Home Affairs Committee: Correspondence from Police and Crime Commissioners

This volume contains the letters and emails received by the Home Affairs Committee following the publication of its Report on Police and Crime Commissioners on 23 May 2013. It also contains correspondence with Gwent PCC and the former Gwent Chief Constable. PCC County/Region Page

01 Avon & Somerset 1 02 Cleveland 2 03 Essex 4 04 Hampshire & Isle of Wight 5 05 Humberside 6 06 Lincolnshire 7 07 North Wales 12 08 South Yorkshire 13 09 Staffordshire 15 10 Suffolk 16 11 Thames Valley 17 12 West Yorkshire 19 13 Kent 23 14 Lancashire 25 15 15a 15b

Ian Johnston QPM, Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner Supplementary Further supplementary [Received after the agreement of the Ctte’s Report]

27 32 40

16 16a

Carmel Napier QPM, Former Chief Constable of Gwent Police Supplementary

29 35

As at 3 September 2013

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Avon & Somerset

FAO Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the embargoed Home Affairs Report on Police and Crime Commissioners which was received by this office yesterday. At paragraph 33 a table is included which is entitled "Areas where the OPCC budget 2013/14 is more than the Police Authority budget 2012/13". The Figures listed for Avon and Somerset which refer to a 15% increase are wrong. The correct figures are 2012/13 budget - £1.4m; 2013/14 budget £1.45m; increase - £50,000; percentage increase 3.6%. I set out below a link to the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Panel paper which contains these figures:

Medium Term Financial Plan Paper 16 January 2013 (Para 41 onwards and table 23)

Given the high degree of interest and media coverage, this material error is very unfortunate, likely to mislead the public and potentially very damaging to this office. I was surprised when I phoned yesterday evening and was told the figures could not be changed given the significance of the error and the lack of consultation on the detail in the report. Please could the report be corrected before being issued or a correction be issued immediately after publication of the report to ensure the public are not misled on this important issue.

Yours faithfully

John Smith Chief Executive Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon & Somerset

1

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Cleveland

Dear Keith & colleagues, I am aware of your Committee’s recent report re PCCs and thought it might be helpful to let you have a copy of the statement I issued in response to media enquiries following your report’s publication. Whilst understanding the controversy and concerns around the creation of PCCs, including set-up costs etc, I’ve committed myself to doing the very best I can to make the role work for the benefit of the residents of Cleveland. We will all be able to make a more meaningful assessment of the success of PCCs over the longer-term. I have also attached my 8 page annual report, which goes to our Police & Crime Panel on Monday 10th June, which indicates in overall terms the considerable progress made since taking office at the end of November.1 My experience of nearly 40 years working professionally in public services; the holding of an accountancy qualification; and 28 years service as a local Councillor (which has included the cabinet role for Community Safety; chairing a Community Safety Partnership; chairing the Emergency Planning committee; membership of the former Police Authority) has given me some basis on which to compare PCCs with Police Authorities. My conclusion, even at this early stage, is that the PCC role offers the potential to make a much greater impact on community safety than any of the previous roles I’ve held. It is a view shared by colleague PCCs. Our challenge now is to develop the role further so that government, parliament, our local partners and communities can have confidence we are making progress in community safety and hopefully you can consider this further as time progresses. Yours sincerely Barry Coppinger PCC for Cleveland

Annex A: Statement

Response from Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner, Barry Coppinger to Home Affairs Select Committee Report: “I officially started as Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland on 22nd November 2012, which I would stress is my only job and takes all of my time. On 30th November 2012, my website was launched, which has attracted over 8,000 visitors so far. We have continued to develop and add to the website, which has a wide range of financial and other information on there as requested by the Home Affairs Select Committee. “I am fully committed to transparency so everything is published on the website, including things like my diary, my decisions and how I hold the Force to account. I regularly take part in live webchats which cover a variety of topics. I’ve attended over 50 community meetings now, where members of the public have the opportunity to ask any question or raise their concerns. “I have appointed a wholly independent and very skilled audit panel charged with scrutiny of the PCC and the force. External auditors have already looked at my first few months and

1 Not printed

2

reported on ‘Good Governance and Financial Management’ that ‘the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Force can take substantial assurance that the controls upon which the organisation relies to manage this area are suitably designed, consistently applied and effective’. “Within the last six months, I have appointed a new Chief Constable, launched our Police and Crime Plan, prepared the budget and precept, launched our consultation programme Your Force Your Voice as well as working with partners to start achieving the objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan. “It is also worth highlighting that there has been a 25% decrease in the budget of the Office and Police Crime Commissioner for 2013-2014, compared to that of the previous Police Authority for 2012-2013, which equates to a reduction of £300,000, which is clearly a huge cost saving. “Whilst welcoming the interest of the Select Committee and supporting the report’s recommendations, I would wish to counter any suggestion that I have not been willing to provide information to them. The website http://www.cleveland.pcc.police.uk has all this and more available for anyone to see. It has taken some time to populate all of the site but financial information has been on the site since 28th February 2013. “I will be reporting to the Police and Crime Panel on June 10 and will be very happy to receive any suggestions from members as to what further information should be published.”

3

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Essex The Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex, Nick Alston, and his office welcome the emphasis on openness and integrity in the Home Affairs Select Committee report. One of the many ways in which we demonstrated openness was by proactively publishing details of the remuneration package, including allowances, for the new Chief Constable of Essex Police, Stephen Kavanagh. We note that you draw attention to this in Annex II, and we have concerns about the presentation. Firstly, the breakdown of CC Kavanagh’s remuneration is incomplete, and fails to reflect the fact that certain elements, such as the housing allowance, are nationally mandated. Secondly, the figures quoted for other Chief Constables are inaccurate as they represent national guide levels rather than actual remuneration figures. For example, it is in the public domain that the Kent Police Chief Constable’s remuneration for 2011-12 was £173,802, rather than the figure of £151,215 given in the HSAC report. The figure of £151,215 presumably does not include an additional 15% allowance payable to the Chief Constable. https://www.kent-pcc.gov.uk/crimecommissioner-files/Financial%20policies/Statement-of-Accounts-2011-2012.pdf A fair comparison would be to compare Stephen Kavanagh’s salary of £162k (i.e. £148k + 10% salary variance) with the Kent Chief Constable’s salary of £151k. The unfortunate result is that Annex II of the HSAC report names a single Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh, and then compares his total remuneration package not with the total remuneration package of other Chief Constables, which would be fair and transparent, but with the 2010 national pay structure. This is misleading as it does not compare apples with apples, and is inconsistent with the openness and transparency agenda. When a body such as the IPCC or HMIC writes a report on a police force, they build in at least a week where the draft report is shared with the force enabling any errors of fact or misleading presentations to be corrected. We would very much welcome such a protocol being introduced with HSAC reports, as it not in the public interest for a report containing errors to be published. I hope you will agree to such a protocol in the future. Regards, Charles Garbett | Acting Chief Executive & Treasurer Police & Crime Commissioner for Essex

4

Rt Hon Keith Vaz Home Affairs Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA

Westgate Chambers, Staple Gardens, Winchester, Hampshire S023 8AW Telephone 01962 871595 E-mail: opcc@hampshire.pnn.police.uk www.hampshire-pcc.gov.uk

Date: 23rd May 2013

Enquires to : Simon Hayes

Direct line: 01962 871595

Our reference:

Your reference :

I read with interest your Committee's report into Police and Crime Commissioners. In this report you state that it is your intention to follow up with a more detailed report into the role of Commissioners at the time of one year in post.

I welcome this and the calls for further transparency, not least because it is important for the public to understand more clearly the role of Police and Crime Commissioners, and as such I would be more than happy to host you and your Committee in Hampshire, or to come and speak with you , if this is helpful as you compile your report.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure you regarding my office costs. In your report you refer to a significant increase in cost.

As you acknowledge in footnotes, the extra £2.001 m is not the cost of my office or staff. It is a cost that will be commissioned by my office supporting new projects aimed at reducing re­offending and delivering against the other priorities outlined in my plan. Th is is an important shift in the Government's change to PCC's and cannot happen without a budget.

I would further add that since my appointment the office has been run at a cost of less than that of the former Police Authority.

