Executive Board Minutes – 7 June 2022

Lisa Winward (LW)             – Chief Constable, NYP

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

Jonathan Dyson (JD)           – Chief Fire Officer, NYFRS

Ray Ward (RW)                   – 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

Mike Clements (MC)          – Head of Finance, enableNY

Michael Porter (MP)           – Chief Finance Officer, OPFCC

Maeve Chappell (MCh)       – Corporate Communications Lead, enableNY

Rena Brown (RB)                  – Portfolio Programme Manager, enableNY

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

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

Xanthe Tait (XT)                   – Director of Tri-Legal Services, Evolve

Katie Ward (KW)                 – Police Lawyer – Civil Disclosure, Evolve

Dave Winspear (DW)          – T/Area Manager, Director of Capabilities, NYFRS

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

Alex Butterfield (AB)           – Chief Insp, Spec Ops, NYP

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

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

ZM welcomed all to the meeting, attendance was noted, and apologies were received.

The minutes and action log of the previous meeting were noted. Action progress was taken as read. The minutes were approved.

LM provided the meeting with the background to the presentation of this item, noting previous papers and presentation to this Board. LM included details of the current landscape and risks in terms of the increasingly fragile infrastructure in relation to VRI within North Yorkshire, adding that whilst other suites had undergone an update to bring them up to acceptable specifications at this time with both York and Scarborough just about finalised, Northallerton was the final suite to be addressed. LM also noted that moving forward, given the national picture in terms of VRI and Section 28 (s. 28) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) and special measures in relation to Domestic Abuse victims, there may be additional demands and resource requirements. LM explained that all options had been considered regarding the current suite at Northallerton which was housed within the same building as the welfare team. This is not ideal for either function and as such, as a result of the work undertaken, approval to move ahead with the purchase of a new building specifically intended for the VRI suite function, was sought today.

The meeting proceeded to discuss the options that had been explored leading to this recommendation regarding a purchase of a new building. ZM noted that at this time, as the Joint Strategic Asset Management (JSAMP) plan was not complete and therefore with no understanding of the potential in terms of the Northallerton estate, it was difficult to progress with the approval as required today. The meeting explored concerns in relation to the current co-location set up with the welfare team and Northallerton VRI, agreeing that this was not ideal for either function, for colleagues supported by the welfare function nor (crucially) for victims attending the suite.

RB confirmed that the JSAMP plan was in the pipeline for completion middle/end of 2024 but the requirement to progress with the Northallerton VRI suite was urgent and needed to be addressed now.

ZM requested that LM revisit all options again given the JSAMP plan is yet to be completed and at this time, the overall picture is not clear in terms of estates. ZM agreed a further conversation would be held outside of this meeting to provide additional guidance to LM and that this item should be brought back to this meeting June 2022.

Action: OPFCC to discuss Northallerton VRI and provide additional guidance to LM.

Action: LM to bring this item back to Executive Board June 2022.

3b. Force Management Statement 4

LW provided the meeting with an update in relation to the Force Management Statement 4 (FMS4), noting that the focus was on current reported crime and demand along with future demand. LW detailed some of the challenges managing demand versus staffing and capacity, financial pressures and the ability to grow and enhance partnership working in support of policing within North Yorkshire. LW proceeded to detail next steps for this document: publication of summary to be available to partners; full report to be shared with HMICFRS. LW noted for the meeting that this document will now form the foundation of the service plans for NYP and that the delivery of the FMS4 will link in closely with both the Police and Crime plan and the service plan.

SD enquired as to whether or not this was the final version as there was some feedback from the OPFCC which merits further discussion/inclusion should there be an opportunity to do so.

It was confirmed that the FMS in version FMS4 had been submitted at the end of May.

The meeting proceeded to discuss the process of draft and finalisation of the FMS4 document and how the benefits of collegiate working enhance such work where there is opportunity to do so. The meeting agreed moving forward, FMS5 would be presented for review and discussion to the Executive Board in order to maximise the benefits of such a collegiate working approach.

TT noted that he had provided some feedback for inclusion and LW confirmed this had been noted within the Prevention and Early Intervention section of FMS4.

Action: SD to provide details of feedback to LW.

Action: LW to bring Force Management Statement 5 to Executive Board for review and discussion when drafted.

DW provided the background in relation to the need to progress with ISO 17020 Accreditation which is now required by any organisation who are producing evidence which will be entered into the criminal justice system. DW explained that today’s presentation was to gain approval to progress with this accreditation which is required by 2023. DW explained that option 2 as detailed in the paper presented was the preferred option and was being recommended accordingly. Option 2 does include the requirement for approval for 15.5% contribution to the funding for two posts regionally which are required to support this accreditation. West Yorkshire will be contributing 38%. The initial estimate in terms of cost is £300K. The meeting proceeded to discuss these costs in more detail to better understand the work to be undertaken and the level at which staffing will be located in support of completing this work.

ZM thanked DW for the report and confirmed approval to progress with option 2.

ZM welcomed JD into his new role and first Executive Board meeting within his new role as Chief Fire Officer. JD introduced MW as the new Interim Deputy CFO.

·       Local Government Reform and Devolution

SD provided an update to the meeting regarding the current position and confirmed this item had now been added to the agenda as a standing item. The current planning assumption is that North Yorkshire and York will establish a Mayoral Combined Authority in shadow form in 2023/24 with a view to Mayoral elections taking place in 2024. It is also a planning assumption that the Mayoralty will include the powers of Local Policing Body (PCC) and PCCFRA (Fire Authority) and that there will therefore be a DMPFC in future and no PFCC election in 2024. The planning assumptions and timings may be displaced by intervening events or decisions, but ZM and SD are closely involved in dialogue with local and national partners and will keep colleagues informed. OPFCC are beginning the early stages of standing up a transition programme structure. SD and JN will be the principal EMT leads.

