To receive an update from the Safer Communities Service Manager.

The Chairman welcomed Jonathan Challen, Safer Communities Service Manager and Councillor Graham Marsh as Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction.

The Safer Communities Service Manager provided an overview on Community Safety efforts in Lincolnshire.  It was explained that efforts which were historically only undertaken at a district level had become a county-wide approach with the introduction of the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership (SLP) and an additional level was in place as East Lindsey District Council had opted to maintain a local partnership with Boston and South Holland Councils which ensured the delivery of local initiatives.

The Safer Communities Service Manager further provided Members with a detailed background on hate crime initiatives and the changes in county priorities.  It was advised that the South East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership (SELCSP) had continued to keep hate crime as a priority when county priorities had changed. 

Assurance was provided that partnership working with the police was helping to improve consistency across agencies and that an agreement with Lincolnshire police had been secured to share hate crime date on a quarterly basis. 

The Safer Communities Service Manager informed Members that the SELCSP has supported National Hate Crime Awareness Week and was continuing to raise awareness in other ways.  Further assurance was provided that maintaining a local partnership was the right choice for the Council in supporting and maintaining specific focuses and priorities.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction stated his support of the SELCSP and the benefits of maintaining a district level approach.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member queried the statistics and sought clarification on what was being done to stop hate crime.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager advised that each one of the statistics related to individuals and that hate crime was reported either to the Police or to the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officers.  It was important that any information was reported and recorded correctly to ensure that hate crimes were not slipping through the net.

• A Member queried if figures would be reported to Police in East Lindsey if a hate crime incident occurred in another part of the county.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager advised that Lincolnshire had benefited from a county wide approach through the SLP and for anti-social behaviour a combined database was being utilised to track incidents and ensure that agencies were connected and communicating far and wide across the county.

• A Member sought an indication of whether the county wide body had failed to focus on hate crime.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager advised that the SLP had a set capacity to address core priority groups and could not address every area.   Individual agencies were still tasked with addressing individual elements that were not county level priorities.  For example, the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership took up the road safety elements which were not a key priority for the SLP and in most instances work was being undertaken elsewhere by other agencies and partnerships.  

• A Member requested if local partnerships such as the SELCSP were able to report back to the SLP.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager advised that through the police lead, efforts were being made to reintroduce hate crime as a priority and this was to be determined from strategic assessments in 2025.

N.B. Councillor Yarsley left the Meeting at 10.51am.

• A Member queried the reasoning for hate crime not being a priority at a county level.  The Safer Communities Service Manager advised that it was a capacity issue, and that anti-social behaviour was always at the top of the priorities list.  It was assured that Lincolnshire had a small well-connected group working together on the issues.

• A Member queried how much funding and resources were available to fulfil the SELCSP’s role.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager confirmed that no budget was in place and no funding had been available since the establishment of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and that funding had been fed into the SLP which had strengthened the need for collaboration.

N.B. Councillor Yarsley returned to the Meeting at 10.53am.

• The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction commented that his understanding of the prioritisation of anti-social behaviour for the SLP was due to data led assessments and that priorities were also influenced by police and the PCC’s perception.  It was further advised that the SELCSP’s role was to oversee what happened on a day-to-day basis by working in partnership to improve and tackle the issues on multiple levels.

• A Member stated that it was their expectation for the police to address hate crime and not local authorities.  It was further queried if the high figures on race was related to the influx of asylum seekers in Skegness.   The Safer Communities Service Manager confirmed that the figures had been affected by asylum seekers and that difficulties to define the crossover between a civil and a criminal act had led to confusion on the responsibilities of police.  It was explained that similar to the understanding of anti-social behaviour, it was a responsibility to promote and alert people of what hate crime involved.  The SLP had undertaken a lot of work in that area and the Council was best placed to offer intervention or mediation when occurrences were not related to the criminal justice system.

• A Member expressed their dissatisfaction at the lack of responsiveness of police in relation to anti-social behaviour in the local area which had discouraged residents from making reports.

N.B. Councillor Hall left the Meeting at 11.02am. 

• A Member queried what constituted as a hate crime, for example in the treatment of people with disabilities which were not always visible.  In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager advised that the definition of a hate crime depended on what occurred following a confrontation.   The deciding factor was if the pattern of behaviour escalated following a respectful right to challenge and it was always necessary to maintain the right of freedom of speech to a certain extent before actions were regarded as a hate crime.

N.B. Councillor Hall returned to the Meeting at 11.04am. 

N.B. Councillor Edginton left the Meeting at 11.05am.

• A Member requested clarification on the definition of Mate Crime.   In response, the Safer Communities Service Manager explained that mate crime related to an element of befriending and was crime embedded in personal engagements and relationships.  The scene was based on what occurred behind closed doors and it was recognised that the adult safeguarding arena was more equipped to deal with and provide intervention for issues surrounding relationships and domestic abuse.  In conclusion, mate crime was focused on established relationships whereas hate crime was centred around people one was not familiar with.

• A Member queried the work undertaken in relation to scams and fraud and sought clarification on whether all reports went to the police or were diluted through other agencies.  In response, the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction provided reassurance that whether a report went to the Police or to the Council it was always identified and directed to who was the most appropriate person to investigate. 

N.B. Councillor Edginton returned to the Meeting at 11.10am and the Safer Communities Service Manager left the meeting at 11.11am.

No further comments or questions were received. The Chairman thanked the Safer Communities Service Manager for his informative update.