Agenda and minutes

The Panel is asked to appoint a Chairman for a period of one year

1.     The Panel proposed and seconded Brad Watson as Chairman of the Panel for the forthcoming year. The appointment was agreed by the Panel.

             
      Resolved – that Brad Watson is elected Chairman of the Sussex Police and   Crime Panel for the ensuing year.

The Panel is asked to appoint a Vice-Chairman for a period of one year.

2.       The Panel proposed and seconded Bill Bentley as Vice-Chairman of the Panel for the forthcoming year. The appointment was agreed by the Panel.

          Resolved – that Bill Bentley is elected Vice-Chairman of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel for the ensuing year.

      Members and officers must declare any pecuniary or personal interest in any business on the agenda. They should also make declarations at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. Consideration should be given to leaving the meeting if the nature of the interest warrants it. If in doubt contact Democratic Services, West Sussex County Council before the meeting.  

3.       In accordance with the code of conduct members of the Panel declared the personal interests contained in the table below. Paragraph 16 and 50 also contain declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 24 January 2014.

4.      The Panel noted an inaccuracy in the minutes of the last meeting; Liz Wakefield’s apologies were not recorded.

5.       Resolved – That subject to the correction above the minutes of the meeting of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel held on 24 January 2014 be confirmed as correct record.

Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent matters.

The Panel is required to undertake an annual review of proportionality to

take account of any changes to the political composition of constituent

authorities during the course of the previous year. The  report

provides the latest political composition of local authorities in Sussex and a

calculation of proportionality of the Panel.

The Panel is also required to consider the appointment of those members of

the Panel with a one year term of office including independent co-opted

members, and one additional member from each of the two county councils

in Sussex to address any perceived imbalance in political proportionality.

6.    The Panel considered a report by the Clerk to the Panel which set out the political makeup of the Panel’s constituent authorities. The Panel was asked to: consider the reappointment of the two independent co-oped members; consider whether the two County Councils should be invited to make one additional appointment each to address the political balance of the Panel; and agree the party political affiliation of the two additional members.

7.    Resolved – that the Panel agrees:

1)    To renew the appointment of the two independent co-opted members for a period of one year;

2)    The review of proportionality and the requirement of r a 20-member Panel including two additional local authority members from the County Councils for a period of a year; and

3)    That the two additional County Council appointments should be made as follows: the additional member from West Sussex County Council should be drawn from the UKIP Group and the additional member from East Sussex County Council from the Liberal Democrat Group.

8.    At 10:10 a.m Rosalyn St Pierre took her seat on the Panel as the additional member from East Sussex County Council.

A total of 45 minutes will be allowed for questions from the public to the

Police and Crime Commissioner and the Panel.

Better responses can be provided when we receive advance notice of

questions. Therefore it would be helpful if questions could be submitted by

noon on 26 June to allow substantive answers to be provided. If you intend

asking a question of the Commissioner or the Panel under this section of the

agenda please can you contact Matthew Evans prior to the meeting by calling

0330 22 22538 or email pcp@westsussex.gov.uk.

The questioner will be able to ask his/her question at the meeting, to which

the Commissioner will provide a verbal response. On hearing the response,

the questioner will have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question

(one further question, which must be on the same subject as the original

question). Supplementary questions, due to their nature, need not be

submitted in advance. Members of the Panel may be allowed to pose follow-up

questions, at the discretion of the Chairman. In the event that the

questioner is unable to attend the Chairman can ask the question on their

behalf.

Questions can be posed to the Commissioner or to the Panel.

Questions to the Commissioner:

• Should relate to the role of the Commissioner, (strategic/policy

issues), and not to operational matters or to individual grievances.

• Must not be defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive

• Must not require the disclosure of confidential information

Questions to the Panel:

• Should relate to the role of the Panel (which is to hold the PCC to

account).

• Must not be defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive

• Must not require the disclosure of confidential information

9.       The Chairman introduced the public question time which was an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of the Panel and the Commissioner. Eight questions had been received by the deadline.

