Executive Board Minutes – 26 July 2022

Lisa Winward (LW) – Chief Constable, NYP  

Simon Dennis (SD) – Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer, OPFCC 

Jonathan Dyson (JD) – Chief Fire Officer, NYFRS 

Mathew Walker (MW)       – Interim Deputy Chief Fire Officer, NYFRS 

Rena Brown (RB) – Managing Director, enableNY 

Thomas Thorp (TT) – Interim Assistant Chief Executive & Deputy Monitoring Officer, OPFCC  

Caroline Blackburn (CB) – Interim Assistant Chief Executive & Deputy Monitoring Officer, OPFCC  

Jenni Newberry (JN) – Head of Commissioning & Partnerships, OPFCC 

Mike Clements (MC) – Head of Finance, enableNY 

Michael Porter (MP) – Chief Finance Officer, OPFCC 

Maeve Chappell (MCh)       – Corporate Communications Lead, enableNY 

Tina James-McGrath (TJM) – Office and Volunteer Manager, OPFCC (minutes) 

Claire Tomenson (CT)          – EA (PFCC), OPFCC (minutes)   

Joanne Brooksbank (JB)     – T/Detective Superintendent, NYP 

Fran Naughton (FN)            – Detective Superintendent, NYP  

Ray Ward – Managing Director, enableNY 

Rachel Antonelli (RA) – Force Solicitor and Head of Legal Services, Evolve  

Simon Garnett-Spence (SGS) – Head of Assets, NYP 

RB provided the background to this item which is being presented today for approval. RB explained that the review was critical to ensure that moving forwards, the strategic plan is fit for purpose, is aligned with not only the Police & Crime Plan and Fire & Rescue Plans but also considers all areas of the organisation given the wider needs of the business and increasing workloads which are having a significant impact on the capacity and resource.   

To date, it has been a challenge to balance demand and capacity, although having fully completed service catalogues and plans in place should assist with this. RB added that PPM assurance would also assist with capacity and demand but currently, only mandatory/business critical projects can be supported, with projects such as EAT not currently supported in the manner as required. RB stated that all things considered, this has become an increasingly unsustainable position. The service catalogues need to be reviewed and it is key that all accept there is still a journey for the business to undertake to position the business as needed – this journey will require a lot of work with there being no capacity to complete this work over the next 3 months.  

Of further note and key to the ability to move this forward, resource will become critical given that there are a significant number of fixed term contracts in place currently which will start to come to an end from May 2023 and is being addressed as a matter of urgency.    

RB has been in contact with Northants Police who have a similar shared police service model.  Northants confirmed they have a separate cost sharing agreement across the services which provides visibility regarding costs. This was set up across parts of enableNY but not all and currently, costs average out as an 80/20 percentage split. This is an area as noted by HMICFRS regarding the split of costs and further assurance work is required moving forwards.  

RB proposed that key KPIs are required to be able to monitor core service levels which is currently undertaken already by most heads of services. Whilst this would provide a mechanism to monitor the level of demand for core services, this would be more difficult at project level. Moving forward, it is imperative that there is a consistent approach to providing assurance by monitoring core demand which the proposal is to implement KPIs to be able to monitor and provide this assurance. In terms of projects/variable demand, improved commissioning processes will assist with this specifically.   

With all of these considerations, RB proposed the following recommendations:  

• Agree service catalogues which will set expectations and provides clarity/visibility 
• Circulate core service objectives 
• For each service articulated end point required (this is not currently always defined) 
• Annual refresh of service catalogues to be implemented 
• Review and update of governance processes in support of these requests (this should not be a bureaucratic process) 
• Resource and capacity – need to agree way forward in terms of determining priorities to be able to manage both core demand as well as reactive demand.

RB further noted a number of key points in relation to Value for Money (VFM) in advance of the next paper from MC:  

• Having analysed data from NYP and other forces, it appears that post the T2020 remodel of NYP where a self-service model was adopted, this resulted in significant gains regarding efficiencies. Should there be a move away from this model, this would impact VFM and the organisation would run the risk of losing those efficiencies gained and could result in the organisation becoming less efficient and effective 
• Of note, the quarterly NYP performance meeting has a key role in support of visibility of NYP performance. Currently there is not such a meeting in support of NYFRS performance although this is planned for the future and is work in progress given the benefits of such visibility 
• This would further provide a formal governance structure for NYFRS which fits with formal governance activity undertaken by the collaboration which is being discussed as an item for discussion at the collaboration steering group. 