Simon Hayes Police and Crime Commissioner

cc: Nicola Blackwood, James Clappison , Michael Ellis , Lorraine Fullbrook, Dr Julian Huppert, Steve McCabe, Bridget Phillipson , Mark Reckless, Chris Ruane, David Winnick

Offtcc of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshtre

Westgate Cha mbers, Sta ple Gardens, Winchester, Ha mp s hire, 5023 BAW

01962 871 595 I opcc@ ham ps hi re .pnn .police.uk www.h am ps hire- pcc.gov.u k

Protecting People & Places 5

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Humberside I refer to the comparison of the costs of my Office for 2013/14 compared with the costs of the Police Authority for 2012/13 which shows an increase of £36k. I can confirm that the base budget figures for Humberside for Police Authority for 2012/13 and for the OPCC in 2013/14 are at the same level £1.418m. The figures for 2012/13 used in the report were taken from the CIPFA Statistics which should have read £1.418m but included one-off adjustments affecting the base. The rounded figure of £1.4m for 2013/14 must have been taken from our response to the HASC request for information and so this is not a simple like for like comparison. The response from my Office, made it clear that the BASE budget between the years had not changed. This is because we realised that it is difficult to compare budgets for Police Authorities without discussion of the detail. Clearly, the variation between the budget figures could have been readily explained prior to the report being issued and having made the point that there has been no increase it was extremely disappointing that we were not given the opportunity to do so. We also explained in our response, the final details of the budget for 2013/14 were still being considered. This is due to the fact that within the same base budget level as that for the Police Authority for 2012/13, £1.418m, there is at the moment £188k as yet unallocated. I am presently considering developing crime reduction and community safety grant schemes to utilise this funding. If this is excluded, then the true comparison of the office costs would be £1.230m against £1.418m for the Authority. It is also important to stress that the budget for 2012/13 was underspent by £223k. I am sure that the problems with comparing like with like will be equally difficult for other police authorities and OPCCs and this will continue to be the case as we go forward, particularly as individual PCCs may well treat grant allocations differently. This could and almost certainly will be the case as PCCs include expenditure to be met from reserves or contingencies for specific initiatives, which may well not be recurring expenditure, within their budgets. This could be for partnership working or other issues, such as for example, financial support for officers in accordance with Home Office Circular 43/2001 which for the Humberside Police Authority in one year amounted to a settlement in excess of £200k. In terms of further context, it is perhaps worth noting that the budget for 2012/13 was arrived at after decisions taken by the Police Authority to make 5% reductions year on year on the budget that was over £1.5m in 2010/11 and that it was a conscious decision to maintain the budget at the same level as for 2012/13 to provide me with options on spending decisions this year whilst remaining in keeping within the general requirement for costs to be no higher than for the Police Authority. I should be glad therefore if you would make the necessary adjustments when the report is updated. Matthew Grove, Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside

6

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire Deepdale Lane, Nettleham, Lincoln LN2 2L T

Telephone (01522) 947192 Fax (01522) 558739 E-Mail: lincolnshiie-pcc©lincs. pnn. police. uk

Website: www.lincolnshire-pcc.gov.uk

Alan Hardwick The Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire

Date: 1ih May 2013 Our Reference: AH/kc/2013-1038

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP Chairman, Home Affairs Committee Committee Office House of Commons 7 Millbank LONDON SW1P 3JA

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the Committee.

I know you were pursuing a very specific line of questioning to facilitate the writing of your imminent report to the Home Secretary but I would welcome the opportunity to engage with you on wider policing and criminal justice issues, either as part of your work next year on Commissioners or outside of this should the opportunity arise.

On the immediate issues that you are considering, I would like to set out in writing my views regarding leadership and standards in policing.

I welcome the creation of the College of Policing and many of the recommendations Mr Winsor made with regard to both the professionalisation of the service and the concept of direct entry. We need to invest more heavily in developing the leadership capabilities of our police officers, particularly in organisational management, if we are to deliver efficient and effective policing in the modern age. We must make greater efforts to draw on expertise from outside the police profession, whether that be private sector or elsewhere in the public sector. Direct entry will only go a small way to facilitating this.

In terms of Standards, you will not be surprised that I take the view that the existing legislative framework for police officers requires review. In particular this is in the light of the recent high degree of scrutiny around the relationships police officers have with the media and the work HMIC carried out with regard to integrity. In the case of my own Chief Constable, you will be aware that there is some ambiguity about the role of CPOSA. I don't believe the general public would take the view that it is appropriate or desirable for the most senior police officers in the country to be involved in direct negotiations around employment disputes and compensation payments for other chief officers and "friends". CPOSA's role, what it should and shouldn't do, needs to be more clearly defined.

. .. 21 ...

7

-2-

Given the Select Committee's concerns about decision making in the Police and Crime Panel it might be useful to you to understand a little more about the very different approach I took as Commissioner. I was supported by a very experienced private legal firm, Andrew and Co who had provided monitoring officer and legal services support to the Police Authority for many years and include a former Chief Executive of the Police Authority on their staff. They were supplemented by Counsel's advice as required. You will be aware the allegation came from a very senior and credible police source and who had shared it informally with HMI, IPCC, CPOSA the Home Office and other senior police colleagues before it reached us.

I consulted with IPCC prior to making the decision to suspend. My own IPCC Commissioner, Ms Amerdeep Somal, indicated in a telephone conversation that she had received a copy of the allegation letter sent to my Chief Executive, expected us to "record" the matter and refer it to the IPCC immediately and believed Mr Rhodes' conduct, if proven, was serious and potentially criminal. She specifically said she would not dissuade me from the course of action to suspend I ultimately took. I was aware that my decision so early in the life of PCCs would attract attention but having taken careful advice I could not ignore what is and remains a very serious allegation against my Temporary Chief Constable.

Like many Commissioners, I am concerned about the Home Secretary's plans to widen the remit of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. My own interaction with the IPCC relating to the allegation against my Temporary Chief Constable left me with the impression that the organisation is not fit for purpose for its current role. After I referred the matter to them there was a significant delay in receiving a formal response which, without the involvement of Deborah Glass and Dame Anne Owers, would have been compieteiy contrary to the advice i had received from Ms Somal. It is not acceptable for organisations such as the IPCC to fail to be consistent in cases of police professional conduct. Police and Crime Commissioners must rely on their advice and support and uncertainty does nothing for public confidence and is unsettling for all involved.

Turning to wider issues, you will be familiar with the funding challenges we face in Lincolnshire. I have attached to this letter some key facts about our position, which I hope may be useful to you and fellow Committee members.

I know you are also familiar with our partnership with G4S and the importance of our collaborative activity among the PCCs and Forces of the East Midlands. As you are an MP in the region, I would very much like to extend an invitation to you to visit us and learn first hand our approach to maximising efficiency and effectiveness through our partnership working. Please let me know if you would wish to do this and we can arrange a mutually convenient time.

. .. 3/ ...

8

-3-

I hope we can meet again, either in Westminster or here in Lincolnshire in the not too distant future.

Attch: Funding Brief

9

Police Force Funding – England 2012/13 On average, local Council Tax payers funded 31% of the cost of policing in their local

area – in Lincolnshire, however, local people funded 41% of the cost of policing.

Council Tax % and Government Grant 2012/13 %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Nor

thum

bria

Wes

t Mid

land

s

Mer

seys

ide

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

Wes

t Yor

kshi

re

Sou

th Y

orks

hire

Dur

ham

Lanc

ashi

re

Cle

vela

nd

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

Hum

bers

ide

Bed

ford

shire

Ken

t

Che

shire

Der

bysh

ire

Ham

pshi

re

Leic

este

rshi

re

Ess

ex

Sus

sex

Cum

bria

Dev

on &

Cor

nwal

l

Sta

fford

shire

Avo

n &

Som

erse

t

Her

tford

shire

Tham

es V

alle

y

Nor

tham

pton

shire

Cam

brid

gesh

ire

Suf

folk

Wilt

shire

Wes

t Mer

cia

Linc

olns

hire

Nor

folk

War

wic

kshi

re

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Nor

th Y

orks

hire

Dor

set

Sur

rey

Force Area

%

Council Tax Grant This puts Lincolnshire people in the top quartile in terms of their local contribution

towards policing, alongside Norfolk, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, North Yorkshire, Dorset, Surrey.

In spite of the large contribution made by local people, spending on policing per head of population in Lincolnshire is the lowest in England at £154 per head of population.