10.   Question 1 – The first question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend the meeting and the Chairman posed the question which queried the Commissioner’s expenditure on a cartoon depiction of the Police and Crime Plan and whether this represented value for money. The Commissioner said that it did represent value for money and explained that a detailed response had been provided to the questioner in response to a freedom of information request received in May. The Panel asked that when a question was received that the Commissioner had previously responded to, a copy of that response should be shared with the Panel.

11   Question 2 – The second question received was for the Commissioner and the questioner was in attendance to ask a question which asked what criteria the Commissioner used to grant personal meetings to residents who had written to her. The Commissioner explained that she had no policy regarding appointments but had a comprehensive programme of community engagement to ensure that she was able to talk to residents of Sussex about the Police and Crime Plan and priorities for Sussex. The questioner was advised to contact the Commissioner’s Office if there was any further information to raise relating to earlier correspondence.

12   Question 3 – The third question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked about the enforcement of 20mph speed limits in Sussex. The Commissioner responded to explain that the question related to operation policy o Sussex Police, acknowledged that the issue was significant to a number of residents and that she would facilitate a full response to the questioner from the Police. The issue had been raised a performance and accountability meeting and appropriate traffic calming was expected to be implemented in 20 mph zones to obviate the need for enforcement. The Panel explained that often the response of Sussex Police had been that a 20 mph limit was impossible to enforce and it therefore fell to the County Councils to address such issues. The Commissioner was asked for a clear policy on how speed limits would be monitored and problem areas addressed.

13.   Question 4 – The fourth question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked about the role of Sussex Police during the anti-fracking protests at Balcombe in 2013 and the perfection that it had acted in the interests of the site operator. The Commissioner explained that the Police had to achieve a balance between allowing protest to take place whilst ensuring that the site operator was able to undertake their lawful and licensed activities. The Commissioner referred to the performance and accountability meeting in September 2013, which focussed on the policing of the protests. The Panel queried:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

The Police and Crime Panel is required to review the Commissioner’s annual

report. The Commissioner will outline the  annual report and the

appendix which includes the financial outturn report for the year ended 31

March 2014.

The Panel is asked to review, put questions to the Commissioner and make

recommendations on the annual report if necessary. All recommendations

agreed by the Panel will be published in a report from the Chairman to the

Commissioner.

18.    The Panel considered the Commissioner’s Annual Report which provided details of the work of the Commissioner during 2013/14. The Commissioner introduced the report and highlighted: collaborative work with Surrey Police; the Estates Strategy; the Safer in Sussex Community Fund; the precept increase; the recruitment of additional officers; and the establishment of a Youth Commission.

19.    The Panel raised the following issues with the Commissioner:

·         The Commissioner was asked how she had publicised the Youth Commissioner in local authority areas. The Commissioner reported that the Commission was producing very positive outcomes and that it had been publicised to schools and existing Youth Councils and Youth Cabinets in Sussex.

·         The Panel asked if serving PCSO’s would be given the opportunity to apply for newly created positions produced as a result of the Commissioner’s recruitment drive. It was confirmed that PCSOs could apply for the roles and would need to pass through the selection process.

·         Details were requested of how the Safer in Sussex Community Fund was impacting on crime and disorder and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the Fund. Street Games in Hastings was highlighted as a successful project that had produced a positive reduction in criminal activity in the area. Reassurance was requested that the funding would continue to be provided in future years. Work was on-going with the allocation of funding and a measurement of the impact of funding initiatives would be undertaken. Assurance was sought from applicants that the projects accorded with the priorities contained in the Police and Crime Plan. The Commissioner confirmed that the funding would continue.

·         The Panel queried the collaboration that had been undertaken with Surrey Police. Residents in the North of the County close to the border with Kent often contracted Kent Police in preference to Sussex Police. It was felt that efforts to collaborate with the Kent force should be as proactive as collaboration activities with Surrey Police. The Commissioner confirmed that operation collaboration occurred with all neighbouring forces. The five South East forces coordinated in the policing of borders to address organised crime. The work undertaken with Surrey Police was an operation and organisational collaboration.

·         The Panel asked whether the framework to assess the success of CSPs had been effectively applied during this year. The objective of the framework has been to ensure that partnerships were effective and that worked collaboratively. The framework required CSps to align with the priories in the Police and Crime Plan and coordinate funding pots.

·         The examples of the Estates Strategy outlined in the Annual Plan referred to accommodation in West Sussex. The Commissioner was asked for examples from East Sussex. The co-location of Sussex Police in Hove Town Hall was welcomed and further information was sought on other large accommodation at Sussex House and Johns Street. Examples in East Sussex included in Eastbourne, where the Police Station had been moved into council offices, and in Newhaven, where accommodation had been shared with the East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. At Johns Street there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

The report provides an update on the call handling performance of

Sussex Police’s call centre. This report follows a public question raised at the

Annual Meeting last year and an update at the November quarterly meeting.

The Panel is asked to consider the update report and raise any issues of

concern with the Commissioner.

24.     The Panel considered a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on the call handling rate on the 101 non-emergency phone line, an issue raised at the June 2013 annual meeting. Mr Streater introduced the report and explained that problems with the call-handling rates had arisen as a result of the introduction of the Niche system. The system would realise significant savings for Sussex Police and after the initial problems, improvements to call-handling had been achieved.

25.   Sarah Osborne and Rosalyn St Pierre re-joined the meeting at 11:51 a.m.

26.   The Panel raised those points below in the discussion that followed:

·      It was understood that the Commissioner had challenged the Chief Constable on the call-handling performance of the 101 phone line but there were still problems as experienced by members of the Panel. The Panel felt that problems had been on-going for a year and asked whether the system was fit for purpose. Rapid improvements to the service were required.

·      Concerns were also raised regarding the call out response times to non-emergency calls. Statistics relating to call out times received a high level of public satisfaction but the Commissioner would raise the issue with the Chief Constable.

27.     Sue Rogers left the meeting at 11:56 a.m.

28.    The Panel continued to consider issues relating to call-handling, below:

·    A briefing note had been submitted by the member of the public who had originally raised the issue at the previous annual meeting. It was agreed that this should be circulated to the Panel and that a further report in October should provide an update on progress with the issue. The Commissioner requested that she raise the issue with the Chief Constable. It was suggested that the Panel could undertake a visit of the call centre.

29.     Sue Rogers re-joined the meeting and Chris Oxlade left the meeting at 12:00noon. Liz Wakefield left the meting at 12:05 p.m.

30.    Resolved – the report was noted and it was agreed that the Panel would undertake a visit to the call centre

31.   Liz Wakefield re-joined the meeting at 12:10 p.m. and Joanna Howell and Graham Hill left the meeting.

Report by the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel

The Host Authority is required to submit to the Panel an annual budget

report (attached) detailing income and expenditure of the Panel during the

previous year. As part of this report the Panel is asked to:

• Consider and comment on the annual budget report;

• Consider the proposal that West Sussex County Council (WSCC)

continues as the Host Authority to the Panel;

• Consider proposed changes to the Panel’s constitution;

• Agree the PCP work plan for 2014/15 (Appendix); and

• Note an update on the mileage rate applied to travel expense claims.

32.    The Panel considered the annual report from the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel which provided the annual budget report setting out the costs of the operation of the Panel over the course of the last year. In addition the report asked the Panel to agree the continuation of West Sussex County Council as the Host Authority and minor changes to its constitution. The report also asked the Panel to agree the work plan for 2014/15 and note the change to the mileage rate for expenses which had reduced to 46.9p per mile.

33.    Johanna Howell and Graham Hill re-joined the meeting at 12:14 p.m.

34.   Members of the Panel who did not wish to continue receiving paper copies of the agenda were asked to express their preference to the host authority.

35.    Resolved – that the Panel:

1.    Notes the budget outturn for costs relating to the administration of the Panel in 2013/14;

2.    Agrees that West Sussex continues as the host authority;

3.    Agrees the changes to the Panel’s constitution as outlined in Section 5 of the report;

4.    Agrees the work plan for 2014/15; and

5.    Notes the new mileage rate of 46.9p per mile.

6.     

The Panel is asked to consider the report of any complaints (attached)

received since the previous meeting in January 2014 and the initial handling

of complaints by the Monitoring Officer. The report also provides progress on

those complaints previously reported to the PCP.

Six pieces of correspondence have been received since the last meeting of

the Panel

36.   The Panel received and noted a report from the Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel which provided an update on the complaints received by the Panel since the previous meeting.

The Panel is asked to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and

policing in Sussex with the Commissioner.

37.     The Commissioner was asked about officer vacancies, the perceived reduction in the number of PCSO’s in Horsham and forms of transport available to Horsham officers. It was confirmed that there had been no reduction in the number of PCSOs. Funding had been allocated for the recruitment of officers and no reduction in the number of PCSOs was planned. The Commissioner would ask Sussex Police to comment on the deployment of PCSOs in Horsham and transport available.

38.   The Panel raised the importance of community policing. Local policing knowledge and intelligence was of great importance particularly in terms of cross-border working and collaboration between local forces. Greater resource needed to be concentrated on the border between Sussex and Kent, in collaboration with Kent Police, which was a burglary escape route. The Commissioner would raise the issue with the Chief Constable.

39.  The success of alcohol initiatives in Hastings as a Local Alcohol Action Area (LAAA) was raised by the Panel and reassurance was sought that funding would be on=going for the project. The Commissioner supported the project which was of 20 LAAAs and welcomed the close working relationship between police officers and officers from Hastings BC.

40. Speeding on rural roads was a significant issue for residents in Sussex and West Sussex there had been consideration of a 40 mph limit on all rural roads. The Commissioner emphasised the role of CSPs to help define local priorities which could include rural speeding.

Eileen Lintill will provide a verbal report of her visit to a meeting of the

Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel and highlight any examples of good

practice that could be utilised by the Sussex Panel.

No Background Papers

41.   The Panel received and notes a verbal update from Eileen Lintill on her visit to a meeting of the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel to witness arrangements and ways of working at other PCPs. The Panel was informed of the following issues relating to the meeting of the Thames Valley PCP.

·         At the meeting attended only 7 member of the Thames Valley Panel were present out of a possible 20;

·         The meeting was not webcast, no members of the public were in attendance. It was the intention of the Panel to encourage greater public attendance;

·         The Panel themed meetings which took place twice a year to scrutinise specific topics from the Police and Crime Plan;

·         The Panel also considered the integrity of crime data complied by the Thames Valley Police Force;

·         There was a facility for questions to be submitted by Panel Members in advance of the meeting to be answered by the Commissioner;

·         The work programme considered by the Panel included a Task and Finish Group which would focus on partnership arrangements between the Commissioner and other local agencies;

·         There was a greater amount of data relating to performance measures from priorities contained in the Police and Crime Plan that was considered at the meeting of the Panel;

·         The Panel received presentations from members of local CSPs;

·         The Panel was looking to introduce a facility for public questions;

·         The venue for the meeting rotated around the area; and

·         The Panel has an informal pre-meeting before each formal meeting.

42.    Councillor John Ungar left the meeting at 12:33 p.m.

Following changes to the membership of the Panel new appointments to the

Police and Crime Plan Working Group and the Victim Services Working Group

are required. The current membership of the working groups is provided

below, the Panel is asked to nominate and agree appointments to the

vacancies:

Police and Crime Plan Working Group

§  Chairman of the Panel – tbc

§  Vice Chairman of the Panel – tbc

§  1 Independent Member – Sandra Prail (Graham Hill as substitute)

§  1 representative of West Sussex District and Boroughs – David Simmons

§  1 representative of East Sussex District and Boroughs – tbc

§  1 representative of Brighton and Hove City Council – (cc: Liz Wakefied)

Victim Services Working Group

§  Graham Hill

§  David Simmons

§  Rosalyn St Pierre

§  2 vacancies

No Background Papers

43.   The Panel considered appointments to the vacancies on the Police and Crime Plan working group and the Victims’ Services working group following the changes to the membership of the Panel.

44.   Councillor John Ungar returned to the meeting at 12:39 p.m.

45.   The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were ex-officio members of the Police and Crime Plan working group and there was one remaining vacancy for a member from an East Sussex District of Borough Council. More information on the functions of the working group was sought by the Panel before a volunteer committed to the group’s membership.

46.   There were two vacancies on the Victims’ Services Working Group and Liz Wakefield volunteered to fill one of the vacancies. A volunteer for the remaining vacancy would be sought after the meeting.

47.   Resolved – That Liz Wakefield is appointed to the Victim Services Working Group.

48.  The Panel agreed an adjournment at 12:45 p.m. Emily Westley, Graham Hill and Chris Oxlade left the meeting at 12:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1:35 p.m.

The report sets out the procedure to be followed at confirmation hearings.

49.    The Panel received and notes the procedure to be followed at confirmation hearings of the Panel.

50.   Members of the Panel declared the following personal interests ahead of the confirmation hearing;

·         Bill Bentley declared a personal interest in the confirmation hearing relating to the Chief Finance Officer. The candidate was known to Mr Bentley when he worked for East Sussex County Council; and

·         Geoffrey Theobald declared a personal interest in the confirmation hearing for the Chief Constable. Mr Theobald had been a member of the Police and Authority when the candidate, Giles York, had been appointed to Sussex Police.

The report by the Clerk to the Panel provides details of the proposed appointments of the Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Chief Finance Officer. The Annexes to the report comprise information from the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding each proposed appointment

(a)  Confirmation Hearings

   
 The report contains information relating to the proposed appointment of the Chief Constable of Sussex Police. The Panel will ask the candidate questions relating to their professional competence and person independence, based on the background information provided, and request details on how the candidate meets the requirements in the role profile.

(b)  Confirmation Hearing for Chief Finance Officer

    
The report contains information relating to the proposed appointment of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s Chief Finance Officer. The Panel will ask the candidate questions relating to their professional competence and personal independence, based on the background information provided, and request details on how the candidate meetings the requirements in the role profile.

Confirmation Hearing for Chief Constable

51.   The Panel considered a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the proposed appointment of the Chief Constable of Sussex Police. The Commissioner introduced the candidate, Giles York, and informed the Panel of the selection process to make the proposed appointment. The candidate answered questions on the following topics

·         Equalities and the involvement of minority groups in community policing;

·         Improving service delivery in uncertain and austere times;

·         Effective control of undercover officers;

·         The use of Tasers and firearms

·         How to involve CSPs, local partners and the public in policing;

·         How to ensure all staff are performing to the required standard;

·         Funding cuts and impacts on policing

·         Working with forces from bordering areas; and

·         Advising the Commissioner against and unwise act

52.     The Panel agreed an adjournment at 2:20 p.m. and Geoffrey Theobald left the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 2:24 p.m. 

Confirmation Hearing for Chief Finance Officer

53.   The Panel considered a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner concerning the proposed appointment of the Chief Finance Officer of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner introduced the candidate, Carl Rushbridge, and explained the selection process to make the proposed appointment. The candidate answered questions on the following topics.

·         Building relationships with key external partners;

·         Treasury management and acceptable investment risks;

·         Areas of limited personal skills and experience;

·         Examples of challenging the accepted wisdom of an organisation;

·         Advising the Commissioner against an unwise act; and

·         Coping with opposition to proposed changes

54.   The Panel thanked John Eagles, the departing Chief Finance Officer for his assistance and wished him well in the future.