SD advised he was currently in the process of drafting an agreement accordingly. RB added that the Chief Officer Team (COT) and the Senior Leader Team (SLT) meetings provide the opportunity for each of those specific areas to discuss governance issues pertinent to their area with joint governance issues being discussed at the Collaboration Steering Group.   

In addition, RB noted other areas for consideration in terms of the enableNY ‘brand’ to include: culture; ways of working; understanding the enableNY brand; enableNY and support of operational staff; ease of knowledge sharing; staff engagement; enableNY strategy; staffing and recruitment challenges; planned work resource requirements versus unplanned resource requirements impacting planned work; project activity where additional resource will be required; DPO services. In essence, it is key that the road map for enableNY is mapped and agreed by all for the next 2/3 years.  

ZM thanked RB for a comprehensive report and verbal summary.  

MC further expanded upon RB’s comments in relation to finance and VFM noting that the report included information in relation to the enableNY budget and both staffing costs for North Yorkshire Police and North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. MC highlighted that in terms of staffing costs and HMICFRS queries, it is currently not possible to evidence with clarity, detailed collaboration costs although the budgets for each service are ring fenced. Overall, costs do continue to average at an 80% (NYP) / 20% (NYFRS) split.   

MC concluded that moving forward, the level of staffing, inflation along with the overall balance of operational needs will be a challenge.  

LW noted her thanks for the work by RB and MC which would be helpful to share with HMICFRS as appropriate. LW stated that T2020 and the uplift programme had impacted significantly in terms of the ability to deliver with the right resource and structure and given the current demand, this should be revisited accordingly. LW agreed with the proposal made, specifically in terms of the service catalogues with a small amendment required regarding each function who will deliver structure.   

LW felt the biggest challenge had been the cultural change required to move to a self-service model which is reflected in some of the pressures now felt. Branding of enableNY has proven to be difficult and has not helped in that it has created a distance whereby enableNY sits in the background with NYP and NYFRS sitting in the foreground. LW felt there is some reassurance in that with the reporting functionality, the 80 / 20 split for resource can be evidenced.  

MP provided an observation in terms of staff perception of their involvement and fundamentally, the question being asked is to what degree is there commitment across the board to the success of this model? This is key to being able to move forward without experiencing the same issues/problems and where time/effort afforded by senior leadership would be disproportionate. As such, all collectively need to agree to progress with this model and then share this message with all teams. It appears there is no better model that could be adopted elsewhere with this decision being key prior to any additional work being undertaken.  

SD agreed with both MP’s observation and that all need to agree collectively to move forward with this model and commit to a model accepted as being right for the organisation and for the public. This gateway review is timely, refreshing and thorough with the model being a worthwhile endeavour. SD will pick up some points outside of this meeting with RB and MC. SD added there are challenges yet to be addressed in terms of ensuring the model is fit for purpose with additional discussion required in some areas for example Data Protection Officer services.   

RB agreed with these comments and observations and the commitment to the model noted – this would put staff minds at rest which would further assist with retention. Moving forward, governance, good decision making and transparency of this decision making will evidence/promote good practice. This will support day to day business, noting the financial landscape should be kept in mind. Added to which, good governance will support the above.   

LW further stated people want to belong to services – either NYP or NYFRS and it is important we are mindful of how best to treat our teams with a strategic commitment (including collaboration), being key. We have to ensure that even in terms of terminology used in relation to our teams, language used is appropriate and inclusive. LW agrees with RB that it is important to understand all departments individually, including costs for those departments.  

JD agreed with LW points – it is also important that both NYP and NYFRS staff/departments are detailed which is important for all staff to see. RB noted for future NYFRS inclusion in reporting.   

