeting that is organised and 17% stating they attended occasionally. The remainder didn’t respond to this question. Attendance at PACT meetings varies greatly with 3 respondents stating that 20 or more attend the meetings but generally there appears to be between 5 and 10 people attending.

Of those who responded 84% have raised an issue or joined in discussions at a PACT meeting and 78% felt that the issues raised were of concern to most local people. In addition to this 71% or respondents thought that issues raised at some PACT meetings could be raised elsewhere.

53% of respondents felt that PACT makes people feel safer and improves their sense of security. This however, should be taken in context as it could mean that only those who attend PACT meetings may feel safer. Some of the reasons behind the perception of safety were:

• PACT eases concern. People have a forum to express views, build relationships with Police and Communities; • Helpful for those who attend. Attendance increases when there is a particular problem; • Because Anti Social problems are dealt with quickly by Police; • By meeting local Police and Councillors they can be reassured that everything is being done to make the neighbourhood a safer and better place; • People are given the facts behind the crime figures.

66% of respondents thought that PACT meetings could be improved. Some of the suggestions for improvement were:

• More partners to attend e.g. NPT Homes, Senior Council Officers etc;

PRS-220312-DWD 16 • Better advertising of meetings; • Presentations on topical issues that would be of interest to residents; • Leaflet drops on the issues raised; • Alter the times of the meetings; • PACT means Police and Community Together to me that means developing the community by doing something for all ages; • Good chairmanship and an agreed agenda.

2 respondents also included reasons why they didn’t attend PACT and the reasons were:

• Poor attendance at meetings. The feeling that the same issues arise at all the meetings. People only seem to attend when they have an issue that concerns them. Otherwise, they do not attend. At the last PACT meeting in February 2012, there were three police officers and myself; • Usually to attend other meetings where priority dictates.

Finally elected Members were asked what could be done to persuade them to attend PACT. This was generally aimed at those who said they did not currently attend PACT meetings. However, there were a number of suggestions included here also:

• I think a change of name, advertised locally, near to the date of the meeting e.g. a relaunch; • Start with a presentation on a topical issue that would be of interest to residents. This would help to get people to attend the meeting. The question of local issues and concerns could then be raised after the presentation; • Better advertising of date; • Police officers to rank above a PCSO – when they started there was more attendance by ranked officers; • Will attend when available.

PRS-220312-DWD 17 It appears that PACT meetings do have their place in communities and it is not too far away from being a worthwhile method of community engagement.

Public Survey

Alongside the elected Member survey a public survey was commissioned to try and establish where the public accessed information in relation to Community Safety issues. This particular survey is to remain open for a period of one year so that partners can run periodic reports to establish people’s perception of crime as well as whether there has been a change in how people access the information.

At the time of writing this report 93 responses had been received and the following information has been obtained from those responses. The survey opened with questions on how safe people feel in a) their neighbourhood and b) their local town. It was pleasing to note that over 90% of respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood during the day and this dropped to just over 70% at night. 11% of respondents also stated that they felt unsafe in their neighbourhood at night and one person stating they felt very unsafe.

The figures were different for how safe people felt in their local towns. 75% of respondents stated they felt safe. However, in the night these figures changed dramatically with 37% feeling either safe or unsafe, 27% felt neither safe nor unsafe the remainder of the recipients felt either unsafe or very unsafe. The survey also suggests that people don’t feel any safer now than they did 12 months ago.

The survey continued by asking people how they got their local news and information. Everyone who responded selected more than one answer and this resulted in the most common ways of getting information as being from friends/neighbours, Newspaper (either South Wales Evening Post, Western Mail, Guardian or Courier), Television (either BBC, ITV, Sky or S4C), Internet, Relatives and Radio (Real Radio, Radio Wales, Afan, Swansea Bay, The Wave, Radio 4).

PRS-220312-DWD 18

With regards to where people get their information on community safety problems the two most popular responses were friends/neighbours and Newspapers. 61% of respondents stated that they would like to receive more information on community safety issues in their area.