Net Spend per Head Population 2012/13

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Mer

seys

ide

Cle

vela

nd

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

Cum

bria

Wes

t Mid

land

s

Nor

thum

bria

Dur

ham

Hum

bers

ide

Sou

th Y

orks

hire

Lanc

ashi

re

Wes

t Yor

kshi

re

Sur

rey

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

Nor

tham

pton

shire

War

wic

kshi

re

Leic

este

rshi

re

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Che

shire

Wes

t Mer

cia

Nor

folk

Sta

fford

shire

Her

tford

shire

Dev

on &

Cor

nwal

l

Nor

th Y

orks

hire

Tham

es V

alle

y

Avo

n &

Som

erse

t

Dor

set

Der

bysh

ire

Cam

brid

gesh

ire

Bed

ford

shire

Sus

sex

Ken

t

Ham

pshi

re

Suf

folk

Wilt

shire

Ess

ex

Linc

olns

hire

Force Area

£

10

Essex spends the 2nd lowest per head of population at £155 per person – but the people of Essex only contribute 34% of the total cost of policing.

If Lincolnshire was funded at the same level as Essex per head of population, more than £825,000 additional funding would be available – enough to fund 20 additional police officers.

Grant per Head Population 2012/13

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Mer

seys

ide

Wes

t Mid

land

s

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

Nor

thum

bria

Cle

vela

nd

Sou

th Y

orks

hire

Wes

t Yor

kshi

re

Dur

ham

Lanc

ashi

re

Cum

bria

Hum

bers

ide

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

Che

shire

Leic

este

rshi

re

Bed

ford

shire

Ken

t

Sta

fford

shire

Nor

tham

pton

shire

Der

bysh

ire

Dev

on &

Cor

nwal

l

Avo

n &

Som

erse

t

Ham

pshi

re

Her

tford

shire

Sus

sex

Tham

es V

alle

y

Wes

t Mer

cia

Cam

brid

gesh

ire

Nor

folk

Ess

ex

Glo

uces

ters

hire

War

wic

kshi

re

Suf

folk

Wilt

shire

Nor

th Y

orks

hire

Linc

olns

hire

Dor

set

Sur

rey

Force Area

£

Lincolnshire’s police grant funding per head of population is 35th in the English league table of 37 police force areas (excluding London) and there are 8 police force areas where grant per head is at least 50% more than Lincolnshire’s grant per head.

To highlight the extent of the funding differential, if Lincolnshire’s funding per head of population was commensurate with the contribution made by local people, i.e. top quartile, a further £27m would be available for policing in Lincolnshire. If Lincolnshire’s spend per head of population were only at the average for English forces this would imply an additional £17.5m.

Put another way, if all English forces (excluding London) spent at the same level per head of population as Lincolnshire this would produce a saving of in excess of £1bn set against the £5.5bn government grant provided to English forces (excluding London) through central government formula grant.

OPCC for Lincolnshire 9 May 2013

11

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from North Wales Re: Home Affairs Committee report on Police and Crime Commissioners We were disappointed that the information for North Wales was incomplete within the report. We have included the below summary for the information/attention of the committee. Budget The budget for the office has remained the same as that of the Police Authority. The budget for the office for 2013/14 is £731,174.00 The budget for the police force is £141,704,826.00. Therefore the budget for our office represents 0.5% of the budget. The information about the budget of the office is online, and was published as part of the papers to the Police and Crime Panel. We are currently revising the website and changing the structure to make it more accessible. 2013/14 Precept level (3.98%) £62,124,114.00 Band D £223.11 2012/13 Precept level (2.5%) £60,039,766.00 Band D £214.56 Commissioners working hours The Commissioner is currently not undertaking any employment outside of the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner. He estimates that his average working week is 60 hours. His declaration of interest is available online. Staffing The staffing for the office has been updated below. This information is also available online. We are currently recruiting a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner. Employees Name Salary £ Police and Crime Commissioner

Winston Roddick 70,000 Full Time

Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner

Not yet appointed Circa 45,000 Negotiable

Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer)

Anna Humphreys 72,987 Full Time

Chief Finance Officer Not yet appointed 60,009 (pro rata) 0.60 fte Executive Officer Meinir McCall 31,437 Full Time Policy Officer Rhian Rees Roberts 32,226 (pro rata) 0.65 fte Policy Officer Elizabeth Ward 32,226 Full Time Communications Officer Elliw Williams 29,784 Full Time Information Assistant Rhian Hinks 25,449 (pro rata) 0.81 fte Personal Assistant Gemma Jennings 23,799 Full Time Personal Assistant Angharad Jones 23,799 Full Time Swyddfa Comisiynydd Heddlu a Throsedd / Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner Pencadlys / Headquarters Bae Colwyn / Colwyn Bay LL29 8AW

12

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from South Yorkshire I am contacting you with regard to the table at para 33 (page 24) of the above report. We do not recognise the £3.144717m included in the table as the budgeted cost of the South Yorkshire OPCC. All attempts made to reconcile this number to actual budgets have failed and as we were not involved in any validation of the numbers we remain confused and needless to say irritated and annoyed by the implications which will be drawn from the publication of the Report. We are absolutely clear that the £3.144717m is not valid for comparison with the £2.307m shown in the column for 2012/13. The CIPFA return we submitted actually shows our OPCC costs as £2.035m and this we believe is a more valid figure for comparison purposes. It appears, and I can only speculate, that a random selection of other amounts have been added in. Our contention is that these other amounts most probably relate to additional policing services which the PCC has commissioned from the Chief Constable using contributions from partner organisations including Local Authorities. Clearly such costs are not part of the ‘Office of the PCC Budget 2013/14’ as the Commissioner is effectively passing on cash from one partner to another. Any clarification regarding the derivation of the numbers incorporated within the table would be gratefully received. The position is explained more fully in the attached analysis. In summary the OPCC budgeted costs for 2013/14 (reported in cipfa statistics) and valid for the purposes which I believe you were intending is £2.035m However, included within the figure contained in the Report are other budgeted costs which are not valid for comparison purposes, including the capital financing(borrowing) costs of previous year’s Police Force capital projects Also included is funding which passes through the PCC budget from Central Government and other sources and is ultimately used to commission additional services from SY Police and other agencies. In previous years much of this was passed directly to the Chief Constable. I’m sure that you will accept that other OPCC figures will differ in terms of their content and perhaps a more precise line of questioning/challenge could have avoided the anomalies which have seemingly emerged. Best Regards Steve Pick CPFA Treasurer in the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner Clerk and Treasurer to the South Yorkshire Fire, Integrated Transport and Pensions Authorities

13

2013/14 Budgeted costs of OPCC (South Yorkshire) Figures which provide a direct comparison are:- £m DEMOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION 0.170 PCC OFFICE COSTS 1.370 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES (Legal/Accountancy etc) 0.558 £2.035m The numbers which were used for the purposes of the Report also included:-

Net Capital Financing Costs (now part of the OPCC budget but which represent the cost of financing previous South Yorkshire Police Capital Projects)

+3.256

Commissioned Services (additional Crime Prevention Services provided by the South Yorkshire Police and other local/voluntary agencies e.g. additional PCSO’s requested by South Yorkshire Local Authorities)

+4.866

Grants and contribution from Central Government and other Local Partners to finance commissioned services

-7.013

(Quoted in the report) £3.144m

14

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Staffordshire

As discussed please find amendments to the following areas of inaccuracy detailed in your Home Affairs Committee Report - 23 May 2013. Costs to the Public - Page 24 Police Authority Budget has been largely underestimated by omitting the contingency of £250,000 which would equate to 1.161 million. This would then be the same as the Office of the PCC budget of 1.161 million and therefore percentage change would be zero percent. Salaries and officers Total FTE should be 8.4 rather than the 10 FTE documented Salaries for Head of Policy, Performance & Communications should be £64,464 & the salary for Head of Commissioning & Partnerships should also read £64,464 rather than £73,500 which is documented. Please respond advising that these changes have been made. Kind regards Veronica Powell Executive Assistant to: Matthew Ellis - Police & Crime Commissioner Sue Arnold - Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner Glynn Dixon - Chief of Staff Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner Weston Road Stafford ST18 0YY

15

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Suffolk

Dear Keith, Further to your letter of May 14, I was very pleased to help the Committee with its work and would be happy to assist in future scrutiny when required. I would also like to thank you for your helpful and constructive comments on Radio Suffolk yesterday, they were much appreciated. As you know, I had concerns about the financial information detailed in the meeting (which I clarified in a letter to you dated May 15) and I am sorry to have to write again about further concerns with the resulting report which was published yesterday. I believe the report has limitations. From the public’s perspective, I would suggest it is impossible for anyone to reach any definitive conclusions from the report as the detail is both sketchy and flawed. I understand other PCCs have similar concerns. I am absolutely committed to publishing all my financial information on my website and ensuring that expenditure is clear and transparent. All the detail of my corporate budget was published on my website on April 15, so I have no idea why the report claims it was not. I attach a screen-shot from my website so you can see for yourself that the budget information is clearly dated. I am disappointed that you did not ensure that the equivalent information (including that relating to staff salaries) for every PCC’s office was included in the report before it was published. I would invite you to amend the report and ensure that full and comparable information for all 41 PCCs offices is included. Readers will then be able to reach more balanced conclusions about the activities of PCCs. I fully support Radio Suffolk’s idea of ‘comparethecommissioner.com’ or something similar. This would ensure all PCC offices are fairly compared, which will provide greater transparency and build public confidence.