ZM thanked all for reports and discussion and agreed with MP in that all need to be in agreement with the commitment to the enableNY model. ZM confirmed her support of this model. ZM agreed it would be a positive and proactive exercise to have a staff engagement session which is also timely. ZM further agreed with other comments made in terms of branding, terminology and felt the discussion today had been a positive discussion. TT suggested today’s commitment be shared with staff and the public which SD confirmed would be discussed at the next Collaboration Steering Group.  

ZM confirmed recommendations as discussed and included with the paper submitted, are supported.  

RB provided a brief summary of the current change pipeline as a comprehensive update had been delivered in the previous quarter: 

• There had been some significant overruns in terms of the FCR stabilisation programme – FCR customer contact had hoped to start on time as this was key. The DEMs paper had been submitted for discussion at today’s Executive Board meeting but other papers due for discussion at today’s meeting are now deferred until later in the year. A lot of issues had been experienced regarding FCR stabilisation specifically related to audio issues which had arisen due to the version of software used. This cannot be rectified at this time due to resource, capacity and funding and as such, the audio quality is not at the standard as expected. An impact assessment was conducted as a result of which, it was determined to progress with NY Eye application rollout as there would have been a significant impact had this been halted. 
• NYFRS project status is currently green. The business case regarding the CFMS upgrade option was recommended and consequently an extension for one year has been implemented – this will now be presented at the August Executive Board meeting for consideration.

3c. DEMS Business Case  

LM provided an overview of this paper presented which was being presented today for approval. LM explained the paper outlined the proposal in relation to this investment regarding the management and transfer of digital assets, including details of length of contract, cost and benefits. LM detailed both the national drivers for this investment along with local drivers, highlighting this investment links in with HMICFRS recommendations made. LM confirmed 15 other forces have invested in this also. LM highlighted the potential risks of not investing in this software and noted that there are both financial cost savings to be made along with opportunity cost savings too. LM added there was potential for future development options which could benefit other departments also. LM thanked all involved with the drafting of this business case.  

RB explained this was a significant piece of work which could not be completed in one go and that it would require a dedicated resource to support the system. RB added it was important to understand that the business case for this was strong and that the scale of the work should not be underestimated. LM suggested if this was started once procurement had been completed, the first element of functionality would be available June 2024, with the second phase by August 2024, and the third phase by February 2025. Priority areas had already been identified and included within the project planning.  

MP noted for the record that specifically in terms of the medium-term financial plan, a review would need to be undertaken to ensure all DEMS costs were included as appropriate. LW suggested the financial review be undertaken and then the DEMS Business case be brought back to Executive Board for final sign off once done.  

ZM approved business case in principle and bring back to August or September Executive Board meeting for final approval/sign off.  

Action: MP to review financial plan outwith of this meeting with RB and MC.  

3d. LGPS Employer Discretions  

RB provided a summary for this item which is being presented at Executive Board today for approval of recommendations. RB explained she was unfortunately not familiar with the background to this item, but a high-level written update had been provided for this meeting with supporting information included within the appendices. RB noted that the recommendations are required in regard to alignment with North Yorkshire County Council the implications of which are manageable. It is important to note that some cases would be on a case-by-case basis and this is acceptable to NYP as the value is low.  

SD stated that in his capacity as Monitoring Officer, his advice to the PFCC is to accept the recommendations made within the paper and that there would only be a requirement to bring this item back to Executive Board by SD/MP by exception should there be any expense or uncertainty.  

ZM confirmed recommendations are accepted.  

3e. EDI Estate FRS  

RB provided a summary update regarding this item by way of information for Executive Board. RB noted EDI and scheme were approved previously by Executive Board 2021 and the budget was then established. Since this time there have been some issues regarding finance, but the scheme is now back on track with some minor adjustments. RB has asked SGS to map this fully and prepare an exception report to be able to track appropriately moving forward.  

MP confirmed a detailed list (inclusive of risk) does exist and that in the main, the vast majority of the work was agreed but not achieved in the last financial year. MP will locate this information and send to RB.  

JD noted that SGS had provided information previously although there is some concern in terms of timescales (as identified in query related to Tadcaster Fire Station kitchen). RB stated that a more formal timeline is required and that there has been some slippage noted with some projects. Minimum reporting standards would assist with being able to manage/monitor projects which will be addresses moving forward.  

