Minutes:
Question 1
Persons attempting to get through to the police on the 101 system are subjected to a barrage of pre-recorded messages, one of which states that if it relates to fly tipping, graffiti, or anti-social parking they should contact their local authority. Whilst local authorities accept their responsibilities to the clearing of fly tipped waste and litter, the removal of graffiti and breaches of local traffic orders, is this a case of the police dodging responsibility and putting out misleading information to the public? In this respect I am minded that fly tipping carries up to 5 years imprisonment, graffiti (criminal damage) carries up to 10 years imprisonment and that local authorities do not operate a 24/7 enforcement service, nor do they have powers of arrest, powers to stop and search for items relating to criminal damage, powers to stop vehicles and powers to deal with obstruction of the highway.
What steps will the Commissioner take to call the Chief Constable to account and to ensure that the Chief Constable only promulgates information that is totally accurate and that officers are alerted as to their responsibilities to catching offenders for these matters.
(Cllr Ashley Clark, Canterbury City Council)
1. In response to the question the Commissioner explained the benefit of automated messages for signposting, so long as the information was correct. He confirmed that he would ask the Chief Constable to assess the automated messages as part of his review of the force control room and that messages are fair, proportionate and do not discourage the reporting of antisocial behaviour.
Question 2
In his role in holding the Chief Constable to account can the PCC update the panel on the ongoing issues regarding 101 response times and further comment on the feedback, engagement and response process that residents can and should expect when reporting crimes to Kent Police and their investigation and outcomes to the ASB or crime(s) reported?
(Cllr Shane Mochrie-Cox, Gravesham Borough Council)
2. The Commissioner confirmed that call attrition was monitored on a weekly basis, with the latest data indicating a 28% reduction in call attrition from 55% in October to 27% in November. He stressed that further improvement was required to achieve his ambition of regaining the strong performance experienced before the pandemic, with call attrition under 10% and response times below 90 seconds. He assured the Panel that he was confident that the Temporary Chief Constable had put effective measures in place. Members were reminded of the level of engagement and response which should be expected by residents, as set out in the Victims Code of Practice, which included obligations placed on the police to provide prompt updates to residents where they have been the of the crime, particularly if it did lead to an arrest, within five days and for serious, more serious and more violent crimes within a day.
Question 3
In line with the his priorities for the Chief Constable, to ‘work with residents, communities and businesses to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour’ and ‘be visible and responsive to the needs of communities,’ can the Commissioner explain what he has done to hold the Chief Constable to account with regard to Kent Police’s performance responding to youth anti-social behaviour and crime against businesses? Can he also explain how increases in the council tax precept have impacted this area of policing and crime reduction?
(Cllr Richard Palmer, Swale Borough Council)
3. The Commissioner reassured the Panel that tackling crime against businesses remained a priority and gave the Problem Solving Task Force and town centre teams as examples of units which focused on countering crimes against businesses. He added that he personally monitored shop lifting and burglary rates, which had decreased since the onset of the pandemic. It was clarified that information on antisocial behaviour was not broken down by perpetrator age and that work was underway to ensure that reductions were not a result of decreased reporting. Regarding the impact of precept increases, the Commissioner explained that the Problem Solving Task Force of 24 PCSOs, as well as crime prevention PCSOs, which had led to direct reductions in crime against businesses and antisocial behaviour in many communities, had been funded by previous increases to the precept.
Question 4
Can the Commissioner explain how he is holding the Chief Constable accountable following his decision to significantly reduce the number of PCSOs and what impact does he expect this to have on his community policing priorities?
(Cllr Jenny Hollingsbee, Folkestone and Hythe District Council)
4. The Commissioner explained that he had been involved and consulted extensively since the first proposal was made by the previous Chief Constable to review neighbourhood policing, meeting on several occasions subsequently with both the previous and current Chief Constable to outline his expectations and stress that any changes should take account of his Police and Crime Plan. He reminded Members that the previous and current Chief Constable had both given assurances that the future neighbourhood policing offer would be as good as if not an improvement on the existing provision. He noted that it was too early to discuss proposals in depth, as consultation with staff was ongoing, and proposals had not been finalised. He recognised that the review was in part an acknowledgment of the financial challenges faced by Kent Police. The Commissioner agreed to brief the Panel when a final decision is taken following the consultation period.