Tim Passmore

Police and Crime Commissioner for Suffolk

16

RT. HON. KEITH VAZ MP Chairman, Home Affairs Committee Committee Office, House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA

Dear Mr. Vaz

POLICE &CRIME COMMISSIONER

Anthony Stansfeld Police and Crime Commissioner

for Thames Valley

Date: 24th May 2013 Our Ref: AS/PH/KV

Your Ref:

'Police and Crime Commissioners: Register of Interests' report - comments made to BBC Three Counties Radio

I note that in your radio interview today with BBC Three Counties Radio you mentioned you were "disappointed" that I had failed to provide the 'Salaries and offices' information you called for in January.

For the record, your call for information received in January included a request for details of confidential , personal, information over and above that which commissioners are statutorily required to disclose, for example:

"What other salaries do you receive?" "What is the name, role and salary of each person in your office?"

More importantly, in respect of the latter item (i.e. the name, role and salary of each member of staff), this is not public information for anyone other than senior officers and would therefore require the prior approval of individual employees before publication.

Furthermore, and notwithstanding the powers of the Committee, I was disappointed that your request for information was made without the common courtesy of any explanation or justification as to why it was needed, how it would be used and published, and with no guarantees that any confidential information provided would remain confidential.

Accordingly, I made several attempts to speak to a member of your Committee (Nichola Blackwood, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, who is a constituent of my Thames Valley force area) to seek clarification as to why such confidential information requested was required and to obtain assurances over its use.

Unfortunately, I did not receive a response. As a result, in the absence of any explanation or assurances, I decided that it was not appropriate to release the information requested.

In the event, the most of the 'Salaries and offices' information published in the Home Affairs Committee report is available on my website for general access and scrutiny by the public, including your Committee.

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner The Farmhouse Force Headquarters Oxford Road. Kidlington Oxon. OXS 2NX Tel 01865 846780 r pcco thamesvalley.pnn.pohce.uk W: thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk 17

POLICE &CRIME COMMISSIONER T H AMES VAL LE Y

I am pleased to note, however, that you have acknowledged in your report that I have reduced the budget of my Office by 8.3% compared to that of the former Police Authority.

If you wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

/ tt( '~ I. v.

Anthony Stansfeld Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley

cc Nichola Blackwood MP

18

Response to the Committee’s Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from West Yorkshire To: The Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Committee In the Committee’s report “Police and Crime Commissioners: Register of Interests” published yesterday, it refers to the evidence session held on 14th May. On behalf of Councillor Peter Box, I would ask you to correct a statement made in para 11: “All three of the PCP chairs we heard from believed that their Panels did not have strong powers to hold a PCC to account. Parliament has defined the power of PCPs and it is the responsibility of the PCPs to exercise their powers.” On reviewing the evidence session, we note that the question (from Steve McCabe MP @1:07) was only actually put to Councillor Patricia O’Brien (and not put to Councillor Box directly). Later in the session, Chris Ruane MP asked about what further tools may be helpful for the Panel, which led to a fulsome answer from Councillor Box saying “I don’t agree with what’s been said” (@1:13:57) and discussing the value of strong relationships between Panel Member (cross-party), the Commissioner and local media. In a further question from David Winnick MP (@1:20:50), he seemed to recognise the divergence in views between Councillors Wootten and O’Brien and Councillor Box. We would be grateful if the paragraph in question could be amended to reflect this divergence of views on the specific topic of the strength of powers. Kind regards Jonathan Skinner Research and Intelligence Officer Association of West Yorkshire Authorities

19

Mark Burns-Williamson OBE Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House 62 George Street Wakefield WF1 1 DL

My Reference: OPCC/MBW/JED Your Reference:

Offin of thr

Police & Crime Commissioner

We~t York~hire

3 June 2013

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP Committee Chairman Committee Office House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA

Thank you for your letter dated 14 May 2013 and for the invitation to provide evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. I hope the hearing and the evidence from West Yorkshire and myself was helpful and informative for the committee and your work into leadership and standards in the police service.

I am sure the committee would want all the evidence recorded correctly and so I have checked the report against the transcript and the submission from my office and have detailed the inaccuracies here or updates as publicly available for your correction.

Paragraph 11. The PCP chair in West Yorkshire (Peter Box) did NOT say he believed that their Panel did not have strong powers to hold a PCC (Mark Burns-Williamson) to account.

Therefore in the conclusions, the point made in Paragraph 4 (Conclusions and Recommendations) is incorrect and should read "two of the three of the PCP chairs we heard from believed that their Panels did not have strong powers to hold a PCC to account, which was different from West Yorkshire."

Paragraph 26. West Yorkshire section should read Isabel Owen, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner £56,571 . Fraser Sampson, Chief Executive and Solicitor £115,674 (comprising Chief Executive £99,887, Solicitor £15,787). Judith Heeley, Chief Finance Officer £84,624. Not all of the staff shown in paragraph 26 are employed solely to assist me in the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, included there are 9 internal audit staff who provide internal audit services to me and the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable in North Yorkshire and Humberside.

Tel No: 01924 294000 Email : mar1<bums-williamson@westyor1<shire-pcc.gov .uk

www.weslyori<shire-pcc.gov.uk

(I /Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner GJ @WestYorksOPCC

Fax No: 01924 294008

20

-2-

Paragraph 30. In the section referring to West Yorkshire the salary is incorrect (see above), the no policing experience is incorrect and the final point should read the role was only advertised to Labour Party members across West Yorkshire in line and consistent with my own selection process.

I would like to reiterate my commitment to a National Register of Member's (Police and Crime Commissioner's) Interests or indeed any measures to improve openness and transparency for all elected politicians.

I would also like to reiterate that the relationship between the Police and Crime Panel and myself here in West Yorkshire is a positive one with effective scrutiny, backed up with powers which are fit for purpose when the host authority arrangements are properly fulfilled. The problems the committee have identified, affecting Lincolnshire in particular, were a result of the Home Office not properly ensuring the host authority arrangements were robust, not that the powers available were not adequate. There are monthly hearings and the Police and Crime Panel members and staff constructively engage with me and my office on a regular basis. We are both currently looking at how the relationship can be strengthened going forward to ensure the appropriate scrutiny but also the support role as referred to in the legislation.

As the previous Chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority (WYPA) for the last 10 years and Chair of the Association of Police Authorities (APA) I have still to an extent been surprised at the demands of the role. The responsibilities are much greater and the remit is much wider. The increased accountability adds to the demands but despite previous scepticism to the role I see real benefit in the people of West Yorkshire having an identifiable Police and Crime Commissioner accountable to them day to day for policing and crime prevention in their community, and ultimately accountable to them at the ballot box. The cost of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) with a Deputy is also significantly less and I would suggest better value.