• Local Government Reform and Devolution

SD indicated that it may be likely, but not a certainty, that local leaders would sign a Devolution deal within the next 10 days and ZM may be requested to be a signatory.  It was a changing and turbulent time for Parliament, however, arrangements were being progressed regarding the transition programme.  A Terms of Reference document would be drafted and initial meetings arranged.    

5b. Commissioned Services Update  

JN informed Members that the issues regarding the Victims Centre budget were being progressed and both on and off budget options had been identified.  A report would be submitted to the August meeting.  

Action: JN to submit a report on the Victims Centre to the August Executive Board.    

5c. Assurance Model  

SD presented the report and stated that productive conversations had been undertaken with LW and JD.  Further work was required to refine the approach to be taken and the model.  SD then thanked those involved and Business Services for the support provided.    

TT reported that discussions had been undertaken with RB and JM and acknowledged that an understanding would be developed.  Members noted that quarterly contributory evidence would not be expected and progress would be submitted on an exception basis.  The reporting process would be straight forward and the data requested should already be collected.  TT then confirmed that the OPFCC Delivery Plan would be presented to ZM within the next week.  

ZM noted and approved the report.  

It was noted that the correct report would be submitted to the next meeting.  

Action: MP to present the Treasury Management Outturn Report (Police) to August Executive Board.  

6b. 2022/23 Capital and Change Pipeline Update  

MC explained that the report outlined the Quarter One position to the end of June against the 2022/23 Capital Programme and Change Pipeline.  He reported that since February the 2022/23 Capital Programme had been increased to £8.7m and revised.  There had been slippages of £380k on other schemes and it would be beneficial for a review to be undertaken in Quarter Two.  

RB indicated that the national guidance regarding body armour had changed and it would need to be replaced due to warranty issues.  The Change Board in April had also agreed the re-profiling of the budget for the Watchguard project.  LW confirmed that a letter had been received and some of the body armour was not fit for purpose due to changes in standards.  

MP stated that the report provided useful information and should install discipline going forwards, however, the Force would need to be mindful of the number of requests added to the list and the delivery of projects. Overall, it would provide assurance for Internal Audit and other departments.  

ZM noted the update.   

6c. 2021/22 NYP Budget Outturns Response  

LW informed Members that the report was for information purposes and provided clarity in relation to the budget proposals.  The issues regarding support roles had been discussed at the previous meeting and it was noted that NYP were currently over recruiting to police officer roles.  Consequently, the number of PCSO applicants had reduced and LW expressed her concerns in relation to the pay underspend and number of vacancies.  An increase in police officer pay of 5%/£1925 was also noted.    

A discussion ensued in relation to the pay award for police and fire officers and police staff and it was noted that there would be a £100k gap in the pay grant.  Members then acknowledged that there may be different settlements reached for each area.              

6d. Integrity Screening Pilot  

JB presented a report regarding Project Prism, which was a Police National Database pilot for NYP and had gone live on 4 July.  Members were informed that the tool could improve the vetting process, a secure server was used and work had been undertaken in respect of human rights aspects.  Reviews would be undertaken at months two-, four- and five of the six-month project and enquiries from other Forces had already been received.  

In response to a question regarding integrity, it was confirmed that the pilot would assist with early indications.  

ZM approved the recommendation.  

6e. ANPR Back Office System (BOF)  

RB introduced the report and requested that the BOF be re-introduced back into the Capital Programme.  FN explained that the system had been out of contract since 2019.  The risk had been managed and reviewed, however, there was no timescale for the National ANPR Service (NAS) project and a back-office system was now required.  It was then recommended that a three-year support contract with maintenance costs of £24k be approved.  

MP questioned whether back dated contract fees would have to be covered and it was confirmed that following tentative enquiries the fees would not have to be paid.  

ZM approved the recommendation.  

6f. FCR Stabilisation   

RB stated that significant strides forward were being made and undertook to circulate the correct report after the meeting.  

Action: RB to circulate FCR Stabilisation report following the meeting.   

JD provided an update on the current situation and confirmed that he was confident that the actions would be achieved prior to the September deadline.  

