Hampshire County Council Hampshire Police and Crime Panel (Statutory Joint Committee) Meeting

Apologies were received from:

·         Councillor Stuart Bailey, Hart District Council

·         Councillor Tonia Craig, Eastleigh Borough Council

·         Councillor Andrew Joy, Hampshire County Council

·         Councillor Phillip Lashbrook, Test Valley Borough Council

·         Councillor Matthew Magee, Southampton City Council

·         Councillor Ken Muschamp, Rushmoor District Council

Members were able to disclose to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest they may have in any matter on the agenda for the meeting, where that interest is not already entered in their appointing authority’s register of interests, and any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in any such matter that Members may wish to disclose.

No declarations were made.

No questions or deputations were received by the Panel on this occasion.

Following notification from the Commissioner, to the Panel of her intention to appoint a preferred candidate, Mr Luke Stubbs, to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC), the Panel held a Confirmation Hearing in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

Members received a report setting out the powers of the Panel and the process to be followed in the Confirmation Hearing, as per the agreed ‘Confirmation Hearing protocol’. The Panel noted the information provided by the Commissioner relating to the appointment of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, which included:

·         The name of the preferred candidate and CV;

·         A statement/report from the PCC stating why the preferred candidate met the criteria of role;

·         The terms and conditions of appointment;

The Commissioner expressed her pleasure in presenting the preferred candidate, and welcomed the input of and feedback from the Panel through the confirmation hearing process.

The Commissioner explained that it was essential, in her role, to be visible to residents and partner organisations. In order to achieve that visibility the Commissioner was proposing the appointment of a DPCC, who would complement her skillset and be inward focussed, supporting delivery of the Police and Crime Plan. Further, Members heard that due to the number of commitments on the Commissioner’s time senior officers, including the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive, had substituted for the PCC at various meetings and the Commissioner was keen to release their time to focus upon service delivery.

Members heard that the Commissioner and the candidate had worked together successfully in the past and that the Commissioner felt the candidate would offer her both challenge and support and would be able to effectively represent the Commissioner and her views. The Commissioner explained that the proposed candidate had a good understanding of risk management, public sector finance and budgeting processes and the separate and interrelated role of key statutory partners.

Discussion was held between the Panel and the Commissioner regarding the decision to appoint a DPCC, through which the Panel heard that:

·         Had the Commissioner taken the approach of selecting a candidate based on geographical representation then some parts of the policing area would have lost the opportunity to meet with her directly, with a DPCC representing those areas in her place. To compliment the Commissioner’s strength in engaging with the public and partners she sought, instead, to identify a candidate who could demonstrate strength in delivering inward facing priorities, through an analytical approach.

·         The costs of the OPCC would not be increased through this appointment and the salary for the role was set by the Home Office at 75% of the salary of the PCC.

The candidate introduced himself, providing an overview of his past experience relevant to the role. The Panel then asked questions of the candidate which related to his professional competence and personal independence, the answers to which enabled Members to evaluate Mr Stubbs’ suitability for the role. At the end of questioning, the Chairman thanked the candidate and provided an opportunity to clarify any responses given.

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the following item of business, as it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, being information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information) and, further, that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. While there may have been a public interest in disclosing this information, namely openness in the deliberations of the Panel in determining its recommendation regarding the proposed appointment, it was felt that, on balance, this was outweighed by other factors in favour of maintaining the exemption, namely enabling a full discussion regarding the merits of the proposed appointment.

The Panel held exempt discussions which examined the evidence provided in the Confirmation Hearing session. The final reports of the Panel are appended to these minutes.

The Panel agreed that:

·         The Commissioner required a Deputy, not only to support delivery of her role, but also to release senior staff officers at the OPCC to focus on their proper areas of responsibility.

·         The candidate had a clear understanding of the Commissioner’s vision of the Deputy role and provided thoughtful, genuine responses to questions posed.

·         The PCC and the candidate had developed a strong working relationship over a number of years in previous roles and the confirmation hearing process had demonstrated how their skillsets would complement each other in the role of PCC and DPCC.

·         The strength of the candidate’s experience in project delivery, finance and his analytical approach would support the PCC in the delivery of the Police and Crime Plan.

·         The candidate was keen to learn and absorb the information required to be effective in the DPCC role.

The Panel also noted some reservations about the candidate proposed, for which it was agreed reassurance would be sought from the Commissioner:

·         The candidate stated that he would remain in his position as a local authority councillor for a period of 9-10 months, but would not stand for re-election 2022. Concerns were raised about the candidate’s ability to fully commit to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner during this period.

·         As both the Commissioner and candidate had similar political and geographic backgrounds, the Panel would require evidence, going forward, that the PCC and DPCC understood the needs of and could be representative of all communities across the policing area.

On the basis of the information provided by the Commissioner, and the discussions held in the Confirmation Hearing, the Panel agreed unanimously  the proposed recommendation in relation to the appointment of the preferred candidate to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner

RESOLVED:

That the proposed candidate, Mr Luke Stubbs, is recommended to be appointed to the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.