Minutes:
Question 1:
I understand that the Commissioner has previously advised the Panel that the Chief Constable had arranged county-wide increases in Town Centre Beat Officer deployment, making use of the increased resources made available via the Commissioner’s increase to the Police Precept and the updated budget. I welcome the increase but to reassure concerned residents of areas getting fewer additional officers, can the Commissioner explain to the Panel if he has any specific plans or criteria for how he will hold the Chief Constable to account in terms of monitoring how well this initiative contributes to fighting crime and anti-social behaviour as well as providing visible neighbourhood policing (Police and Crime Plan Priorities – 2 and 4)?
(Ashley Clark – Canterbury City Council)
1. The Commissioner explained that he did not set targets for the Chief Constable but that he did hold him to account in a variety of ways to measure the impact of policing schemes and deployment issues. The Commissioner advised that the new Town Beat officers were deployed based on specific policing focused criteria, unrelated to the size of the town. The areas were ranked based on assessments such as violent offences, licensed premises and similar factors. He reassured the Panel that he always kept performance under constant review and that his Performance and Delivery Board would be the main process for such reviews.
2. The Commissioner acknowledged that some areas which were allocated limited or no extra resource may be disappointed but he reassured the Panel that all areas of the County would benefit from the general increase in Police Officer numbers in the Force as well as ongoing developments in new ways of working. He also confirmed that he would be discussing the Town Beat officer deployments with the Chief Constable in the future and that this would involve potentially reviewing the deployment criteria.
Question 2:
The Commissioner has regularly commented on the positive approach Kent Police has taken to maintaining a high establishment of PCSOs, particularly at a time when other Forces are cutting these posts. In view of this commitment to maintaining PCSO numbers and praising the work they do, can the Commissioner advise the Panel whether, as part of holding the Chief Constable to account for fighting crime and ASB and delivering visible neighbourhood policing (Policing priorities 2 and 4), has he considered the potential for encouraging the Chief Constable to increase the number of Policing Powers available to PCSOs (as per Police Reform Act 2002 and Police and Crime Act 2017) to allow them to undertake a broader range of activity?
(Richard Palmer – Swale Borough Council)
3. The Commissioner explained that he had given a commitment to retain PCSOs at current establishment levels, although since being elected the numbers had increased by around 28. He advised that the delegation of Powers to PCSOs was entirely an operational decision for the Chief Constable, but that he had asked him to review them previously, the result of which was the delegation of four additional powers dealing with begging, searching people for alcohol, removing those under the age of 16 to a residence and the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices for certain offences. The Commissioner commented that consideration had been given to increasing PCSO powers in relation to parking but that arrangements that had shifted responsibility for parking to local authorities made it very complex and potentially unnecessary.
4. The Commissioner highlighted that when the New Horizon Model (current Kent Police Model set in place by the current Chief Constable) was due for review, the process would involve the Commissioner asking the Chief Constable to review the appropriate delegation of powers to PCSOs. He noted, however, that he was keen for any review of PCSOs to consider their role more broadly rather than just focusing on their powers.
RESOLVED that the Commissioner’s answers be noted.