DW confirmed that at strategic level, all key services were involved, including NYP, NYFRS, OPFCC, North Yorkshire Ambulance service along with public health and other organisations also. Whilst all such organisations are involved, it has become a challenge strategically to ascertain direction at that level along with being able to pass this service onto a tactical group. DW added that governance of this service required attention – where should this be located in the organisation in terms of the governance process, i.e., being accountable. There is potential for a new layer of governance to be introduced with a Chair to support.   

DW stated that today the approval sought is for: 

• An extension to the Public Safety Officer roles for 24 months (accounting for the impact of devolution) 
• Request to be made of enableNY for project support from the change pipeline 
• Funding for the role of a Project manager for two years 
• Progress discussions regarding Public Safety Officer service once the outcome of the legal situation regarding Linton-on-Ouse is known.

RB explained that the change pipeline is currently extremely busy and that in terms of NYFRS, there is no capacity for discretionary projects, only mandatory/business critical projects to be undertaken. This means it would be difficult to add this project to the change pipeline at this time.  

LW thanked all for input and noted a number of queries:  

• In terms of governance, when this programme of work was initially discussed and agreed, it was agreed as a commissioned services piece of work with later discussions in relation to the potential of moving this across to operational work 
• As a commissioned service, this is not owned by NYP with a as such, reduced buy in to the service 
• The original funding was sourced from the PCSO role with the role having now been absorbed into NYFRS – the individuals are no longer carrying out a PCSO role with the vast majority of the role being none PCSO related 
• It is to be noted these individuals need to be carrying at minimum, 50% of the PCSO role 
• The Public Safety Officers are a visible resource who share the work of a variety of agencies 
• Governance therefore needs to be reviewed accordingly 
• There is evidence of areas of duplication around this service which needs to be reviewed also 
• With the above in mind and noting there is an appetite to progress with these roles, it is key that governance is revisited, what is the return in the investment and who is involved.

TT provided further insight to the background of these posts, noting: 

• The intention was not for the OPFCC to manage this service 
• An oversight role only was to be adopted by the OPFCC with the actual responsibility for the operational management being the responsibility of the services 
• Some of this clarity has been lost overtime 
• At this juncture, this is now seen as a collaboration between the services but this should not be limited to tri-service only 
• Given the current devolution landscape, this needs to be factored into how this service does progress and any potential impact of devolution 
• The original intention was not for this role to carry out the role of the PCSO as there is the question of the powers that PCSOs currently have 
• It is fair to say that Public Safety Officers could do more which will become evident once the next evaluation of the role is undertaken where the benefits of these officers will become more widely understood and clear 
• It is therefore important that such considerations are made and not solely from a finance perspective.

LW agreed the role is intended for the benefit of the community they serve and that it was certainly key efficiency and use of police budget should be included in all considerations given the potential to pay for PCSO role instead.  

DW noted agreement in terms of the clarity that has been lost overtime with the approach now adopted being a much more structure approach to these posts where training/reporting/recording has improved, with significant progress within these roles over the last 4 – 6 months.   

SD summarised the key areas for consideration at this time: 

• There is overall support for these roles 
• The pilot is due to finish soon which could result in the loss of those PCSOs currently in post which is a key driver for a decision from today’s meeting 
• LW raises good points in relation to NYP position 
• With all things considered, there is potential to consider a collaboration agreement to provide the rigour required to move this service forward 
• This is something that can be worked on in the background whilst the Public Safety Officers continue in post which would allow all to focus on the success of the delivery of such a service 
• This discussion can therefore be conducted outwith of Executive Board.

TT further noted that in moving forward with the above considerations, it was important that the discussion included the question of a dedicated resource which was vital to be able to progress this service over the next eighteen months – two years. RB reiterated the challenges in terms of lack of current resource to support which MP responded, noting that from a finance perspective, this resource had already been factored into the relevant budgets and it may be possible to relieve such financial/resource pressures from other budgets.  

ZM confirmed agreement in principle to this approval request noting the above considerations.  

SD reported that the OPFCC had acknowledged the closure of the café and LW undertook to progress the matter on behalf of NYP.  

Action: LW to progress the acknowledgement of the café closure on behalf of NYP.