Agenda item

12.50pm

To be provided with updates, if required from the Chairman of the Panel and the PCC.

 

To consider the Topical Issues Report. 

 

A Member of the Panel has requested that an update be provided from the Monitoring Officer of the Host Authority to the Panel on the failure of the Panel to hold two Confirmation Hearings for the PCC’s Chief of Staff and Chief Finance Officer.

• Failure of the Panel to hold two Confirmation Hearings for the PCC’s Chief of Staff and Chief Finance Officer

 

The Chair of the Panel read out the following statement from the Monitoring Officer to the Panel:-

 

“By way of reminder in Minutes of the Meeting of 27 January 2023, under the matter of Confirmation Hearings - A Member of the Panel raised the issue of the failure of the Panel to hold Confirmation Hearings for the PCC appointed Chief of Staff and Chief Finance Officer and the advice he had received from the Home Office. The PCC replied that he had given the PCP the required three weeks’ notice for each appointment as required under legislation, however, due to the failure of the PCP to appoint a Chair at its annual meeting, the PCP was unable to confirm the appointments.

 

A Confirmation Hearing for the Chief of Staff was set up immediately after last June’s adjourned Annual meeting on 24^th June 2022. The Panel was asked to appoint a Chair just for this meeting, but the minutes record that the Panel declined this at the adjourned annual meeting.

 

An email from Anita Bradley, Monitoring Officer on 8 July 2022 to reconvene the Panel meeting dated 29 July 2022, stressed the importance of reconvening the annual meeting, to enable a Chair to be appointed as the Panel had statutory responsibilities (Confirmation Hearings, Annual Reports). 

 

The legal position of both the PCC and the Panel’s responsibilities is set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Paragraph 10, Schedule 1 of the Act, says that once a PCC has notified the relevant PCP of the proposed senior appointment, the Panel must hold a confirmation hearing in public with the proposed candidate, and subsequently produce and publish a report and recommendation for the PCC on whether the Panel supports the proposed senior appointment. The Panel must comply with these scrutiny procedures within 3 weeks of receiving notification from the PCC of the proposed appointment.

 

Paragraph 12 of the legislation sets out the responsibilities of the PCC once the Panel have responded, so that the PCC does have the option to make appointments if the PCP do not agree with the proposed appointments. And the PCC is also required to notify the Panel if they disagree or agree with the PCP’s recommendations.

 

The three-week statutory timeline for responding to the PCC expired on the day of the 24 June meeting. 

 

As the PCC has appointed a Chief of Staff and the Chief Finance Officer to ensure PCC business could be conducted, then I am advised by the Monitoring Officer that there are no further options available to the Panel or further legal responsibilities of the Panel.

 

There are lessons that can be learned from by both the Panel and the PCC regarding appointments and confirmation hearings and a working relationship between ourselves on these matters.

 

So based on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, and this learning, my recommendation is that a line is now drawn under this matter. In the meantime, I will be recommending to the Home Office that the legislation does need to be reviewed and amended and we are happy to act as a consultee.”

 

• Casey Report into the Metropolitan Police

 

The PCC was asked how would Thames Valley respond to the Casey Report into the Metropolitan Police (The Met).

 

The PCC reported that this was a very disturbing report for the Metropolitan Police. There were things in this report which other PCCs would use to scrutinise their Chief Constables. TVP would be looking at areas of challenge in the report.

 

TVP had a very different culture to the Met and has a number of safeguards in place and proactively worked in response to allegations against officers. There were questions raised regarding the future and size of the Metropolitan Police and the possible influences on the neighbouring force areas.

 

The Met had significant national responsibilities and there was an argument that it should be slimmed down to make it more manageable to control. An Option could be stripping some of the Met’s responsibilities, some of which were commercial roles and there were PCC companies that could take over these roles. There were roles that could be taken over by the National Crime Agency who were accountable to the Home Office, whereas Police Forces were accountable to Mayors and PCCs.

 

In relation to TVP, policing at Windsor Castle was managed by the Met Police which was an anomaly in relation to operational policing in Thames Valley.

 

Reference was made to officers who had remained in post when they had been accused of domestic abuse and violence and women and girls. The PCC was asked if he would advocate suspending officers who have had such allegations made against them or would be prefer them to be moved into an area of policing where they would not come into contact with the public, or even with other officers if appropriate.

 

The PCC pointed out that the disciplinary response was the responsibility of the Chief Constable, but his personal opinion was that he would be against moving officers away as the perception was that you were just moving the problem away. If there was a risk, the officer should be suspended. TVP has a good record around suspending officers where allegations of significant concern have been made

 

• Proposal of Reducing Local Policing Areas (LPA) in Thames Valley

 

The PCC was asked about the proposal to reduce LPAs from 11 to 5.

 

Reference was also made to what impact would a reduction of LPAs have on Community Safety Partnership (CSP), in terms of local neighbourhood policing.

 

In response, the PCC reported that the last time this was changed was around 10 years ago, and he believed it was the right time to review this. There was no comparison in size between TVP and the Met so any proposed changes would not greatly impact on residents. Community Safety was a local authority responsibility and that would be maintained as it was a building block.

 

The PCC reminded the Panel that the Force Review was an operational area which the Chief Constable was responsible for and which he would then scrutinise the implementation. There was a Panel work programme item for a future meeting which would provide more information.

 

Local authorities had raised different views during the Force Review consultation, ranging from impact on the Community Safety Partnerships and local policing on the ground.

 

CSPs were recognised as important by TVP. Reference was made to currently all crime figures being aggregated (e.g Bracknell and Wokingham); these should be able to be separated.

 

Neighbouring policing would be planned around CSPs but with a wider command. 

 

• Firearms

 

A Member referred to some of the officers being investigated within the Metropolitan Police that had emanated from firearms backgrounds. The PCC was asked whether TVP had undertaken an analysis of their tactical units and undertaken background checks.

 

The PCC replied that there was a difference between TVP and the Met, as firearms support in TVP and Hampshire was very much around supporting local policing. The Chief Constable commented on the positive culture within TVP and the specialist units.

 

• CCTV Partnership in Thames Valley

 

A Member referred to concerns regarding using CCTV for the general monitoring and surveillance of the public, rather than for its original purpose for public safety and traffic monitoring. The PCC was asked, how were these concerns to be addressed in the CCTV partnership in Thames Valley.

 

The PCC replied that there was no intention of surveillance of the public. CCTV would be used for public safety and the partnership’s objective for example in Oxfordshire, was to join up CCTV, controlled in one control room. The local authority would have the final say on what CCTV they wanted to hand over to TVP.

 

The Panel noted the topical issues report and the information provided by the PCC.