Agenda item

To consider and endorse for submission to Government proposed KCC consultation responses to the consultations:

·         "Enabling closer working between the Emergency Services"

·         "Reforming the Powers of Police Staff and Volunteers"

Cabinet received a report setting out the Council’s proposed responses to two recent Government Consultations. 

The first, “Enabling closer working between the Emergency Services”, was issued by the Home Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and Department of Health, and sought views on proposals to increase joint working between emergency services.

The second, “Reforming the Powers of Police Staff and Volunteers”,  was issued by the Home Office and sought views on the ways in which powers and roles were designated to police staff and volunteers by Chief Police Officers.

Mr Hill, Cabinet Member for Community Services introduced the item for Cabinet and explained the background to, and purpose of the consultations.  He spoke to the Emergency Services consultation in most detail.  He confirmed that Kent County Council was happy to support closer partnership working between the organisations to which the consultation referred but that this would be better achieved, as it had been already in Kent, by voluntary collaborations and not a statutory duty.  Furthermore, KCC expressed in its proposed response, concerns regarding the proposed strengthening powers and increased involvement for the Police and Crime Commissioner which were not thought to be necessary or appropriate by KCC.  

Mr Nick Chard, KCC elected member for Sevenoaks East spoke to the item and in particular, made the following points:

       i.        That he supported comments made by the Cabinet Member as to the level and success of collaborative working in Kent to date and confirmed that the current governance arrangements had not hampered those collaborative efforts in any way.

      ii.        That he believed that an enforced single employer model would be fraught with technical and other difficulties that would serve to stifle collaboration and damage mutual trust. 

    iii.        He identified within the proposed response a solution that would allow the Government to achieve the underlying aims of the proposals without the need for the introduction of a single employer model.  The creation of a Joint Governance Board would increase those involved in current collaborative efforts but would retain the current employer model.    

    iv.        That he hoped that any future arrangements would take into account the response of KCC and others like it in order to build on the current good collaborative work undertaken in Kent.

In response to a question from the Leader, Mr Chard confirmed that further, and broader, collaboration was desirable and possible under current governance arrangements.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform, referred to the response to Question 1 of the consultation.  He expressed concern that too heavy a focus on the new duty, particularly if it were to be rigidly applied, would fail to recognise all of the work of the modern Ambulance Service in Kent, for example the preventative services carried out by paramedics.  He asked that in order that concerns were fully expressed the last sentence of this answer be strengthened to more fully reflect the desire that any new duty not negatively impact current partnership arrangements.

Mr Gary Cooke, Cabinet Member for Corporate and Democratic Services asked members to consider whether those questions to which the proposed response replied ‘no comment’ should in fact be commented upon in order to support the other views contained in the proposed response.  Following some discussion it was agreed that question 3 be responded to more fully in order to express concerns regarding a single employer model.

Mr Hill, Cabinet Member for Community Services, introduced the second consultation for Cabinet, “Reforming the Powers of Police Staff and Volunteers”.  He described the proposals being consulted upon and confirmed that KCC welcomed the suggestion that the Chief Constable would be able to confer powers more flexibly to meet the needs of the local community more fully.   He reported that of most significance for KCC would be the potential impact of reforms on the Community Warden Scheme and welcomed the potential for consideration of appropriate powers by the Chief constable in relation to those roles.

No further comments or questions were received.

It was RESOLVED that: