To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Public Protection Partnership Use of the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS)

To explain how the PPP will be implementing the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which explained how the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) would be implementing the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS).

Councillor Iain McCracken noted that the scheme could be used to fund additional financial investigators. He queried if any had been employed,  the terms and conditions they were appointed on and in particular if their contracts were time limited or if they were permanent employees. Officers noted that there was currently one full time financial investigator employed. They would only be employed if there was funding available from the scheme to do so.

Councillor Pauline Jorgensen queried if they were employed as contractors. Officers confirmed that, as per the requirements of the National Crime Agency, they had to be employees. Councillor Jorgensen queried if the Partnership would be responsible for any redundancy costs. Seam Murphy explained that the current financial investigator was employed on a shared basis with Reading Borough Council for an initial two year period. There was sufficient funding in place to continue to fund the role.

Paul Anstey stated that this employee formed part of the current structure and that this role should not be treated any differently from other employees that would be transferred into the Partnership.

Members were concerned that if the financial investigator was employed for more than two years on a fixed term contract they would accrue the same rights as a permanent employee. They were therefore of the opinion that any decision to employ a financial investigator for a longer period than the two years should be brought before this Committee. They confirmed that any appointment for less than two years would be deemed to be an operational decision.

Councillor Emma Webster in commenting on the Public Protection Community Fund noted that there would be an annual allocation of the post disbursement POCA reserve totalling no more than 20% of the balance in any one year. She queried what the rational was behind the 20% allocation. Officers confirmed that there was no specific science behind the sum. It was agreed that these decisions should be brought to the Committee. It was also  agreed that the proposals relating to grants would be included on the next agenda and that Members would be given the opportunity to comment on the criteria etc. (Steve Broughton to Action).

Councillor Jorgensen stated that organisations bidding for grants would have to provide financial information and details such as how many people in the area they provided a service for. Councillor Marcus Franks stated that it would be useful to see what grant funding other authorities authorised and what criteria they used to assess applications.  

Councillor McCracken noted that in respect of accounting for ARIS monies the report stated that all money should be treated as a grant held in reserve and an annual return would have to be submitted to the Home Office. He queried if there was a value or time limit set on the reserve. Officers confirmed that there was no limit in terms of the amount however the Home Officer guidance was clear that this should not be used as an opportunity to ‘stock pile’ the money. It should be returned to the community as soon as was reasonably and practicably possible. In terms of time scales there was an informal bracket of three years but this was flexible although any delays would have to be justifiable.

Steve Broughton stated that it was important to set up a framework which identified where the money should be spent accepting that projects might have varying timescales.  Paul Anstey explained that the Home Office return would have to set out how much money was being held in the reserve, what projects it had been allocated to etc. The return would have to show that the expenditure was supporting crime prevention and would benefit the community and was not being used to fund other local authority activities. Sean Murphy noted that funding could also be used to pay compensation to victims and that this approach was actively encouraged.

Councillor McCracken queried who would be responsible for signing off any communications. The Committee agreed that this should be the Chairman (Alison Swaddle). Where appropriate she would consult the elected Members from the other authorities.

Members agreed the principles outlined in the report but requested that the words ‘and will not’ be removed from the second paragraph (page 49) of the Background section of the document. (Steve Broughton to Action) to avoid the appearance of pre-determination.

RESOLVED that: the principles outlined in the ARIS report be agreed and that it be adopted as a policy.

Other options considered: Not implementing policy on use of ARIS

 

Supporting documents: