Agenda item

To identify the relevant details of the Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) and sets out how the Public Protection Partnership intends to operate through the delivery of the Business Plan.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which identified the relevant details of the Inter Authority Agreement (IAA)  and set out how the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) intended to operate through the delivery of the Business Plan.

Councillor Marcus Franks noted that one of the Strategic Priorities was ‘protecting and improving health’ and he sought reassurance that this activity was being undertaken in consultation with Public Health. Paul Anstey stated that the operating model highlighted priorities for the service based on a range of issues one of which was health. It was a high level strategic document. When looking at specific issues they could work closely or jointly with Pubic Health if appropriate. He reassured Members that nothing would be done in isolation if it could be done better together. Sean Murphy noted that the service was already responsible for enforcing certain legislation e.g. legislation pertaining to underage sales and smuggled tobacco and they were already committed to undertaking this work for Public Health.

Councillor Nick Allen noted that the original partnership had involved two authoritative and he asked what impact having a third authority in the partnership would have. Paul Anstey explained that Officers had fundamentally reviewed the operating model based on the lessons learnt and would seek to further imbed to best bits of the existing partnership. They had looked at information provided from Bracknell and a single entity was being set up with one set of priorities and one budget. He saw this as a natural progression.

Councillor Iain McCracken noted that the Joint Committee was expected to meet bi-annually and he queried whether this was sufficient. Officers explained that this was  a minimum requirement and it was likely that meetings would take place on a  quarterly basis until the governance arrangements and the partnership had time to settle in. It was also acknowledged that there would be more business to transact during the first year. He therefore requested that the reference on page 19 be amended to say at least bi-annually. (Steve Broughton to Action).

Councillor McCracken noted the Risk Profiles set out in section 8.5 (page 22) of the document and queried what visibility the Joint Committee would have of these. Steve Broughton explained that Officers would produce this information as part f the quarterly performance data.

Councillor McCracken commented that there was no mention of a Communication Strategy in Section 13 Workforce Planning. Officers commented that this was a living document and that this matter could be added to the list and the service would then report annually to the Committee on this issue. (Steve Broughton to Action).

Councillor Emma Webster requested that the Service focus on any issues arising from the exit interviews.

Councillor McCracken requested that the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the South Central Ambulance Service be added to the list of Professional Working Groups set out in Section 14 of the report. (Steve Broughton to Action).

Councillor McCracken welcomed the Communication Strategy and noted that each Partner would be required to provide the Service with access to resources to process media enquiries relevant to the Service. Sean Murphy noted that there was a proposal around a Communications Officer in the Strategy. Councillor Pauline Jorgensen was concerned about inter borough conflict. Sean Murphy explained that this had been discussed by the communication leads from the authorities. It had been agreed that area specific issues would be dealt with by the relevant authority using their methodology. Communications arising from the Partnership would be signed off by the Chairman of the Partnership. Councillor Jorgensen stressed the need for political sign off in the individual authorities.

Councillor McCracken queried whether the Joint Committee would have sight of the existing contracts referred to in Section 16 (External Contracts) of the report. Sean Murphy stated that the list was not confidential and could form part of the performance report.

Discussion then turned to the Enforcement Approach to the Sale of Age Restricted Products set out in Appendix A. In response to queries from Members Officers explained that when it came to test purchasing of age restricted products it was permissible for young people to lie about their age if they had parental consent. This meant that real scenarios could be replicated. When the young person entered the premise they should be asked to provide identification and should not be asked how old they were.

Councillor McCracken queried whether this could constitute entrapment. Sean Murphy stated that this was an area of law that had been well tested. The sellers had a duty to comply with the law and had a choice as to whether or not they wished to sell the product. As long as the young people were well briefed and understood the range of scenarios the protocols employed would stand up in court.

Councillor McCracken requested that schools and illegitimate businesses be added to the list of Target Audiences set out on page 35 of the documentation. (Steve Broughton to Action).

Councillor Webster requested that parish and town councils be added to the list of Channels and Tools on pages 35 and 36. (Steve Broughton to Action).

RESOLVED that: The Business Plan and the policies included within it be approved subjected to the inclusion of the amendments set out above.

Other options considered: None