Hampshire County Council
Councillors:
78
Wards:
76
Committees:
49
Meetings (2025):
165
Meetings (2024):
156
Meeting
Hampshire Police and Crime Panel (Statutory Joint Committee) - Hampshire
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 25th April 2022
10:00 AM
Monday, 25th April 2022
10:00 AM
End:
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 PM
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 AM
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 AM
Finished:
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 AM
Monday, 25th April 2022
12:00 AM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed; Confirmation Hearing for appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
Confirmed; Confirmation Hearing for appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
Date:
25 Apr 2022
25 Apr 2022
Location:
Mitchell Room - HCC
Mitchell Room - HCC
Meeting Attendees
Co-opted Member
Councillor Matthew Renyard
Additional Local Authority Member
Present, as expected
Chairman
Councillor Simon Bound
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Present, as expected
Vice-Chairman
David Stewart
Independent Co-opted Member
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Dave Ashmore
Portsmouth City Council
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Stuart Bailey
Hart District Council
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Narinder Bains
Havant Borough Council
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Geoffrey Blunden
New Forest District Council
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Trevor Cartwright MBE
Fareham Borough Council
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Philip Lashbrook
Test Valley Borough Council
Absent
Committee Member
Councillor David McKinney
East Hampshire District Council
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Ken Muschamp
Rushmoor Borough Council
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Margot Power
Winchester City Council
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Ian Stephens
Isle of Wight Council
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Sarah Vaughan
Southampton City Council
Present, as expected
Co-opted Member
Councillor Lee Jeffers
Additional Local Authority Co-opted Member
Absent
Co-opted Member
Councillor Tony Jones
Additional Local Authority Member
Apologies
Co-opted Member
Shirley Young
Independent Co-opted Member
Present, as expected
Deputy
Councillor Joanne Bull
Fareham Borough Council
Not required
Deputy
Councillor Tina Campbell
Eastleigh Borough Council
Not required
Deputy
Councillor Angela Clear
Winchester City Council
Not required
Deputy
Councillor Matthew Magee
Southampton City Council
Not required
Deputy
Councillor Kirsty Mellor
Portsmouth City Council
Not required
Deputy
Councillor Alex Rennie
Havant Borough Council
Not required
Committee Member
Councillor John Beavis MBE
Gosport Borough Council
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for Absence
Minutes
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
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
2
Declarations of Interest
To enable Members to declare 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 personal interests in any such matter that Members may wish to consider disclosing.
Minutes
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 declarations were made.
3
Minutes of the Previous Meeting
To confirm the minutes from the previous meeting.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of the Previous Meeting 13 Apr 2022
Minutes
The minutes from the 8 April 2022 meeting were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
4
Questions and Deputations
To receive any questions or deputations in line with Rule 31 and 31A of the Panel’s Rules of Procedure.
Minutes
No questions or deputations were received by the Panel on this occasion.
5
Police and Crime Panel - Governance update
To receive a report from the Monitoring Officer to the Panel, proposing that the Panel formalises the delegation of its functions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Attachments:
- Document 2022-04-25 Police and Crime Panel Governance Update 13 Apr 2022
Minutes
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.
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.
6
Confirmation Hearing for the appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
Following notification from the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner of her intention to appoint the preferred candidate, Mr Terry Norton, to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, for the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel to hold a Confirmation Hearing in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Attachments:
- Document Proposed appointment of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner 13 Apr 2022
- Document Appendix A 13 Apr 2022
- Document Appendix B 13 Apr 2022
- Document Appendix C 13 Apr 2022
- Document Police and Crime Panel Confirmation Hearing Deputy PCC Explanatory Report 13 Apr 2022
- Document Letter to PCC - Confirmation Hearing Outcome 13 Apr 2022
- Document Police and Crime Panel Confirmation Hearing Deputy PCC report 13 Apr 2022
Minutes
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.
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.
7
Exclusion of the press and public
To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during the following item of business, as it is 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 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 be a public interest in disclosing this information, namely openness in the deliberations of the Panel in determining its recommendation regarding the proposed appointment, it is felt that, on balance, this is outweighed by other factors in favour of maintaining the exemption, namely enabling a full discussion regarding the merits of the proposed appointment.
While there may be a public interest in disclosing this information, namely openness in the deliberations of the Panel in determining its recommendation regarding the proposed appointment, it is felt that, on balance, this is outweighed by other factors in favour of maintaining the exemption, namely enabling a full discussion regarding the merits of the proposed appointment.
Minutes
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.
8
Closed session to discuss the proposed appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
Following notification from the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner of her intention to appoint to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, for the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel to hold a closed session to agree its recommendations
Minutes
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.
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.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in