Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Day, Forbes and JR Fox. Councillor Harrington attended as substitute for Councillor Fox and Councillor Shabbir attended as substitute for Councillor Forbes.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

             Ansar Ali declared that he was a candidate in the forthcoming Police and Crime Commissioner election.

The minutes of the Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 25 July 2012 were approved as an accurate record.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions. If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for Call-in to consider.

The report allowed the Committee to discharge its function as the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 by scrutinising the approach taken by the Community Safety Partnership to reduce reoffending in the city.

On 1 April 2012 statutory changes to Community Safety Partnerships under the Policing and Crime Act 2009 came in to effect and added the Probation Services to the list of responsible authorities and provided a new duty to formulate and implement a strategy to reduce reoffending by adult and young offenders. It also amended section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act to add a duty for certain defined authorities to consider reducing reoffending in the exercise of all their duties. Defined authorities were as follows:

• Peterborough Unitary Authority
• Cambridgeshire Constabulary
• Cambridgeshire Fire Authority
• NHS Peterborough
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority
• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Probation Trust

The following points were highlighted:

• 2011 saw significant success in reducing the numbers of victims of crime within the city. At the end of July 2012 the rolling twelve month average showed a reduction in crime of 13.1% representing over 1300 fewer victims of crime.
• The three year Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan (2011 – 2014) was clear that the Partnership would be committed to tackling the underlying causes of crime and offending but equally clear that those who continue to break the law would be targeted with the full weight of the criminal justice system
• The Partnership would continue to support statutory agencies in delivering their own core function but would co-ordinate and lead on the work where it felt it could provide the biggest impact, that of prevention.
• The Police alone could not be responsible for reducing crime and HM Prison and probation services alone could not reduce reoffending rates. A number of issues affected offending and reoffending. Offenders typically had multiple issues within their lifestyle that were drivers for their offending. It had been found that of those adult offenders in prison:

-          33% had at some point been in care

-          90% had at some point been excluded from school

-          54% had an education level of an eleven year old

-          50% were long-term unemployed

-          40% had a hard drug issue of more than £100 per day

-          70% had a closest friendship group with multi-convictions

-          10% had a diagnosed mental illness

• Some of the issues would be long standing and required investment of time and resource to change behaviour arising from them. Changing such behaviour was not only a socially responsible course of action, it was also cost effective.
• A preventative approach would reduce this burden not only on the police, the fire service, the health service, the probation service and other criminal justice agencies but also upon all of our citizens who pay more for insurance, more for products and more in tax as a result of crime.
• True and Sustainable change comes from within and as such the partnership would continue to support the work of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Business Regulation Manager introduced the report to the Committee highlighting the important work carried out by Trading Standards and the Food Safety and Health and Safety Teams and outlining the proposed approach in supporting business to achieve compliance.

The Committee were asked to consider and review the achievements and future plans of the regulatory teams in fulfilling Peterborough City Council’s statutory duties in public protection and public health legislation and to endorse the direction of travel outlined within the report.

The Principal Trading Standards Officer delivered a PowerPoint presentation to the group highlighting the work that the Trading Standards Team had completed in Peterborough so far this year:

• 395 items of fake clothing were seized at a festival
• Goods were seized from a factory and a home where merchandise with fake logos were being printed and sold, this business was making a turnover of £200,000
• Operators of fake Hajj Pilgrims tours were being investigated, Peterborough had recently been involved in an operation in Birmingham where local people had been caught out
• The team had worked with a farmer in Peterborough to improve standards as there had been welfare issues with his cattle
• The Trading Standards Team were working to get counterfeit tobacco off the market.

The Primary Authority Partnerships who were working with Peterborough Trading Standards to audit and agree action plans were as follows:

·         AB AGRI

·         British Sugar

·         Indisit/Hotpoint

·         Potter and Moore

·         Thomas Cook

·         Kiddicare

·         Jam on the Hill

The current delivery of the service was enforcement driven primarily through prosecution and inspections and business support primarily through Primary Authority.

Trading Standards would use an intelligence–led approach to:

• Protect Peterborough consumers and legitimate businesses from unfair trading and the supply of unsafe goods
• Promote and support the activities of legitimate businesses in Peterborough
• Educate Peterborough consumers to make informed buying decisions

Enforcement would be to:

• Take appropriate action to disrupt the activities of rouge traders
• Combat doorstep crime
• Targeted regulatory campaigns
• Inspect high risk premises

Businesses would be supported by:

• Primary Authority
• Introducing a new scheme – Buy with confidence where businesses would be issued with a badge which would be a sign of trust for the general public to recognise that it was safe to buy from that particular trader.
• Links with business organisations
• Advice to local businesses – training would be offered to businesses to help them avoid making illegal sales

Consumers would be informed by:

·         Media statements

·         Targeted education to help combat doorstep crime

·         Promotion of Buy with Confidence

Benefits would include:

• Best use of resources
• Interventions would be appropriate and based upon knowledge
• Reflect the national agenda of balanced regulation

Trading Standards asked members to consider the change of direction for trading standards and endorse their move towards a more targeted and preventative approach.

The Food Safety and Health and Safety Officer delivered a presentation to the committee informing the committee that the primary objective was to protect public health. The most serious issues the team had dealt with were E.coli and legionella and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report informed the Committee that the issue of dog control was a national issue at present and that a number of consultations had taken place nationally to consider amendments to the current legislation to control dogs. With this in mind and to very much complement any changes in the law, officers had been developing a programme to raise awareness with pet owners on how they could do more to ensure they and their animal behave appropriately when in public and at home.

The Committee were asked to support a programme that promoted responsible dog ownership, including hosting and/or facilitating events with partner agencies initially over a pilot twelve month period. Further that the committee supported officers to continue to work with the Police as new powers were introduced that enabled better controls of dangerous dogs in order to maximise the impacts of both organisations.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

•  Members expressed concern with potentially dangerous dogs being left alone in the daytime roaming around in blocks of flats.
• Members supported the Paws in the Park event that had taken place for dog owners to go along and seek advice on dog behaviour and training.
• Members were concerned that some people had certain dogs as a status symbol which were not ideal for the premises they lived and where dogs were often locked in all day barking. The Senior Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer advised the committee that in cases like these the enforcement team should be contacted who would then liaise with the police to try and resolve the issue.
• Members asked if the Enforcement Team worked with social landlords to establish whether properties were sufficient for keeping dogs. The Regulatory Services Strategic Manager advised the committee that they did not presently work with Social Landlords although this was a good point to consider.
• A youth Council Representative queried how dog fouling was dealt with. The Senior Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer advised the Committee that enforcement officers would issue a penalty notice to owners of dogs who were caught fouling and even if they went back to clear it up they would still receive a fine. If witnesses come forward to report incidents of dog fouling the Council could still issue a fixed penalty notice therefore the Council did promote that witnesses could come forward.
• Members suggested that the Council could have an awards scheme for dog owners who were willing to send their dogs to obedience training which they could display in public to show that they were responsible owners.

ACTION AGREED

The Committee agreed for the Enforcement team to come back to a future meeting to give an update on the work that had been undertaken.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Committee recommends that the council be more proactive when dealing with reported cases of noise nuisance due to dogs being left alone all day.

• The Committee recommends that the Council be more proactive in following up reported cases to the police regarding dangerous dogs.

The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Forward Plan, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme. 

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Forward Plan and agreed that there were no items for further consideration.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2012/13 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2012/13.

20 November 2012.

20 November 2012