To receive an update on the Community Safety Partnership.

74.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Page No. 24-35, provided an update on community safety in Gloucestershire and the proposed local arrangements.  Members were asked to consider the update.

74.2           Members were reminded that local Community Safety Partnerships, made up of representatives from responsible authorities, i.e. local authorities, police, fire, probation and health, had been suspended pending the outcome of a countywide review.  The review had concluded that, whilst the responsibility for dealing with community safety sat with second tier authorities, it would be beneficial to have a countywide view of the work being undertaken.  Safer Gloucestershire had been developed to provide co-ordination and focus on community safety issues at a county level and would sit aside the six district Community Safety Partnerships that retained responsibility for community safety at a district level.  Its development had been supported by Leadership Gloucestershire and the Police and Crime Commissioner and its Terms of Reference were attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  The Deputy Chief Executive and Head of Community Services had been involved with drawing up the framework along with representatives from the other local authorities in Gloucestershire.  The Head of Community Services indicated that it had been a very good piece of work which had also presented an opportunity to look at how Domestic Homicide Reviews were carried out in the borough.  Domestic Homicide Reviews were statutory and must be independently chaired; as a number of meetings tended to be held to investigate the incident, they could be very resource intensive.  As such, the general conclusion was that a countywide approach would be more efficient and a better way to share learning.  The final piece of work, which had not been referenced in the report, related to better information sharing to tackle crime and disorder - this could be done more quickly within Safer Gloucestershire. 

74.3           The Head of Community Services advised that, locally, the Community Safety Partnership remained suspended which meant that arrangements for managing community safety were being done on an ad-hoc basis; this was not sustainable and he had been tasked with rectifying the situation.  As such, a steering group had been established comprising the Lead Member for Community and other key community safety partners and Terms of Reference had been drafted for the new arrangements, aligned with those for Safer Gloucestershire.  He stressed that this work was still in its very early stages and he intended to take a report to the Executive Committee within the next few months to set out how the Council and its partners would manage community safety ‘on the ground’.  It was hoped that the countywide priorities would feed into the local community safety strategy, which would also have its own local priorities.

74.4           Whilst he accepted that it had not been working effectively, a Member expressed the view that the local Community Safety Partnership in Tewkesbury Borough had been useful in terms of finding out what partners such as the Police and Fire Service were doing – that communication had now been lost.  The Head of Community Services provided assurance that the Community Safety Partnership would be reformed within the next few months and this point would be fully taken on board.  Another Member noted that the NHS 2gether Trust was included in the membership of Safer Gloucestershire, listed at Page No. 32 of the report; he pointed out that the NHS 2gether Trust was being amalgamated with the Gloucestershire Care Trust later in the year and he wanted to ensure that this body continued to be represented on the group after that had happened.  The Head of Community Services confirmed that, although the individuals who would sit on the group had not been formalised, the NHS 2gether Trust was fully engaged with the partnership.  A Member raised concern that there was quite a large membership and questioned how it would be controlled.  In response, she was advised that this would be down to the chair of the partnership.  Governance had been discussed by the group and the current suggestion was that a number of events be held each year for Members to hear about the work and to provide an opportunity for them to scrutinise and challenge what was being done.  Consideration was also being given as to whether some groups could be amalgamated, e.g. anti-slavery and organised crime, and he hoped to see the list slimmed down considerably.  In response to a query, the Head of Community Services advised that a representative from Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service was the chair and was ensuring that all district authorities were signed up.  A Member sought clarification as to what the acronym MAPPA IOM stood for and was informed that this was a Multi-Agency Public Protection Agreement for Integrated Offender Management. 

74.5           The Chair indicated that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had previously received annual reports on the Community Safety Partnership and he sought a view from the Committee as to whether they would like this to continue.  Members felt that this would depend on when the local group was up and running and agreed that it would be beneficial to receive a report on the new arrangements prior to it going to the Executive Committee.  It was

RESOLVED          1.   That the update on community safety in Gloucestershire and the proposed local arrangements be NOTED.

2.  That a report on the local arrangements for community safety be taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, prior to consideration by the Executive Committee.