Health, Wellbeing and Local Government Committee

Response to National Assembly for Wales Consultation: Call For Evidence: Local Service Boards

Police Authority Wales

This response has been collated on behalf of Police Authority Wales (PAW) and concentrates on the relationship between LSBs and Police Authorities (PA) and their existing partnership structures. The following response has been collated from all the Police Authorities in Wales who were asked for their response to the following questions.

Question 1: Is your Authority involved in a LSB?

There were varied answers that highlight the fact there is very little consistency in the formation and development of the individual LSBs.

North Wales PA (NWPA) has had no involvement in the two pilots in their area.

South Wales PA (SWPA) has had full involvement in establishing the Cardiff LSB and the scrutiny structures. However, they have not had any involvement in Neath & Port Talbot LSB.

Dyfed Powys PA (DPPA) experienced 'extremely diffused’ engagement with LSBs with little formal involvement.

Gwent PA (GPA) has representation on the Monmouthshire LSB with one PA Member sitting on the board. GPA  was involved by default when a LA Cllr who is a PA member sat on the board in Caerphilly, this position has recently changed.

GPA has had some positive involvement in each Local Authority (LA) area where our community engagement work has been carried out in partnership with LAs in support of the LSB / CSP engagement activity. This has informed discussions with Torfaen who are currently looking to establish a LSB with a view to inviting GPA as a member.

Question 2: Have the PA sought involvement?

SWPA, NWPA and DPPA did not approach their local LSB, this was based on a capacity issue for PAs.

GPA has sought involvement with all their Local Authorities as and when a LSB is established. Monmouthshire has PA representation.

All PAs felt that whilst resources are obviously a factor in the extent to which PAs engage with the LSBs, it was important to note that PAs are responsible for maintaining and efficient and effective Police Service.

Therefore it is essential that PAs are members of the local LSB.

Question 3:  Did the local LSB invite the PA to join?

None of the PAs were formally invited to join any of the pilot LSBs. There appears to be a clear lack of guidance on the responsibilities and scrutiny role of PAs and their budgeting accountability for the Police Service in relation to external partners.   

Question 4: Do PA Members or officers sit on local LSBs?

SWPA has representation via their Performance Officer who was fully involved in the scoping and development of the scrutiny panel. A member sits on the scrutiny panel and this appears to work very well.

DPPA, NWPA and GPA do not have any representation on the pilot LSBs. GPA’s Engagement Manager has been involved in the development of the Caerphilly LSB’s 'Community and Partner Engagement Strategy’ since its inception.

Question 5: Is there a capacity issue for PAs?

All PAs responded that there are capacity issues around involvement with LSBs. However it was strongly felt that it should be for PA’s to manage their attendance and not negate the principle that PAs should have a place on the LSBs, and should not preclude them from LSB membership.

SWPA gave the example that they cover a geographical area that could in future contain 7 LSBs. There are 19 members who already have representation on Community Safety Partnerships plus specific PA duties and responsibilities to undertake.

PAs have commented that the demands being placed on Members is at saturation point.

Question 6: What do you think the role of the PA to be on the LSBs?

Again all PA’s responses concurred in believing their role was more of holding a strategic overview of policing and the subsequent scrutiny of the LSB level.

One of the main points of concern was the fragmentation of Force wide strategic plans. Divisional local policing priorities form part of the statutory Policing Plan. Firstly PAs need to be involved in the discussions as to how these priorities may be achieved and by what means. Secondly it is essential that a constructive dialogue is maintained between LSBs and those who set and implement strategy on a Force wide basis. PAs need to ensure that policing strategy is effective across all of a policing area and LSBs cannot provide this focus by virtue of their local view and requirement.

The PA’s role is one of scrutiny of forces and that is where their expertise lies. Ultimately it is the PA’s role to hold the Chief Constable to account who in turn holds the Divisional Commanders to account, this is not the responsibility of the LSB. All four PAs agreed that their role should lie more with the scrutiny role of LSBs so that all partners can be held to account for performance. If LSBs are to hold CSPs to account for policing based activity, then they need an organisation present that is trained for the role. PAs would be better placed to ensure community safety priorities are considered and translated into the Force strategic objectives which recognise and utilise partnership working.

PAs sit on CSPs who work mainly to divisional command to deal with localised operational requirements. PAs are not always directly involved in the decision making processes that realise this activity and are not in a position to hold BCUs to account via the CSP but via the CC. PAs stated that they would be better placed at the LSB on a strategic level than as present on CSPs which are more operationally focused. It would also avoid duplication of attendance by Members. PA membership of LSBs would ensure that local divisional commanders do not get 'pulled from pillar to post’ and representation by a PA Member would be well placed to limit this happening whilst ensuring that police performance is properly held to account.  

