Agenda item

1.    Mr Matthew Scott (Kent Police and Crime Commissioner) explained that one of his key responsibilities was to appoint the Chief Constable and to hold him to account for the force's performance. This was achieved predominantly through his production of the statutory police and crime plan, which was called ‘Cut Crime, Support Victims, Build Trust’.

2.    There was a key distinction between the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and that of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable was responsible for operational policing, including the deployment of officers and misconduct issues. The PCC was responsible for holding the Chief Constable to account, in line with his statutory responsibility to secure an efficient and effective police service – therefore the PCC was unable to interfere with operational matters or criminal investigations.

3.    The paper set out the various ways in which accountability was secured both formally and through regular informal engagement.

4.    His engagement with the Chief Constable included weekly one-to-one meetings where he would receive operational updates. He was also able to request other briefings and meetings which were open to his Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer.

5.    Another key mechanism for holding the Chief Constable to account was the quarterly Performance and Delivery Board. These were streamed online and also open to the public in the interests of openness and transparency.

6.    In support of the Performance and Delivery Board the PCC also chaired two community forums which, while not attended by the Chief Constable, had representation at Superintendent level. These were the Retail Crime Board - which brought together the retail community, customer service industry, business improvement districts and business crime reduction partnerships – and the Rural Crime Board - which brought together farmers, the Environment Agency, local councils and land owners.

7.    Other mechanisms which were used to hold the force to account included the Joint Audit Committee – which provided his Office and the force with assurance, oversight of financial governance and risk management, and through Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service inspections, including the regular comprehensive assessment of police forces known as PEEL (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy).

8.    The Commissioner said that, while not having operational control of policing did limit his remit, the scrutiny and support function made a difference. For instance, there was now greater focus across the country on rural policing which until recently was not a priority for chief constables. Similarly, there was significantly more attention to roads policing, and the neighbourhood policing model had become stronger.

9.    Finally, a good example where the inquiry role performed by the Panel had supported him in scrutinising the Chief Constable was around the performance of Kent Police Force Control Room – which the Panel had visited recently. Its performance had improved substantially, and it was now one of the best-performing in the country.

10.A Member asked whether the PCC expected the two areas which were found in the last PEEL Inspection to require improvement – namely Investigating Crime and Responding to the Public – to be rated higher in the latest inspection.

a.    The Commissioner said that he expected an improvement in the performance of both areas.

RESOLVED: To note the report.