Over the last six months I have:

Launched the Listening to You First Campaign, the biggest consultation of its kind carried out in the UK, providing people across West Yorkshire with the opportunity to have their say on what matters to them; informing the publication of my first 5 year Police and Crime Plan;

Appointed a permanent Chief Constable and a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, both endorsed by the Police and Crime Panel;

Set and agreed with the Panel the budget for the year ahead and have lobbied the government hard, including in person, for more money for West Yorkshire; based on fairer funding through the formula;

Published a Police and Crime Plan in consultation with partners that sets out a vision for policing and crime prevention across West Yorkshire over the next five years, and recently set up partnership taskforces to ensure the priorities are put into practice;

Tel No: 01924 294000 Email: markbums-williamson@westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk Fax No: 01924 294008

www. westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk

n/Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner [;l @WestYorksOPCC

21

-3-

Launched an independent root and branch review of the way police conduct matters and complaints are dealt with in West Yorkshire, with potential wider implications;

Established the National Police Air Support (NPAS), led regional collaboration on the Scientific Support Unit, helped to get the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) established, held a major partnership event with all relevant partners including the CPS and the government's victims' commissioner, taken on the hosting of Victim Support's IT system and ensured a public facing report on all West Yorkshire Police's dealings with Savile, as part of a wider IPCC referral; and

Organised round tables with partners in every district, a conference on Hate Crime, visited a wide range of community groups, youth groups and places such as drug treatment centres to meet them, find out about their work and hear peoples' views about policing and crime prevention. I have also joined Neighbourhood Police Teams across the county to understand the issues facing communities day to day at the local level.

This week, I will be launching local priorities to sit alongside the Police and Crime Plan with the community safety partnerships in each of the five districts across West Yorkshire.

It is certainly early days in this new governance structure and there are clearly aspects of the legislation that have not been well thought through, but it is also important to note that the feedback I have received from organisations and individuals across West Yorkshire throughout this new increased engagement has been very positive.

If there is any further information I can provide at this stage or if you have any queries then please do not hesitate to be in touch . I will keep you informed with regards my independent review into the handling of police conduct matters and complaints in West Yorkshire as requested.

Yours sincerely

:#II?. #A Mark Burns-Williamson Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire

Tel No: 01924 294000 Email: markbums-williamson@westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk

WNW. westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk

IJtOffice of the Police and Crime Commissioner (;1 @WestYorksOPCC

Fax No: 01924 294008

22

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP Chairman, Home Affairs Select Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA

Ann Barnes Kent Police and Crime Commissioner

First Floor Gail House

Lower Stone Street Maidstone

Kent ME15 6NB

I fully accept, and indeed, welcome the important role that your Committee fulfils in our national life. However, I do have serious concerns relating to your recent report into Police & Crime Commissioners of 23'd May 3013.

I write to express my deep disappointment at the poor quality of the report. In relation to my Office, but I gather in many other cases elsewhere, the report contains factual inaccuracies which are misleading.

In particular I should like to point out the following:

• The 2013/14 budget for the Office of the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner is not one penny more than the office budget I inherited from the previous Police Authority for 2012/13. You only needed to look at my published Police and Crime Plan for 2013/14 in comparison with the Policing Plan for 2012/13 published by the old Kent Police Authority.

• I have made no political appointments, I have people working for me who, I am sure, have political allegiances, but I care not one jot. Everyone in my office knows that I will not allow any decision making to be influenced by party political interference. I am an independent Police and Crime Commissioner and proud to be so.

• My official website M)y_meets, ill! statutory disclosure requirements, contrary to your report.

It is sad that the poor quality of the research, leading to such significant inaccuracies in your report, undermines the credibility of the vital work that the House of Commons select committees play in our national governance. The lack of usual courtesy in not sharing the report in draft, to correct for factual accuracy, simply compounded the error.

Finally, I would like to comment on your report criticism of the Kent Police and Crime Panel. Contrary to the inferences you make in the report, the Kent Panel had (and has) no legal or executive locus in the actual process of the appointment of my Youth Commissioner. It seems, therefore, particularly miss-placed and unfair for your report to aim criticism at that Panel for any failings in a process for which they had neither locus nor responsibility. As the

23

Commissioner I have taken responsibility for that process and I invite you to visit my website for my complete statement on the matter.

The Panel is rightly expected to scrutinise key decisions. The concept of a Youth Commissioner was one of my specific election promises. As such, I am honour bound to deliver it. It was the subject of questions from the Panel at its meeting in February 2013. As fate would have it, I was in front of the Panel discussing the matter as far as possible, within one working day of the unfortunate story breaking on Sunday 7 April. The Panel is separate from the Office of the Commissioner and in the final analysis it is for them to defend their actions, but your criticism does not appear to be supported by the facts.

I very much hope that your Committee will do further work on the role of Police & Crime Commissioners in the future and that you will at some time look at some of the very positive initiatives that are currently underway across the country, particularly so in Kent.

'i ~$ ~ Ct--..0;/

4~v.... :E~-c/). Ann Barnes Kent Police and Crime Commissioner

Cc Councillor Mike Hill, Chair of the Kent Police and Crime Panel

24

RT HON KEITH VAZ MP Chairman, Home Affairs Select Committee Committee office, House of Commons 7 Millbank LONDON SW1P 3JA

Dear Mr Vaz

Please ask for Clive Grunshaw Telephone 01772.533587 Ernail: Commissioner@lancashi re-pcc.gov. uk Our Ref:

Date: 11th June 2013

Response to the Committee's Report on Police & Crime Commissioners from Lancashire

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire Clive Grunshaw and his office welcome the emphasis on openness and integrity in the Home Affairs Select Committee report.

As elected figures it is absolutely right Police and Crime Commissioners should be open to scrutiny. For that reason, we were disappointed that the information for Lancashire was incomplete within the report.

We have included the below summary for the information/attention of the committee.

Analysis of the PCC budget 2013/14 compared to the Police Authority budget in 2012/13

The figures quoted in the draft Home Office report have been taken directly from the Cipfa statistics in respect of provisional budget figures for the Offices of Police and Crime Commissioners for 201 3/14.

This figure has been compared directly to the budget for the former Police Authority for 2012/1 3 and an increase (or decrease) in cost derived.

This methodology is flawed however due to the take-on of additional responsibilities and spending priorities in the PCC budget in 2013/14 compared to the previous year.

The cost of these additional burdens have been met by the transfer of budget from that delegated to the constabulary so there is NO detrimental impact on the overall budget for the PCC.

To provide a true comparison of the costs of the Office of the PCC and those of the Police A uthority in the previous year the following adjustment should be made:

Cont'd ... / ... over ......

Clive Grunshaw Police & Crime Commissioner· for Lancashire PO Box 653, PRESTON, PR2 2WB

www.lancashire-pcc.gov.uk 25

Con't.../ ... 2

£m Budget for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for

2.159 Lancashire 201 3/14 Less Contribution to the Lancashire Partnership for Domestic Violence

0.314 services Setting up of the Community Action Fund 0.050 Provision for the impact of Hardship Claims in respect of localised

0.050 Council Tax Support schemes Comparable budget for OPCC 2013/14 1.745

Lancashire Police Authority revenue budget 2012/13 1.845

Reduction in budget for the OPCC compared to LPA 0.100 Level of reduction in comparable budget 5.4%

This demonstrates that the costs of running the office of the PCC are some £100,000 lower than the costs of running the office of the previous Police Authority arrangement - a reduction of 5.4%.

We contend that it is these figures that should be reflected in the report to provide a true and fair comparison and request that a correction is issued to this affect.

Yours sincerely

Police & Crime Commissioner for Lancashire

26

Written evidence submitted by Ian Johnston QPM, Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC 15)

Letter from Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent, to the Chair of the Committee, 14 June 2013

I am writing in response to your letter dated 12 June 2013 which posed certain questions:

“[1]: Whether you were ... responsible for the resignation of Chief Constable Carmel Napier on 7 June and, if so, what you said that led to your resignation?”

“[2] If so, what were your reasons for doing so?”

I will answer these two questions together.

Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are responsible for the appointment and removal of Chief Constables pursuant to s.38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the 2011 Act). There are broadly four situations in which a Chief Constable's career will come to an end:

(i) they may retire/resign;

(ii) their Fixed Term Appointment may come to an end without an extension being sought by the Chief Constable or granted by the PCC;

(iii) the Chief Constable may be dismissed for breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 by the PCC; and

(iv) the Chief Constable may be ‘called upon’ to retire or resign by the PCC under s.38(3) of the 2011 Act, whereupon the Chief Constable ‘must’ do so under s.38(4). Before a PCC calls upon a Chief Constable to retire or resign, the PCC must follow the process set out in Schedule 8 Part 2 of the 2011 Act (the Schedule 8 process).

