Agenda item

Resolved: to note the plan and to receive additional information, as requested.

Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• The statutory crime and disorder partnership for Lewisham was the Safer Lewisham Partnership (SLP).
• The Partnership focused a great deal of effort on prevention work.
• One example of this was the ‘responsible retailers’ scheme. The scheme encouraged retailers to restrict the availability of knives. Retailers were also encouraged to restrict the sale of high strength alcohol in problem areas.
• Crime figures were highly changeable. Figures altered from day to day and week to week, the Police verification process also had an impact on the final figures.
• The introduction of Policing and Crime Commissioners had brought about a change in the way in which policing priorities were set and monitored.
• The Mayor of London (currently Boris Johnson) was the police and crime commissioner for the city.
• In his Police and Crime plan, the Mayor of London had set targets for the reduction of seven priority neighbourhood crimes.
• Performance in Lewisham would be measured against these targets – but this didn’t restrict the Safer Lewisham Partnership from setting local priorities.
• The SLP priorities were: dealing with volume crime; violence against women and girls; serious youth violence and antisocial behaviour.
• Anti-social behaviour was regularly highlighted as an area of concern for residents.
• A six month update on the Plan would be presented at the next meeting.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• There was no clear link between levels of recorded crime and the fear of crime; on occasion confidence data and reported levels of crime appeared divergent.
• It was clear that there was distrust in the community about the figures.
• Often wider publicity and communications issues – had an impact on confidence and issues of fear. These were not necessarily to do with local issues.
• There were 62 questions in the public attitudes survey. It was carried out by phone and whilst it was statistically relevant, it was recognised that a number of the questions were open to subjective interpretation.
• Training had taken place to ensure that the officers were alert to the fact that child sexual exploitation was not restricted to women and girls; but that it could also affect men and boys.
• There were initiatives in the borough that worked with the perpetrators of domestic violence. One such project was, ‘Tryangle’, which worked with perpetrators when they first came to the attention of the police.
• The recently completed Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Plan would be shared with the Committee. Information about female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage was being distributed to schools. The Council and its partners had developed a single point of contact for FGM and forced marriage, but information about incidences of both issues in the borough remained limited.
• Information about violence against women and girls was collected from the police and from accident and emergency departments.
• Further information would be shared with the Committee about crime ‘hot spots’ in the borough.
• There were no hotspots for domestic violence, incidences occurred across the borough.
• Further information would be provided to the Committee about ways in which Members could engage with businesses in their wards to support the responsible retailers scheme.
• The Council was working with the Police in Lewisham to ensure that resources and information could be shared, For example, the Police were using local assemblies newsletters in some parts of the borough to share information about local policing issues.
• The Police were being encouraged to use social media – this was more effective in some instances than others – it was important to strike a balance between providing information and making people afraid.
• At one point, Lewisham had the lowest levels of confidence in the police in London. Confidence in Lewisham’s police force had improved, but it was still low.
• Confidence in the police was a wider issue for the criminal justice system. Confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts System were also vital to ensuring that people felt able to come forward with information after an incidence of serious violence.
• The Council had a statutory responsibility to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Council’s community safety teams were responsible for delivering initiatives in partnership with the police.
• Police contact points were not being well used; a review was being carried out by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).
• Further information about contact points would be shared with the Committee.

Resolved: to note the plan.