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

Apologies were received from:

• Councillor Stuart Bailey, Hart District Council
• Councillor Geoffrey Blunden, New Forest District Council
• Councillor Trevor Cartwright, Fareham Borough Council
• Councillor Tonia Craig, Eastleigh Borough Council
• Councillor Tony Jones, Additional Local Authority Co-opted Member
• Councillor Andrew Joy, Hampshire County Council
• Councillor Ken Muschamp, Rushmoor Borough Council
• Councillor Ian Stephens, Isle of Wight Council
• Dave Stewart, Independent Co-opted Member

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.

The minutes from the 8 April 2022 meeting were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Monitoring Officer to the Panel introduced the report, explaining that the proposal to formalise the delegation of the Panel’s functions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, had arisen following the receipt of correspondence from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

No questions were raised in relation to the report or its recommendations.

RESOLVED:

• That the Panel confirms that, to the extent that the discharge of any of its functions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) has not already been delegated to the Head of Risk and Information Governance of Hampshire County Council, as Lead Authority, it shall be so delegated.

• That the Panel notes that any decisions taken under the delegated functions will be made by the Head of Risk and Information Governance of Hampshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman of the Panel, or in their absence the Vice-Chairman.

• That the Panel’s annual complaints monitoring report, in future, contain appropriate monitoring information regarding the discharge of functions under the FOIA in relation to the Panel.

Following notification from the Commissioner to the Panel of her intention to appoint a preferred candidate, Mr Terry Norton, 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 Police and Crime Commissioner (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.

Following the recommendations of the Home Office’s Police and Crime Commissioner Review, the Commissioner explained how her role and responsibilities would grow moving forward, and noted the review had laid out a clear expectation that all PCC’s should appoint a DPCC by the next term.

Accordingly, before seeking to appoint a new DPCC the Commissioner had reviewed the role profile, with the support of the Chief Executive, to ensure it was fully inclusive of the scope of responsibilities to be held by the DPCC. Members heard this would include a significant volume of outward looking public work, and therefore the Commissioner had sought a candidate who could communicate effectively with the public, both in person and through social media, and provide feedback to the office and who could portray the Commissioner’s vision and aspirations of the Police and Crime Plan. If successful the candidate would need to make judgement on case work and respond appropriately on behalf of the Commissioner.

Members heard that the Commissioner and the candidate had worked together successfully in the past, had a strong foundation of trust and that the Commissioner felt the candidate demonstrated high moral integrity. Further the Commissioner felt the candidate would add to the vision of the Police and Crime Plan, bringing an additional depth of understanding in supporting children and young people and youth crime prevention, with experience of working in a large urban senior school.

Following a question from the Panel, the Commissioner confirmed that the candidate, if successful, would remain in his role of City Councillor until the end of his term in May 2023. Consideration had been given to how he would meet the commitments of the DPCC role in this time, and Members heard that the main focus of his remaining term as a City Councillor would be dedicated to case work. Members heard that the candidate had expressed his full commitment to the DPCC role, noting that many local councillors worked full time whilst maintaining their responsibilities as a local councillor. The Commissioner further noted that the DPCC, whilst a political appointment, was an employee and subject to the same performance review process as any other member of staff, as well as having access to the same training and support.

The candidate was invited by the Chairman to introduce 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 Norton’s 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 observed:

·         Given the level of demand on the Commissioner’s time and the increase in responsibilities being introduced as part of the Home Office review into the role of Police and Crime Commissioners, Members agreed unanimously that there was a clearly identified need for a DPCC to support the Commissioner in the effective delivery of her role.

·         The Commissioner and the candidate had worked well together over a number of years in previous roles and the candidate displayed drive, enthusiasm and a work ethic which was similar to that of the Commissioner, which would support a positive working relationship. Further, the Commissioner explained that she had selected the candidate on the basis of trust and confidence in his ability to perform well in the role and support her in the effective delivery of her responsibilities.

·         The strength of the candidate’s previous experience in pastoral care in education, youth engagement and youth crime prevention would support the Commissioner in the delivery of the Police and Crime Plan.

·         The candidate was keen to enhance the visibility of the Commissioner and her work, as well as promoting the role of Hampshire Constabulary, and was confident in engaging with residents and partner organisations, with a view to providing two-way communication and the sharing of information.

·         Through shadowing the Commissioner, the candidate had gained an appreciation of the demands of the DPCC role.

·         The candidate was clear that his role, if successful, would be to represent the Commissioner and that any views expressed, or approaches taken would be in accordance with those of the Commissioner and the aspirations of the Police and Crime Plan.

·         The candidate was keen to engage with the Panel and the Panel would welcome his attendance at working group meetings of the Panel, as suggested by the candidate, if appointed.

·         The candidate provided positive and enthusiastic responses to questions posed.

·         Members felt that the candidate had the capability to undertake the role and met the minimum standards of professional competence and personal independence required of an appointed deputy to the Police and Crime Commissioner.

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

·         The answers given by the candidate were not always well structured and did not fully respond to the question posed in a number of incidences.  As a result, Members felt that the candidate did not demonstrate upon all bases, a full understanding of the breadth of responsibilities of the DPCC role. In particular, the candidate focussed his responses upon outward facing responsibilities, and did not demonstrate a significant depth of understanding of the areas the DPCC would be responsible for within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

·         In his responses to Members questions, the candidate didn’t reflect upon the extent to which he would need to learn and absorb the information required to be completely effective in the DPCC role. Members specifically highlighted that understanding of the strategic role and priorities of Hampshire Constabulary, how the Police and Crime Plan interfaces with operational delivery by the Constabulary, and the role of partners in crime prevention should be key areas of focus.

·         Given his lack of previous experience in policing and criminal justice the Panel consider the candidate may find it difficult to be effective in his ability to deputise for the Commissioner at partnership meetings in the first three to six months in post.

·         The candidate’s response to a question regarding his understanding of equality and diversity lacked depth and assurance. The Panel recommends that the candidate undertake focussed training to address this perceived deficiency, such training to cover the Public Sector Equality Duty.

·         In response to Members questions to the Commissioner, it was confirmed that the candidate would remain in his position as a local authority councillor for the next year. Whilst the Panel appreciated the candidate’s consideration of the impact of a by-election should he step down, and his commitment not to stand for election in 2023, the Panel were concerned about his ability to fully commit to the role of DPCC during this period.

·         Whilst the candidate expressed his commitment to be visible across the policing area, both the Commissioner and candidate have similar political and geographic backgrounds and the Panel would require evidence going forward that the DPCC understood the needs of and could be representative of all communities across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

·         If appointed, the candidate and the Commissioner would need to demonstrate to residents and the Panel how the DPCC role was delivering value for money. 

On the basis of the information provided by the Commissioner, and the discussions held during the Confirmation Hearing, a vote was held on the recommendation, as proposed within report of the Chief Executive. The outcome of the vote was 4 For, 4 Against, 1 Abstain. In the absence of a clear majority and in accordance with the Panel’s Rules of Procedure, the Chairman submitted a casting vote. This was in favour of the proposed recommendation.

RESOLVED:

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