In Mrs Napier's case, (i), (ii) and (iii) did not apply. I did, however, consider that it was necessary to commence Schedule 8 process.

I was confident, and remain confident, that at the conclusion of the Schedule 8 process I would have had solid grounds to exercise the discretion invested in me by Parliament and the electorate of the Gwent Police area to call upon Mrs Napier to retire or resign under s.38(3).

I considered that, prior to commencing the Schedule 8 process, it would be highly desirable to set out my intentions to Mrs Napier. I considered this desirable both in Gwent Police's interests in terms of the public confidence in policing and staff morale and also Mrs Napier's interests in terms of her future career aspirations.

After taking legal advice, I met with Mrs Napier on 23'd May 2013 in her office. I informed her that I would be commencing the Schedule 8 process on 3 June 2013, but that I would prefer it if she retired voluntarily before then to avoid me having to do so.

I made it clear that: ‘ ... if you do not wish to retire of your own volition, then you are of course entitled to the full protection of the process defined under Part 2 of Schedule 8 of the

27

2011 Act and I will, for the avoidance of any doubt, fully respect that process and ensure that you are fairly treated throughout it.’

When I spoke with Mrs Napier on 23'd May 2013, I spoke from a prepared script from which I did not materially deviate. Mrs Napier asked me only one question. I recorded her question and my answer immediately after our meeting. I enclose both documents. On 31 51 May 2013 I received a letter from Mrs Napier's solicitors stating that it was her intention to retire on 7 June 2013. It was, therefore, not necessary for me to commence the Schedule 8 process.

The script referred to above sets out in outline the reasons why I proposed to commence the Schedule 8 process with a view to calling upon Mrs Napier to retire under s.38(3) of the 2011 Act. I stand by those reasons. I acted in the best interests of the Force and the people of the Gwent Police area in accordance with my Oath of impartiality.

Parliament did not specify the basis on which a PCC could exercise his or her power under s.38(3) of the 2011 Act. Prior to 15 November 2012, police authorities had the power to ‘call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness.’ However, police authorities could only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary and, additionally, the Home Secretary could require police authorities to exercise their power (see s.11 (2) and s.42(1) of the Police Act 1996).

By the 2011 Act, Parliament localised the power to require the Chief Constable to retire to directly elected PCCs. As stated, and significantly, Parliament did not circumscribe the basis upon which the PCC's power under s.38(3) of the 2011 Act could be exercised. The only limitation on the police authority's equivalent power under Police Act 1996, namely the words ‘in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness’, is entirely absent from s.38 of the 2011 Act.

It appears that these words (or any limitation on the situations in which a PCC could call upon the Chief Constable to retire) were deliberately omitted by Parliament from the scheme under the 2011 Act. Instead, discretion as to whether it is in the best interests of the police force and the public of the police area in question for the Chief Constable to retire was vested in directly elected PCCs.

“[3] Please supply copies of any papers you hold relating to your discussions with Chief Constable Napier about her departure”

I have enclosed a copy of a script and the document referred to above.1

My Chief Executive, Mrs Bosson, provided Mrs Napier with a copy of the script at her specific request under cover of a letter dated the 24th May 2013. The script was not provided to anyone else beyond my lawyers. I can confirm that neither me nor my lawyers "leaked" the script to the Argus and I am disappointed that the leak happened.

All correspondence following that discussion took place by letter between Mrs Napier's solicitors and the Office of the PCC's solicitors. That correspondence is subject to Legal Professional Privilege.

Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent

1 Not printed

28

Written evidence submitted by Carmel Napier QPM, Former Chief Constable of Gwent Police (PCC 16)

Letter from Mrs Carmel Napier QPM, former Chief Constable of Gwent Police, to the Chair of the Committee, 17 June 2013

Thank you for your letter dated the 12 June 2013 and for your interest in the above matter.

Background

I announced my retirement to retire as Chief Constable of Gwent Police on 7 June 2013 and under the terms of a “Compromise Agreement” between the Police and Crime Commissioner, Mr Ian Johnston and me I left the force that day. I believe my record as Gwent’s Chief Constable stands for itself. I am especially proud of my national domestic abuse/community safety portfolios lead work in England and Wales. I believe I have left the force in a strong and healthy position. I am very sorry that I had to retire but the timing of my retirement was not of my choosing.

I spent 30 years as a police officer working in Hertfordshire, North Yorkshire, Essex and Gwent Police. I was the Assistant Chief Constable with lead responsibility for all Territorial Policing and Stansted Airport in Essex from 2006 to 2008. I joined Gwent Police in September 2008 as the Deputy Chief Constable, taking over as Chief Constable in April 2011 with a five year “contract” of employment.

I was immensely proud to serve the people of Gwent. I believe, thanks to my leadership and the efforts of my officers, staff and our partner agencies, the region is a much safer place to live, work and visit. It was always my intention to honour my commitment to the members of the Gwent Police Authority who appointed me as their Chief Constable to serve my five year terms of office.

As Chief Constable of Gwent Police I invested and focused on the concerns that matter to the public. These were: neighbourhood policing and proactive problem solving; highly visible and accessible policing services; and working with others to make communities and the most vulnerable feel and be safe. At the same time due to the austerity measures I was required to make substantial savings. I believe my achievements were substantial. They were independently verified by both internal and external audits and inspections. For example:

Last year Gwent recorded the highest crime reduction in England and Wales. In the last two years we reduced crime by more than 25 per cent – that’s 11,410 fewer victims. According to Home Office figures Gwent Police continues over the last five publications to have the highest reductions in crime in England and Wales.

Our efforts to make our communities safer have led to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) being halved. This means over the past two years 27,000 fewer victims of ASB, one of the issues which really affect the quality of people’s lives.

Coupled with big reductions in crime the force had seen a huge increase in the number of offenders brought to justice. When I became Chief Constable the force was ranked 32nd nationally for bringing offenders to justice. That was not good enough so we had a real focus on the quality of investigations and timeliness of files submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Working together with the CPS to improve services to victims and witnesses,

29

along with removing unnecessary duplication and waste, means Gwent is now ranked 4th nationally.”

Alongside my work in Gwent, I also played a leading role in policing issues across Wales. I have worked closely with other Chief Constables and strongly influenced and driven collaboration between and across the four forces.

I have also worked closely with the Welsh Government. I was responsible for delivering one of its key programmes – the recruitment of 500 additional Welsh Community Support Officers (WCSOs) across the country; shaping the new Domestic Abuse Bill and joint working projects to improve services to victims and perpetrators of abuse; and championing the joint Welsh Government and police responses to fly grazing across Wales.

Additionally nationally (England and Wales) as the Association of Chief Officers (ACPO) lead for domestic abuse I have worked closely with the Home Office, Welsh Government, all police forces, CPS, Her Majesty Inspectorate of Constabulary, Independent Police Complaints Commission and many third sector and statutory stakeholders to influence and improve the way the police service responds to domestic abuse. This includes a large number of innovative on-going pilot initiatives focusing on joint agency effective and timely responses to victims and families and the highest number ever achieved of successful prosecutions of perpetrators.

Above all as Chief Constable I proved that whilst policing is going through some extremely challenging times, the impact of the austerity measures means we have had to change the way we work to deliver an effective service with less. In Gwent I really have proved that you can do more with less – over the same period under my leadership we have made £25m recurring cashable savings out of a £130m budget, are currently exceeding our savings targets for this year and have clear plans to deliver savings not only up to March 2016 but we have also been developing force wide thinking and preparations for the next predicted stages of financial cuts and planning for the future as part of my wide responsibilities as Chief Constable of Gwent.

Again, I believe this is testament to the efforts of the hugely talented people I have been fortunate to lead and work with in Gwent and who serve the people who live here. I am confident that going forward the force is in a strong position to continuing delivering quality policing and leaving an efficient and effective force fit to face the challenges affecting policing.

Your questions:

Whether Mr Ian Johnston was responsible for your resignation on 7 June 2013 and if so what he said that led to that resignation.

1. If so what were his reasons for doing so.

2. Please supply copies of any papers you hold relating to your discussions with Mr Ian Johnson about your departure.

My initial response to your questions:

On 23 May 2013 Mr Ian Johnston, the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Gwent turned up to what I believed was a regular scheduled “one to one” meeting with me. Giving

30

me no prior notice whatsoever, he then proceeded to read a document to me the content of which made it clear that he required me to retire forthwith or he would take steps to dismiss me. There was no discussion – he simply read the document to me and then left the room. I received a copy of the document he read the next day. I initially intended to challenge that demand that I retire. After all I had led a successful force through the biggest change in its history and achieved positive outcomes for Gwent’s’ communities and on my national portfolio responsibilities for policing in England and Wales. However, after taking legal advice it was clear that the PCCs powers under the 2011 Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act were such that effectively I had no option but to retire. Consequently on the 7 June 2013 I resigned having agreed a “Compromise Agreement” with the PCC.

I understand you would wish me to be open and transparent with the Home Affairs Select Committee and to assist you in any way possible. Subject to any legal obligations I may have either in relation to my previous position as Chief Constable of Gwent or under the terms of the Compromise Agreement I had to sign, I am happy to assist in that respect. I hope you will understand I would also need to ask for financial support were I to be asked to appear before the Committee that you Chair in order that I could take legal advice so as to ensure I did not act in breach of any legal obligation in that respect.

I am aware BBC Wales recently conducted an interview with Mr Kevin Ward, the editor of the South Wales Argus, who disclosed that he had received a copy of the 23 May document. My legal representatives or I did not disclose this document to them and I am very disappointed that the confidentiality of that document was breached by other parties unconnected to me in this manner. Some, but not all, of this document has been referred to by Mr Johnson in written and “verbal” interviews he has carried out following my resignation. The meeting of the Gwent Police and Crime Panel is to be held on 28 June 2013 when I understand Mr Johnston is required to notify them of his requirement of me to retire or resign and what the reasons are.

I trust the above assists your initial deliberations.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Carmel Napier QPM

31

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Ian Johnston QPM, Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC 15a)

Letter from Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent, to the Chair of the Committee, 3 July 2013

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence before your Committee yesterday.

Before addressing the issue of legal fees, I wish to make a few important points.

Agreement

First, having reviewed a note of Mrs Napier’s evidence, I am glad that Mrs Napier was able to confirm that the following suggestions made by some politicians are untrue:

- that Mrs Napier received a “payoff”: she did not;

- that Mrs Napier was “gagged” or forced to sign a confidentiality agreement: she was not.

Bullying

Second, I was shocked to hear that Mrs Napier had accused me of bullying her.

I most certainly did not tell Mrs Napier that I would “humiliate and dismiss” her if she did not retire. The very opposite is true. My script for the conversation with Mrs Napier on 23 May 2013, which I read verbatim, records that I said: “My intention is not to humiliate or upset you but we need to be clear I do want you to retire in the next month.” I provided Mrs Napier with the script the following day at her request and I also provided it to the Committee along with my letter dated 14 June 2013.

Between my taking office and Mrs Napier’s retirement, Mrs Napier never once raised a concern with me that I was bullying her or treating her in a manner that she found unacceptable. I can state categorically that I did not bully Mrs Napier.

Reasons for giving Mrs Napier the opportunity to retire

As I explained, I did not give Mrs Napier the option to retire because of a clash of personalities or because I thought she did not agree with the concept of PCCs. It was because she was positively hostile to the office of PCC and frustrated my abilities to exercise the statutory responsibilities that the people of Gwent have entrusted in me. On 23 May 2013 I explained to Mrs Napier that:

a. In my judgement you have lost the confidence of the public of Gwent and of your officers and staff;

b. I find your managerial style to be unacceptably dismissive, abrupt and unhelpful;

c. You have failed appropriately to manage external and internal relations;

d. You are deeply hostile to the very concept of the office of PCC.

32

These concerns developed and intensified over my first few months as PCC and came to a head in April 2013 when UNISON informed me that they were considering lodging a formal complaint against the Chief Constable.

Legal Fees

I apologise that I did not have the precise figure for legal fees at my fingertips yesterday. This was not a question that I had been pre-warned about by the Committee. As promised, the figures are set out below.

It must be understood that it was entirely necessary for me to obtain legal advice in relation to this matter, principally because:

- Regardless of the context, I was dealing with the departure of a senior public servant paid over £130,000 per annum + benefits;

- The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is a new and complex piece of legislation, the relevant parts of which have yet to be interpreted by the senior courts.

It would have been foolish of me or anyone in my position to have proceeded without legal advice. Indeed, I note that Mrs Napier too had the benefit of legal advice (Kingsley Napley). Acting without legal advice could have exposed my office and therefore the people of Gwent to a claim for judicial review and / or damages. You will recall that Mrs Napier’s evidence was that she should have been paid more on her departure, something that my lawyers ensured did not happen.

I asked my Chief Executive to find the best qualified lawyers for a reasonable cost. She sought recommendations and engaged the QC with the best reputation nationally in the field of police law who appeared successfully in both the recent Avon & Somerset and Lincolnshire PCC cases, together with a junior barrister. My Chief Executive decided to save costs by not engaging the services of a solicitor’s firm also.

The QC’s fees were £400 per hour and the junior barrister’s fees were £175 per hour (both plus VAT). I was told that the barristers in question advise Chief Constables and PCCs across the country and that their rates were reasonable for the work in question. I had and have no reason to doubt that.

The legal work was in three phases:

(1) Advising on my options and the process to adopt prior to 23 May 2013; (2) Negotiating with Mrs Napier’s solicitors thereafter until 7 June 2013; (3) Advising on response to Home Affairs Committee’s letter dated 12 June 2013.

The global figure to date is £16,522.50.1

I understand that Mrs Napier/CPOSA’s legal fees at Stage 2 were significant.

Involving the PCP

1 Please note that the figure supplied here includes VAT which will be reclaimed. The figure exclusive of VAT is £13,768.75.

33

As I explained, Mrs Napier chose to retire before I commenced the process under Schedule 8 Part 2 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. I would have commenced that process had Mrs Napier not retired. The PCP would have been fully involved in that process (as would HMIC and Mrs Napier herself, since their involvement is enshrined in legislation).

The legislation is not unclear on the point at which the PCP becomes involved. It sets out a prescribed role for the PCP and their role is to become involved at a certain stage after the process begins. The process did not begin in this case. I am confident that the legal advice I received on this point is correct and I note that Mrs Napier’s lawyers at no stage questioned my approach with regard to involving the PCP.

Further Evidence

You also asked me to provide evidence of the following:

- The occasions on which I expressed my concerns over Mrs Napier’s performance;

- My concerns over Mrs Napier’s approach to recording crime / crime statistics.

I will endeavour to provide this information within 14 days.

Yours sincerely

Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent

34

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Carmel Napier QPM, Former Chief Constable of Gwent Police (PCC 16a)

Email from Mrs Carmel Napier QPM, former Chief Constable of Gwent Police, to the Committee Secretariat, 11 July 2013

Once again many thanks to the Right Honourable Mr Vaz and all Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) for providing me with the opportunity in the right forum to explain what had occurred. I am aware that the Chairman and Members of the Committee understand the difficult position that I am in without legal representation whilst Mr Johnston and all other "in office" parties that the HASC may be speaking to will have access to legal advice probably supported and provided by the local tax payers. In view of this I would like to assist the HASC by asking that you consider looking at the following points and asking for the evidence in documents held by the force which will provide the facts relating to these issues.

1. Evidence on four points : the 23 May 2013 documents and the four points that Mr Johnston raises - please ask him to provide detailed evidence to support these matters. They are very serious allegations he has made and I have seen no evidence other than bland statements made by him to support this. He should in my view be made to stand up and account for the key detail on this and then I can respond.

2. PCC and CC meetings records: Please ask Mr Johnston to provide dates, times and any records of one-to-one meetings that he held with me. He gave the impression that these one-to-one meetings were held weekly with me and that there were huge arguments at such meetings. On both accounts this was not the case. It is a key point that Mr Johnston started on 22 November 2012, we had Christmas and Easter holidays and I was out of force on police related matter in another force for almost one month in March 2013.

3. Aligned with point 2 above I sent to my Chief Officer Team and staff officer - summary actions and notes arising from these meetings. My then staff officer Chief Inspector Matthew Williams at Gwent Police will be able to provide copies of these email which provide an audit trail on matters arising in our meetings.

