This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Questions to the Commissioner

    Minutes:

     

    1.    My question relates to how useful the police in Kent and Medway find CCTV run by local authorities, and the value the police attach to the service in the light of possible alternative approaches to the use of technologies. This is also in the context of your statement that your policy of not funding local authority CCTV ‘will not change’.

     

    In particular how many suspects have been apprehended as a result of live monitoring by local authority CCTV and of these what percentage result in convictions? Can you also provide equivalent figures for passive viewing of CCTV? Has there been an increase in relevant crime figures where live monitoring has been discontinued? Similarly have the figures changed where CCTV monitoring, both live and passive, have been discontinued?

     

    Finally what is your view on the deterrent value of CCTV? (Don Sloan)

     

    2.    The Commissioner confirmed that CCTV provided reassurance to residents and businesses and important evidence to the police. 

     

    3.    It was the Commissioner’s opinion that CCTV did provide a deterrent, but, given the funding pressures on councils, he knew that some had been reviewing and reducing their services, and some were clubbing together to provide a service.  Some councils had applied to police forces for funding and it was extremely rare that any force made a contribution to CCTV.  It was not a statutory requirement for police forces or Commissioners to provide CCTV funding. The Commissioner gives £500k to CSPs every year so he considered that they might wish to use some of this for CCTV. The Commissioner suggested the Member might wish to contact local authorities direct for any statistics.

     

    4.    The Commissioner considered that CCTV was important and that it did benefit residents and businesses but the police were also researching what other methods of evidence capture could be used such as dash cam footage for example. 

     

    5.    The Member asked for clarification on the £500k to CSPs and the Commissioner confirmed that he gave a grant of £500k to CSPs across the county, and that some used part of this to fund CCTV. The Commissioner said he hoped that councils will continue to provide the service but he understood it had to be in context of pressures on councils.

     

    6.    The HMIC recently found that Kent Police was deemed as good in their recent review, which was reported in the local media. But the HMIC did state that Kent has a “significant problem” with how it works with victims of crime, having noticed “worrying overall trends” as more than one in five crime investigations (21.9%) failed to progress due to the victim not supporting police action. This places Kent Police as the second worst force in the country and is significantly higher than the national average (13.8%). They also reported a “considerable fall in victim satisfaction” over the last five years. The HMIC warned that these figures “suggest that the force has a significant problem with how it works and supports victims”.

     

    These results are not good for the victims of crime in Kent.

     

    I would like to know what actions the Commissioner is taking to hold the Chief Constable to account to identify the reasons for why Kent Police are not supporting their victims, how they will ensure improved support and ensure that this support is sustainable. (Elaine Bolton)

     

    7.    The Commissioner confirmed that victims of crime were his top priority, and it was the top priority of Chief Constable to ensure they receive good service.  Victim services and force performance had been raised at every Governance Board and the Force had been challenged to justify performance.  Victims would continue to be raised at the Commissioner’s new accountability meetings and also continue to form part of his challenge at weekly 1-1 meetings with the Chief Constable.  HMIC had recognised that the Force had improved its response to vulnerability but there was always scope for further improvement and work continues with providers of victims’ services to improve.  The Commissioner said the statistic quoted relates to the decision of the victim not to pursue criminal charges, and could not be directly attributed to Force performance. The figure represents those who do not wish to take the matter further, or police attendance itself serves as the intervention the individual wanted. The Force recently undertook an audit and survey of those who did not wish to pursue charges and found satisfaction with officers to be high. The Commissioner explained that from April 2017 the Home Office would no longer collect victim satisfaction data in the same way. He was pleased to note that the Member acknowledged the Force’s good rating in this area, but there were a couple of issues identified for future action.  The Commissioner pointed out that Kent Police was rated as good or outstanding by HMIC in every area of inspection in 2016 – one of only four forces in the country. He said that there was no room for complacency, and he expected improvements to continue with the new model, but HMIC quite rightly change their questions each year and he expected challenges in future years.

     

    8.    The Commissioner confirmed the results of the Force audit and survey would form part of his next accountability meeting and extended an invitation for Panel Members to attend. 

     

    9.    Community Safety Partnership grant letters were distributed last month, and your sustained support for the CSPs is most welcome. However I’m becoming aware of Maidstone’s CSP concerns – and there may be similar concerns from other CSPs - about your additional stipulation that funding must not duplicate areas where your office has a formally commissioned service in place, and vice versa. The concerns appear to be that:

     

    a.    It could potentially impact on the way CSPs operate and their ability to deliver priorities at the local level. Equally it could potentially impact on smaller local voluntary sector organisations in receipt of CSP grants to deliver community safety projects on CSPs’ behalf.

     

    b.    It could limit opportunities for match funding arrangements. In particular it could limit opportunities for providing additional funding for local projects that CSPs have a greater demand for than the PCC funding allows, such as Maidstone’s Urban Blue Bus.

     

    Would you consider that perhaps an even more effective, efficient use of funds and delivery of priorities in the Police & Crime Plan could be better achieved by a more stringent focus on outcomes and/or more concisely assembled SLAs?  (Fay Gooch)

     

    10. The Commissioner explained that the Community Safety Partnerships would receive the same amount of money next financial year as last.  The CSPs were free to spend this as they wished in support of the Police and Crime Plan’s objectives.  However, in the past some had been used to fund services he had commissioned elsewhere, or by someone else, which was inefficient for taxpayers. The stipulation about no duplicate funding had no impact on match funding bids, and he was aware that some CSPs had used his grant to match fund or to contribute to schemes that supported the Plan.   In order to ensure the system was effective for all, including charities, councils and his office, he considered the funding should come via one mechanism rather than several so as not to spend taxpayers’ money twice. 

     

    11.At a recent Parish Council meeting at Minster Parish Council serious concern was expressed at the lack of policing in the village and the regular incidence of feral youths in Tothill Street., The frustration is now very serious, at the same time St Nicholas at Wade also expressed the same lack of Police support in long term dogging and Drug issues in the village, They believe that Police action is vital to resolve this issue. Can the Commissioner comment and explain what he is doing to hold the Chief Constable to account for delivering effective policing in rural areas. (Roger Latchford.)

     

    12. The Commissioner was concerned to hear of the problems residents had been experiencing.  The new Safer in Kent plan makes it clear that crime is important no matter where it takes place. The Crime Rural Advisory Group works alongside the Commissioner’s office as an independent forum to assist the Force in addressing rural issues. The Rural Task Force, rural Special Constables, local PCSOs and Community Wardens are integral parts of the extended police family within rural communities.  The Commissioner expressed his gratitude to Mr Latchford for raising the issues and confirmed that he had asked Kent Police to look into the matters and they would respond directly to Mr Latchford.  The Commissioner said he did visit the areas in October and would visit again if it would be helpful. 

     

    13. Mr Latchford suggested that the Commissioner visited Minster Parish Council to discuss their concerns; the Commissioner confirmed that he would be happy to do this.