Agenda item

Question 1:

In his role in holding the Chief Constable to account, could the PCC detail how Kent Police are tackling the issue of e-scooters that are proving to be a real problem in local towns and communities including how Kent Police are educating users on the responsibilities of both individuals and other public sector including on the law on e-scooters including the ability and powers of enforcement and resourcing of this enforcement?

(Cllr Shane Mochrie-Cox, Gravesham Borough Council)

The Commissioner outlined the Police’s powers to issue fines, points and make seizures in severe instances. He confirmed that the issue had been raised with the Chief Constable. On the matter of legality, the Commissioner verified that use of e-scooters on public roads and paths in Kent remained illegal, unless as part of the 12-month Canterbury public e-scooter pilot. It was recognised that further government policy development and public education was required to improve safety.

Question 2:

Urban areas within this County are plagued with graffiti. This is criminal damage. Local authorities, businesses and public bodies are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds annually in clearing and attempting to combat this scourge. Stop and search figures for Kent Police for the first quarter this year indicate that some 3,813 stop and searches were carried out yet the proportion of those searches for items used in connection with criminal damage was just 0.1% representing just three searches of that total figure. Facts speak for themselves. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the few that are caught and arrested are not investigated thoroughly with few s18 PACE house searches for evidence of linked offences. They are rarely prosecuted. Will the Commissioner bring the seriousness of this matter to the attention of the Chief Constable in order to ensure that this blight on our County receives the attention that it merits and will he additionally seek to influence those within the criminal justice system to act accordingly in both decisions to prosecute and provide effective deterrents?

(Cllr Ashley Clark, Canterbury City Council)

Assurance was given by the Commissioner that the specific issue raised by the Panel Member had been passed to Kent Police. He further confirmed that the majority of stop and searches were based off of intelligence and related to drugs, theft or weapons.

Question 3:

To ask the PCC what discussions he has held with the Chief Constable as to the operational resources deployed by Kent Police to tackle speed enforcement within the Borough of Tonbridge and Malling, and if he is satisfied that sufficient focus is being given to ongoing concerns raised by local communities about the environmental dangers posed by speeding motorists?

(Cllr Mark Rhodes, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council)

The Commissioner recognised the issue of speed enforcement. He confirmed that he had met with the Tonbridge and Malling Community Safety Unit and that speed enforcement checks had been conducted in the borough. Reassurance was given that road safety remained a key priority. It was noted that an increase in the level of enforcement should not be expected with 20mph zones. The Commissioner committed to meet with the KCC Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to discuss the issue further.

Question 4:

Can the PCC explain what powers PCSOs have in Kent and how is the PCC holding the Chief Constable to account in relation to extra powers the PCSOs can be provided with? Many of the complaints residents have the first person on scene is a PCSO who has very limited powers however under certain Acts a Chief Constable can provide additional training and invest additional powers onto PCSOs, this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent and can the PCC explain how he is holding the Chief Constable to account on this and why people in Kent have PCSOs which do not have the full powers available to them?

(Cllr Richard Palmer, Swale Borough Council)

The Commissioner provided the Panel with a list of PCSO powers and distinguished national and local powers. He noted that whilst some powers were at the discretion of the Chief Constable, the majority of permitted powers had been given to PCSOs in Kent. It was stressed that the power to detain and search was not possessed by PCSOs.

Question 5:

Could the PCC’s office consider releasing some of the tactical pot funds that are part of the Crime Reduction grant for early release if an urgent project arises?

(Cllr Jenny Hollingsbee, Folkestone and Hythe District Council)

The Commissioner agreed to consider the Panel Member’s request. He reminded members of the tactical pot’s scope and Community Safety Partnership funding.

RESOLVED that the answers provided by the Commissioner be noted.