(Note: The Police and Crime Commissioner and representatives of his officer team will be in attendance)
Questions for the Police and Crime Commissioner
Minutes:
Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner, David Keane and Mr Stephen Pickup were present for the following part of the meeting.
The Chairman suggested that, for future meetings, if members of the Panel had questions and would like a response on the day of the meeting, that they submit the question in advance to the Democratic Services Officers and copy to the Chairman.
The Chairman welcomed the new Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner, David Keane, to the meeting and Panel members introduced themselves.
The Police and Crime Commissioner thanked the Chairman for his welcome and stated that he hoped to build a strong and effective relationship with the Panel. Since his election, he had visited various locations in the area and had met with a number of partners and stakeholders and had also visited some local policing units. He had met with Police officers and staff, which had provided an opportunity for them to ask questions and for him to get a better understanding of some of the issues in Cheshire.
He referred to the Police and Crime Plan and stated that he intended to take a different approach to previous plans by carrying out a six week consultation before the Plan was produced. The intention was to pull the comments together into a draft Plan, which would then go out to formal consultation in the Autumn to ensure that he had understood concerns and priorities correctly. He considered this approach to be more inclusive and democratic. It was proposed to publish the Plan in the following year and he hoped that the Panel would feed in to the process. He hoped to get as much involvement as possible and would welcome the Panel’s questions.
A summary of the questions asked of the Commissioner and a summary of the responses given are set out below:-
1. The Chairman of the Panel asked what had been the Commissioner’s three greatest concerns since assuming his post.
Response – The Commissioner responded that there was a big change in perception from being a member of the public to being a candidate and then Commissioner. One saw the reality and the different jobs that the Police had to perform. Seeing the challenges and professionalism and the pressures in terms of resources changed one’s perspective. He had been impressed by what he had seen and by the effective partnership with the emergency services in Cheshire and had witnessed the co-ordinated working. He stated that it was difficult to outline three main concerns, but he stated that resources and budgets were difficult to manage and that public expectation was very challenging. One area that he considered could be improved was HMIC reports, for example stop and search, which was one of the areas deemed not to be good and it was clear needed some attention . He had started to look at this area, to see how it could be improved. There were other areas which were deemed not to be good or outstanding and his hope was for Cheshire to be deemed good or outstanding in all areas, in the not too distant future.
2. A member of the Panel referred to the Police performance statistics for 2016 and asked whether the Commissioner would like to highlight anything about them that troubled him.
Response – The Commissioner responded that there were some real successes in the statistics. They did show the total recorded crime as decreasing, compared with the previous year, despite national and regional increases. He was always challenging of the figures and wanted to be assured that the recording was done correctly on a local and national basis. He had some concerns regarding violent and sexual offences, where it had been highlighted that there was an increase. He was concerned in terms of reporting in Cheshire and it might be highlighted from the figures that there had been an increase, but some of this may be due to reporting and recording of historic instances. The figures for violence against a person had increased by 17% in terms of reporting in Cheshire, but he would always compare this with the figure of 26% in the North West and 27% in England and Wales. He would not necessarily see this as a success and any increase was a worry and action needed to be taken.
3. A member of the Panel asked whether the data that the Commissioner had referred to could be published on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website, to enable proper scrutiny of the Commissioner by the Panel, as the data provided for 2016 had been very limited. He also asked that the Commissioner commit to publishing the data in a timely fashion, going forward.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that the data came from the Office of National Statistics. He would find out what was the most recent data and ensure that the best and most recent and audited data was published. The year end December 2015 figures were the most up to date, in that they had been audited.
Another member of the Panel referred to the data provided for the Scrutiny meetings, which was very detailed and was available on the website.
The Chairman stated that there had been an agreement that the Panel would receive this data and he asked officers to pursue this matter.
4. A member of the Panel expressed concern as to whether there was a conflict of interest between the Commissioner’s position and his role as a Warrington Borough Councillor and asked how he proposed to manage this. Another member of the Panel referred to a recent radio interview where the Commissioner had spoken about retaining his role as a Parish and Borough Councillor.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he would declare and had already declared an interest on any issue that may affect Policing. He had always had a very busy public and private life. The role of Police and Crime Commissioner was a full time role, but he would always be happy and proud to represent his community in a separate capacity. He valued the concerns expressed and considered the question to be well meant. He felt that he could balance both roles. However, if a time came when this was not the case he would review the situation at that time. His intention was to serve the relevant community involved.
Another member of the Panel asked to what extent there was a conflict and to what extent Commissioner’s efficiency and discharge of his role was impaired. He asked what the limit to how it was affected would be before the Commissioner would take action.
Response - The Commissioner responded that he had not seen his efficiency and effectiveness challenged in any of his roles, so far. He had been in the role of either Parish or Borough Councillor for 17 years and beyond this had full and part time commitments. Several of his private commitments had ceased since he had taken on the role of Commissioner, which he regarded as a full time job.
The Chairman stated that the issue that would concern most people was whether there was potential for a conflict of interest.
5. A member of the Panel referred to the consultation on the Police and Crime Plan and previous comments on the refreshed Plan, where road policing had been a concern. He asked whether the Commissioner would consider the possibility of including five sets of statistics in future, to include statistics for the four different Boroughs, in order to provide more local statistics.
Response - The Commissioner responded that he had been considering this for some time and that he recognised that Cheshire was a diverse area and he agreed with the provision of more local statistics. However, he was not convinced of the best way of doing this.
The Chairman stated that he was not concerned with Council areas, but referred to the eight policing units and he felt that the statistics needed to recognise that Cheshire was a diverse area. A further comment was made that it reflected well that the consultation was being carried out before the Plan was produced and that this issue could be addressed at that point.
6. A member of the Panel referred to the short handover period from the previous Commissioner and asked whether there had been an adequate handover.
Response - The Commissioner responded that he had not met with the previous Commissioner, but that he had had various briefings and informal discussions with staff and Police officers, which had been very useful. He had also visited several departments and met with stakeholders. He considered that positivity was very important and he intended to operate in a very open and honest way.
7. The Chairman mentioned that, in the past, Panel members had been encouraged to observe operations and asked whether this would continue and whether the Commissioner would encourage it.
Response - The Commissioner responded that he was determined to see transparency and that he would always encourage this where it was relevant, but that it must fit in with the realm of what the Panel was appointed to do.
8. A member of the Panel referred to the Commissioner’s forward thinking and core vision and asked whether he had a view regarding any future synergies, for example with the Fire and rescue Service.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that his early briefings left him impressed with the collaboration currently taking place and that he could see public benefit from this. He was not yet at the stage where he was convinced of anything beyond firm collaboration, but his eyes and ears were always open. He had attended an event where the Home Secretary had spoken on these issues and she seemed very committed to it. In coming to any decision regarding collaboration he would consult with residents, stakeholders and partners.
9. A member of the Panel asked what the Commissioner’s views were in respect of the informal Panel meetings. One of the statutory roles was confirmation hearings and he asked whether any confirmation hearings were planned and, if so, what was the timescale.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he had no pre-determined views on informal meetings, but would see them as a partnership with the Panel. With regard to confirmation hearings, there was nothing in his calendar that would require one in the near future. He felt that he could be described as “a listening Commissioner” and his approach would be that if any matters required a confirmation hearing he would notify the Panel well in advance.
The Chairman of the Panel asked whether the Commissioner proposed to appoint a Deputy Commissioner.
Response - The Commissioner acknowledged that this would require a confirmation hearing, but to do so was not currently on his radar. He had wanted to stay away from appointing straight away due to the affect on the public purse. He wanted to see the lay of the land first and he felt it would be premature to make a decision now. It was something that was being considered, but he would be happy to take advice and scrutiny, before any such process began. If he did come to a view that he needed a deputy, he had no preconception on this and wanted to assure the Panel that he would appoint through an open and transparent process and advertise the position. He did not see this as a personal or political appointment, but that the best person for the role should be appointed.
The Chairman stated that if the Commissioner was to become indisposed for any reason, it would fall to the Panel to appoint a replacement from his staff.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he had every confidence in the Panel to make the appointment.
10. A member of the Panel referred to the good relationship that Halton Borough Council had previously had with the Police when dealing with illegal incursions and moving travellers on to transit sites. He referred to a recent incursion at the site of Runcorn Town Hall and sought reassurance that the Police and not changed their position and would continue to use their powers, when required and that the well established arrangement with the Council would continue.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he recognised the spirit of what was proposed. He asked the Panel to note his inability to get involved in operational issues and hoped that this was the understanding.
The Commissioner was requested to report back that he was fully confident with the policy that the Constabulary was currently using in dealing with travellers. It was agreed that a written response would be provided in respect of this issue.
11. The Chairman of the Panel referred to the Police Constabulary reorganisation, which had taken place several months ago and stated that the Panel had been promised a review in 3 and 6 month’s time. This had not happened and the Panel would like to see what the output was. Reference was also made to the PCSO contract, which had been delayed for 12 months. The Panel had been advised that the Chief Constable was looking at this and related issues in June/July and the previous Commissioner had said that he could not get involved. He asked whether this was still going to happen and when the Panel would know the outcome. He asked for a response at the latest by the next formal meeting, but preferably before this (i.e at the next informal meeting).
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he had asked for reviews himself, but he felt that 12 monthly would be better. He was not aware of a 6 monthly review, but he undertook to look into this and to provide what information he could.
12. A member of the Panel asked whether the Commissioner had any intention of appointing a Youth Ambassador.
Response - The Commissioner responded to say that he did not intend to do so, but that he intended to look at a more effective way of engaging with youth, rather than appointing an individual to provide views.
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his attendance at the meeting and said that he looked forward to a productive relationship with him, going forward.