5b. Approaches to Assurance and Scrutiny

SD explained that the intention of presenting the paper today was for discussion only with the paper setting out suggested ways of working moving forward. SD provided additional details for the meeting which generated a discussion in terms of how this could work operationally.

SD thanked all for their input and observations at this time.

Action: SD will meet separately with colleagues to develop the approach further and revert to the July EB.

5c. OPFCC Commissioning Update

SD provided a brief update in JN’s absence.

RW confirmed that RB would present this item having completed the presented paper and work to date. RB proceeded to provide an in-depth overview to the meeting of the background to this item and why RB had felt it important to progress with a Business Benefits Review given the risk posed by an apparent inconsistent level of rigour applied to risk management within the Change portfolio as to that applied to the PPMO portfolio.

RB felt that applying the same level of rigour and risk-based approach would facilitate provision of key assurances that were not possible in full at this time, but should this approach be adopted, would be possible in the future.

LW thanked RB for her work and proceeded to make some observations about areas to be included which were yet to be agreed or required further work including: service catalogues; collaboration agreement; finance table. RB agreed there was some additional work to be done and noted key points resulting from T2020 and how savings since had been captured/recorded which would be reviewed to ensure a more accurate reflection of financial position across the services was recorded.

An exchange between SD and RW in respect of some items marked as ‘delivered’ in the schedule to the report, resulted in consensus to the effect that very significant progress had been landed but that the items were inherently matters for continuous progression as part of people and organisational development.

RW explained to the meeting that MC was in the process of drafting a report to be presented at the next Executive Board meeting which would further expand upon this financial data providing a clearer picture of position. MC added this report would note value for money items and evidence value for money items as well as including a financial summary. MC also noted for the meeting that value for money and being able to evidence such value for money was a key factor of reporting to HMICFRS.

7b. enableNY Collaboration Agreement

SD explained to the meeting that whilst it was difficult to separate the discussion in terms of the Business Benefits Review and the Collaboration Agreement, they are separate items and should be treated/discussed as such. SD stated that clarity was required about which items were being discussed at which meetings in order to best manage each item as appropriate. MP added that it was vital to ensure the accuracy of data reported in terms of the collaboration with complexity increasing in such areas as contracts.

The meeting agreed this was an area where accuracy was paramount and that appropriate governance and decision-making mechanisms should be implemented accordingly.

The meeting further agreed it was appropriate these items should be discussed and progressed which was in line with the focus and initial feedback from HMICFRS. The meeting agreed an accurate baseline was required to move forward on this item – MC confirmed this will be included in the report due end of June.

SD noted for the meeting that progress has already been made in terms of amending the collaboration agreement which pulls together a number of workstreams currently underway. The refreshed approach to governance (through the Collaboration Steering Group) and to strategic objectives for the MD (through the CSG but lead by DCC, DCFO in consultation with SD) were included amongst the amendments already drafted. The agreement when re-drafted and ready for signature will be signed by the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Fire Officer – on the latter point, correcting an earlier legally accurate but not necessarily desirable approach to sign-off. It is anticipated the Business Benefits workstream will need to be completed to feed into the Collaboration Agreement work in order to complete this agreement.

Action – in conjunction with the business benefits review workstreams, SD to complete the Collaboration Agreement refresh.

Action – Rachel Antonelli to complete the Enable Protocols refresh to complement the adjustments to the main Agreement.

7c. enableNY 2022/23 Budget Proposal Update

MC confirmed this paper will be presented and discussed at the next Executive Board meeting in June 2022.

XT provided the background to this item being presented at Executive Board noting this was presented for approval. XT detailed the current demand on resource of the legal team and that it had been identified that practices in terms of charging structures and policies differed greatly within both the public and private sectors, highlighting that more public sector organisations were moving towards the implementation of a charging structure for some services provided. XT explained that currently, no charges were applied to local authorities for data and information provided to them, irrespective of time/volume of work involved. Demand for information from the team by local authorities is increasing and timescales can be very tight.

KW provided an overview of the current position in relation to workload/demand/resource/capacity to provide the background/context of the approval sought, including information related to potential revenue generation should a charging structure be approved and implemented which would then be reinvested in the team.

The meeting discussed the proposal in-depth, noting the potential financial impact on local authorities should a charging structure be imposed.

XT confirmed there was some further work required in support of this proposal, in particular ZM felt it important an initial conversation should be had with the local authorities to gain input from them in terms of their views on this proposal.

Action: XT to (1) initiate further dialogue with local authorities; and (2) meet outside EB with the PFCC to provide assurance on the partnership working and victim care consequences of changes to charging; and (3) bring this item back to June Executive Board.

SD took the chair from the end of Item 8 to allow the PFCC to attend to an urgent matter.

The meeting agreed that additional information was required regarding the local authority and their financial contribution to this project.

Time did not allow the meeting to consider the full detail in the presentation, which was adjourned part heard. The meeting agreed to feed back outside EB if CB circulates the paper for that purpose.

Action: CB to (1) clarify Local Authority financial contribution and bring this item back to Executive Board in June; and (2) circulate the slides to EB members for feedback outside the meeting, in time for the item to be concluded in June

As ever, Members are encouraged to submit items for the active development of the EB work programme.

Tuesday 28^th June 2022, 09:30 – 12:30, via Microsoft Teams