Agenda and minutes

(1)        In response to a query from the Chairman the Commissioner explained that she had not yet had opportunity to investigate the possibility of compiling some statistics to identify the extent to which alcohol and/or drugs were influencing crime statistics as had been requested previously by the Panel.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2013 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 

(1)    The Commissioner explained that the Chief Executive had moved on and Mr Sean Nolan had been seconded into the position of Acting Chief Executive.  The Commissioner was actively seeking a Chief of Staff and an advertisement placed in The Times newspaper had received a good response.  Shortlisting for the position of Chief of Staff would take place at the beginning of May and one of the Panel’s Independent Members, Mr G Sandher, had been asked to take on an observer role on the appointment panel.  The confirmation hearing for the Chief of Staff was planned for 4^th June and it was hoped that someone would be in post by the summer. 

(2)    The Chairman asked how the roles of the Chief of Staff and the Chief Executive differed.  The Commissioner explained that both had statutory duties but the Chief of Staff would have a greater role in policy advice.

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the Commissioner’s update on the departure of the Chief Executive and the Appointment of the Chief of Staff.

(1)     The Chairman introduced this item and explained that guidance from the Head of Legal Services at KCC was that; it would be inappropriate to discuss the individual Youth Commissioner or the selection process which led to her appointment.  It was, however, appropriate to discuss the principle of a Youth Commissioner appointment.  The Commissioner confirmed that an independent review of the appointment process would be carried out and the results shared with the Panel. 

(2)     The Commissioner explained that it had been her intention to give a face and a voice to the young people in Kent and Medway through the Youth Commissioner role.  She had offered to fund a third of the Youth Commissioner’s salary herself and the remaining 2/3 would be paid by her Office.

(3)     Members raised the following comments

a.      The principle of the Youth Commissioner role was generally welcomed and many members had been saddened by the events of the past few days. 

b.      A number of Members suggested that views could be gained from working with the Kent, Medway and District Youth Councils.

(4)     Members were aware that the police were working in schools to educate young people on the seriousness of crimes and making young people aware that issues in their past could be raised at any point in the future.  There was a view that the age limit of the Youth Commissioner should be raised. 

RESOLVED that Members of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the Commissioner’s report on the Youth Commissioner and request a report back at a future meeting.

(1)        The Commissioner explained that she aimed to be the most accessible commissioner in the country and had already held a number of public events.  ‘Meet the Commissioner’ was being held every two months and the Commissioner also planned to visit schools and to run a school competition to create a picture for the side of the Commissioner’s van.  It was confirmed that anyone was welcome to attend the public meetings with the Commissioner.

(2)        A Member asked what the role of the Independent Advisory Groups would be in the future.  The Commissioner explained that there were now organised by the force and that when a new Chairman of the Strategic Independent Advisory Group was in place she would hold further discussions about the future of the Groups.

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the Commissioner’s report on the ‘Establishment of Local Policing Forums’

(1)          The Commissioner explained that she had put together a manifesto delivery group with the Force who were working through all the commitments previously made.  The Commissioner’s Office were mapping where the mobile police stations would be best placed.  The plan was for each division to have a number of mobile police stations which would visit 3 places per day and their visits would be recorded on a website.  The Chief Constable confirmed that additional Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) were being recruited and that the aim of the mobile police stations was to be seen and to interact with the ‘harder to reach’ groups.  It was hoped that the mobile police stations would be deployed mid July. 

(2)          The Chairman needed to be assured that having closed police stations, to save resources, mobile police stations were the best way of using the resources available.  The Commissioner confirmed that she was satisfied that the resources were being used in the best way.

(3)          Panel Members were generally very supportive of mobile police stations, particularly where in some areas streetlights were being turned out over night.  The Commissioner explained that mobile police stations would be driven by PCSOs but might also contain police officers.  There was an opportunity for the mobile police stations, not only in the rural areas, but in large towns like Dartford and Maidstone. 

(4)          One Member asked whether mobile police stations would be responsive to problems.  The Commissioner explained that initially the mobile stations would be travelling around trying to cover as much of the county as possible.  In time and finance permitting they could be used to respond to problems.  It was hoped that there would be an increased police presence as a result of the mobile units. 

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel broadly welcomed the deployment of mobile police stations and welcomed the Commissioner’s assurance that she would take on the comments made by the Panel and would report back in early 2014 (approximately 6 months after they are deployed).

(1)  The Commissioner introduced this item and explained that Kent and Medway was the only Force area not to have a well-equipped 24 hour Sexual Assault Referral Centre.  Further discussions were taking place at officer level with partners to understand what actions were necessary to ensure there would be a 24hour centre available.  This had also been a matter of concern for the Community Safety Partnership and the need for a 24 hour centre would continue to be supported.

RESOLVED that Members of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the report and offered support to the Commissioner.

(1)         The Commissioner explained that she currently had three advisors on short term contracts.  A new Chief of Staff was being recruited and one of their first tasks would be to restructure the Commissioner’s Office.  There was a need to retain two of the temporary staff advisors.  It was intended that Mr Thompson’s contract would expire in June but Mr Cox and Mr Carroll’s contracts could either be extended for up to 6 months or additional skills could be bought in as and when needed.  The Commissioner welcomed any comments the Panel had.

(2)         Members generally supported the Commissioner’s use of advisors and thought it was important that she had the best team in her office at the end of the recruitment process.  The Chairman explained that staffing within the Commissioner’s office was her own decision but the Panel were keen to ensure that due processes were followed in appointing staff or contractors.

RESOLVED that Members of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the report on the Commissioner’s Advisors. 

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the decisions made by the Commissioner’s since the last Panel meeting.

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel noted the future work programme.

(1)      The notes of the Governance meeting 20 March 2013 would be circulated to Members.