There is therefore a miss match whereby the PA, as an accountable body, is not in a position to scrutinise activity that it is responsible for. This seems to be an upside down situation.  

7. How does this link in with the Force’s role on the LSB?

Fundamentally, LSBs are in place to remove any blockages to progress that are occurring in delivery whether in partnerships or individual organisations. If they are to seek to influence strategic level policing, it would be sensible to ensure that PAs are involved to monitor Force performance and ensure compliance with the PA priorities and objectives in support of divisional operational requirements progressed by divisional staff. PA members should ensure that no conflict arises between local and strategic policing strategies.

The Force has responsibility for the tactical and operational whereas PAs should concentrate on the strategic and scrutiny elements.

8. CSPs are represented on LSBs of which PAs are statutory partners, what is the link of CSPs to LSBs?

The role of Police Authorities on CSPs is still developing. One criticism of CSPs is that they are not accountable, LSBs might be able to provide that transparency and again evidences why PAs would be better placed on LSBs than at a CSP level. PAs are in agreement that their role should be strategic rather than operational.

Conclusion

All Welsh PAs are in agreement that there is no clear guidance from the National Assembly on the role of Police Authorities on LSBs as a scrutinising body linked to policing. Therefore they have been overlooked by the other strategic bodies that make up LSBs.

One of the difficulties for partners is the many different approaches of LSBs. Originally the LSBs were intended to tie in with the local community plan and address the more difficult issues that required a partnership approach on a strategic level. However that approach has seemed to develop into a more project based approach tackling the 'wicked issues’ that often seem to sit outside of any strategic plan. This lack of consistency has hindered PAs in identifying their role in the governance of LSBs, linked to policing issues.

Essentially PAs are not operationally focussed, which CSPs are, but they are responsible for strategy and scrutiny of local policing which LSBs would benefit from. Perhaps the fundamental question to be asked by PAs at this juncture is what could they take to the LSB that they have not been able to concisely identify as part of their involvement with CSPs.

It is felt strongly that PAs do have an important role and function that they can contribute to the scrutiny of LSBs and it could be argued that they have the right. The question needs to be asked if PA roles and responsibilities would not be better suited on the strategic LSB than on the CSP, which is accountable to the LSB?

If you have any queries regarding the PAW response, please contact:

Maria Chapman
Executive Support Officer
01633 647005
Email: maria.chapman@gwent.pnn.police.uk

Police Authorities of Wales

Building a Society for All Ages

Introduction

1. The Police Authorities of Wales (PAW) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation paper: Call for Evidence: Local Service Boards.

2. Police Authorities of Wales (PAW) is a representative body of the four Police Authorities in Wales: Gwent Police Authority, Dyfed-Powys Police Authority, North Wales Police Authority and South Wales Police Authority. The main aims of PAW are to:

• Consider and act upon issues affecting policing in Wales, particularly those that are under the control of the National Assembly for Wales.

• Maintain a broad Welsh prospectus on police matters.

• Promote and protect the interests of member Authorities.

• Seek to influence the policing agenda at a national level on behalf of Police Authorities and local communities in Wales.

• Support Police Authorities in securing efficient and effective policing services across Wales.

• Enable Police Authorities to improve.

• Promote awareness of policing needs and the role and achievements of Police Authorities.

• Uphold and champion the principles of local accountability and policing by consent.

3. Police Authorities have statutory responsibilities for:  

• Setting the budget for their police force, including the levels of council tax.

• Determining the strategic direction for local policing through 3 year and annual plans.

• Ensures that the Chief Constable delivers a police service that balances both national strategic priorities with the concerns of local people.

• Consulting local people about what they think are the most important things the police should be doing and setting local and policing priorities in light of that consultation.

• Setting their force challenging targets to drive performance higher.

• Continuously monitor force performance against those targets and regularly report to local people on how well the force is doing.

4. Police Authorities Wales believes that their statutory responsibility linked to policing should be recognised by Local Service Boards. LSBs are to be established in every area by 2010. They are to develop Local delivery Agreements (LDA) which will identify priorities for adding value to the delivery of local community strategies. Police Authorities have a role to play in negotiating local priorities and their delivery and should ensure that LSBs pay due regard to the local policing plan. Equally they have a duty to co-operate and to contribute to the targets that have been agreed. Therefore, PAW believes that Police Authorities, as part of their strategic directional role, should have representation on Local Service Boards.

5. Police Authorities of Wales is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper: Call for evidence: Local Service Boards and hopes that the attached document is helpful. PAW would be happy, however, to elaborate or provide further information which may be of benefit. Should this be required, first contact should be made with our Support Officer:

Maria Chapman
Police Authorities Wales
Gwent Police Authority Office
Police Headquarters
Croesyceiliog
Cwmbran
Torfaen
NP442XJ

TEL: 01633 647005 EMAIL: maria.chapman@gwent.pnn.police.uk