The survey moved on to ask questions about PACT and 82% of respondents were aware of PACT meetings. There were a number of ways that people hear about the meetings including work, Neath Port Talbot Council website, friends, Evening Post and word of mouth.

Only 22% of respondents actually attend PACT meetings and the majority of these only attend the occasional meeting. Attendance levels at PACT meetings tend to vary with the general response being either 6-10 or 11-20 in attendance. One respondent has been to a PACT meeting that had more than 20 at the meeting.

When asked what could be done to improve PACT meetings there were a number of responses including:

• A strong chair; • More attendance by Local Authority officers; • More people in the community need to know about them; • More resources; • More focussed better terms of reference and more guest speakers.

32% of survey respondents stated that more could be done to persuade them to attend PACT meetings with suggestions including:

• I would attend if I had community safety concerns ; • Could be persuaded but would need more details i.e. location, time etc; • More information delivered to the house; • Highlight any benefits and what the meetings have achieved;

PRS-220312-DWD 19 • If I knew that the discussions resulted in decreasing crime and anti social behaviour then I would attend.

Moving onto the Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership 56% of survey respondents recognised the partnerships logo and 57% were aware of the partnership prior to reading this survey.

Over half 48% of respondents thought that the partnership was either good or very good although 49% didn’t know. 60% of respondents were not aware of the “community days” organised across Neath Port Talbot. Approximately 75% of respondents thought that the information and advice provided by the partnership was either good or very good. However, a number of suggestions were made on how they could improve what they do at events including:

• Up the profile, stop leafleting and talk to people about the service it provides; • More events; • Don’t think they can improve – the information is already varied and useful;

A number of respondents stated that they would like to participate in future surveys or consultation on community safety issues and provided their e-mail addresses. These will be passed to the relevant parts of the Council and partner organisations to take forward.

PRS-220312-DWD 20

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Inquiry group would like to recommend the following:

R1. To review the Communications strategy of the Safer Neath Port Talbot Partnership whilst considering the Local Service Board Engagement Strategy. This will assist in ensuring that any concerns and/or issues raised as part of the public survey are addressed.

R2. Utilise the Talking Neath Port Talbot website wherever possible and demonstrate the site’s capabilities and functionalities and ensuring that all relevant organisations cascade this information.

R3. Always ensure that any engagement activity has clear objectives and desired outcomes.

R4. A commitment by all partners that they will provide relevant feedback following an engagement activity.

R5. That any future review of PACT considers: • Renaming of the meetings • That the meetings become part of a wider community meeting.

R6. That the current protocol for PACT meetings is reviewed to ensure it is fit for purpose and aims to maximise attendance.

R7. The information gathered from elected Members feeds into any future review of PACT.

R8. That the Safer Neath Port Talbot partnership develops a standard feedback form/template for all engagement activities. This will assist

PRS-220312-DWD 21 in the evaluation of the activity and assist in the planning of future activities .

PRS-220312-DWD 22 Task and Finish Review Group Membership.

The following Members were part of the review group and contributed during the course of the review.

Cllr. Des Davies

Cllr. Keith Davies

Cllr. Lella James

Cllr. Scott Jones

Cllr. Del Morgan

Cllr. William Morgan

Cllr. Betsan Richards

Cllr. David Williams

PRS-220312-DWD 23

COMMITTEES TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee has a dual role. Its overview role consists of: • Scrutiny of the processes the Council has gone through to discharge its duty to improve • Scrutiny of the functions of the Council to discharge its duty to improve • Scrutiny of the processes the Council has gone through to determine its improvement priorities • Monitor progress on the delivery of the Council’s improvement priorities Then in a general capacity it monitors matters for consideration and/or decision by the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee including related plans/strategies such as: • Policy and Strategic Resource Planning • Democratic Services/Leadership • Community Plan Overview/Co-ordination • Corporate Governance • Transformation Change Management and Innovation • Budget Monitoring/Controls overview • Performance Management/Business Planning • Executive Personnel policy/issues • Occupational Health • Equalities (all aspects) • Customer Services • E-Government/ICT

PRS-220312-DWD 24 • Community Safety, including Drugs and Alcohol Misuse, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

PRS-220312-DWD 25