4. Mr Johnston timings of decisions - This is a key issue for the HASC and me regarding when Mr Johnston decided he did not want me as his Chief Constable; why did he not discuss this with me before the 23 May 2013 meeting; when did he - or one of his team seek legal advice formally and informally on the position and with who, when and where. This evidence which I believe should be supported by schedule/statement from any parties that he has directly or indirectly (i.e. through his office of Police and Crime Commissioner Team or other Joint legal Services in the force) is crucial. This is because it would gain for us all an understanding when his intent was being formed and his intention to use the gaps in the legislation to do what he wanted to do, ignoring any fair and legitimate HR processes, and he deliberately waited for my 30 years service to be completed on the 16 May 2013 before taking any steps. The 16 May was a Thursday and he has his legal advice and document ready and talked to at a normal scheduled meeting on Thursday 23 May 2013. To add insult to injury he does not provide me with an opportunity to reply and the document is leaked to local media. My legal team or I did not leak this document. The date he provides to me to provide response Mr Johnston is on leave and my legal team are having to deal through the Chief Executive of the OPCC through to him to address any matters arising.

35

5. Legal fees and other impact costs - I note in his evidence to HASC that Mr Johnston defers this to the Chief Executive. In my view he should not be abdicating his accountability for his decisions and costs. The Chief Executive and all his staff are dependent on him for their jobs and I would suggest they are therefore just probably going to do his bidding. Likewise just because legally you can do something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Advice is what it is and I expect everyone in public or private service not to do what is right but do the right thing. I believe the HASC should ask for a full breakdown of legal and all other costs associated with his decisions. For example: dates and times and costs of legal advice/travel/hospitality (both internal and external) taken by the Mr Johnston and his OPCC Team in relation to this matter; the potential legal costs which clearly from his evidence to the HASC he was expecting to run to if I had sought to contest his requirement for me to resign; the costs of my enforced resignation; costs of the "back fill arrangements to fill roles - i.e. temporary promotion of Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) to Chief Constable; and then temporary promotion of someone to DCC and Assistant Chief Constable (some of these temporary promotions will have long term impact on public purse as the final salary pension consequences for post holders who are in their final years of their 30 year service). Then recruitment costs for the new Chief Constable and potentially were an in-house candidate successful for DCC. All of these matters when I as current Chief Constable performing well I would expect to stand up to scrutiny on justifying decisions and value for money. When you add this to legal costs the sums add up considerably with long term implications. They also reflect in one of the concerns I had with him that he was spending monies on his team/office/ancillary functions whilst I was saving and seeking to focus on the key service delivery issues that are important to the public. The force under my leadership as both Deputy and Chief Constable was ahead of its savings requirements and this and its healthy reserves was clearly a tempting pot of resource for Mr Johnston to tap into. At my Chief Constable May 2013 Annual Award Ceremony Mr Johnson announced to 100 plus officers/staff and public in attendance he did not agree with Home Secretary focus on crime reduction and Windsor and Hutton and other police cuts reforms.

6. Who holds PCC to account? The role of the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) and extent of scrutiny of the PCP regarding Mr Johnston's decisions should be examined by the HASC. These meetings are taped by the minute taker and I think these should be provided and examined by the HASC and for them to see if they perform their role. Previous minutes should also show how the Chair of the PCP, Councillor John Guy (also an ex serving officer of Gwent Police) complimented me on how I had brought the force into the 21st century and the excellent work the force was doing under my leadership..

7. Crime Recording - I did everything I could as a Chief Constable to ensure that my police officers and police staff investigated and recorded appropriately all incidents of crime and antisocial behaviour. My Assistant Chief Constable Simon Prince was the lead Chief Officer for this up to April 2013. Mr Prince is now Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police and I would ask that he be asked to provide the HASC details of all the many actions and activities, checks and balances involving the Police Authority/OPCC he put in place and reported to me throughout his tenure. Chief Constable Simon Prince does not have any current ties to the force and will provide an independent view of what actions he took involving external consultants independent feedback, internal reviews, Chief Officer led data management group involving Police Authority and latterly OPCC. In April and May 2013 this portfolio was taken over by Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Paul Symes who could provide that six week update. I would ask that the HASC seeks evidence from the Police Authority representative Mr Stephen Delahay who sat on this committee. Also for the HASC to look at the timing of Mr Johnston raising this perceived issue for him after the national Police Federation raised this as an issue around the time of their national conference. One of the leadership issues I dealt with in the force was addressing some police officers and police

36

staff concept of workload when the reality showed it was not as busy as they perceived it to be.

8. Additional Unison post - please ask Mr Johnston to provide to the HASC a copy of the written direction and my written reply to him explaining in detail my rationale which was open to further discussion between us which he never had regarding his - in my view - inappropriate direction to me to increase the full time Unison post in the force. This is also an example of when he refuses to engage in discussion, as he asked me to establish an additional post at a time when we had over 200 less police staff and our job was not to use monies to pay for additional full time seconded Unison staff but to provide policing services. He refused me the time needed to provide reports required and instead told me as I was walking across the car park with him that he was directing me to recruit the post and when I came out of a meeting two hours later I had his written direction to recruit an additional post. My written reply addressed formally my concerns with reasons as he wouldn't discuss it. His reaction when challenged is to get impatient, not to discuss so you are unable together to get to the heart of the issues and reach agreement, but in this and other situations it is his way or no way.

9. Public Accessibility Strategy - Please ask Assistant Chief Officer Mr Nigel Stephens of Gwent Police to provide you with details of the force and Police Authority agreed public accessibility consultation, strategies and linked police stations, one stop shops, mobile police station, police surgeries developments that informed the joint force and Authority plans in this area. This provides evidence to show the consultation that had involved Police Authority Members/officers/staff and the public. These plans had been presented to Mr Johnston and no new amendments made by me when he was in office. In the latter weeks we had one meeting attended by Mr Stephens and the estates project lead regarding Usk Police Station when Mr Johnson suggested that he was not going to sell the Usk Police Station. I stated that whilst the decision was his he needed to consider: the police station had not been open as an operational police station for at least four years; that at approximate cost of £7k reprovision of counter policing services had been made in Usk to have shared "one stop shop" site with other local public/third sector providers; that the current Usk police station was not disability compliant and I was told would cost tens of thousands of pounds to update with ongoing running costs and no officer/staff available to work from there (our priority was officers/staff on the street); that local councillors on Police Authority had been engaged in reprovision consultation and public accessibility project; and that any decisions needed to be made in the context of previous consultation and the savings the force had made as well as the best practice outlined by many including Professor Martin Innes "Rebooting the PC - Using Innovation to drive smart policing" (Policy Exchange Document). No decisions made at this meeting. Mr Stephens would be able to provide detail of this meeting regarding Usk Police Station. For me this reflected Mr Johnston's apparent lack of understanding on how policing is delivered today in the modern world. There is a need for him to consider context and record not only breadth of options considered but also: why he dismisses some options and going to take certain decisions; link his decisions into modern ways of delivering services to enable us together to improve service to the public; releasing resource to increase frontline "on the street" visible and accessible officers and staff; and to save costs. We were after all working together with one reducing budget to deliver more with less and had to date proved it could be done. I believe his evidence is misleading when he says this was a big issue for him with me. We did not discuss issues regarding estates at length - all matters had been dealt with prior to his term of office and the only new matters was the Usk Police Station issue which he was not willing to discuss - it was his way is the only way approach. The new HQ we agreed on but had been developed whilst the Police Authority were in place.

37

10. Closure of Police Club Bar in operational police station - this relates to Blackwood Police Social Club and the decisions made by the Police Authority and I to close the Club as it was not appropriate to have a licensed premises, partially subsidised and supported using tax payers monies, which was also being used unauthorised by other parties, and was causing disruption and potential breaches of confidentiality to local police station officers and staff. I would ask the HASC to ask for the papers presented to the Police Authority on this matter and any other associated documents to be provided by the Assistant Chief Officer Mr Nigel Stephens who led on this matter on my behalf. Mr Johnson early into his appointment asked me to review my decision. I explained all the matters which I have briefly outlined to you and which are expanded in the Police Authority documents and he agreed then that I would absorb responsibility with the Authority for the closure of the Police Club Bar and it would shut. It was clear to him that the Club being shut did not have anything to do with any decision he would in the future seek to make regarding Blackwood Police Station.

11. Use of A19 - like many of the previous issues this was something which had been agreed with the Police Authority prior to Mr Johnston's appointment. It had been used in 2012/13 to good effect and Mr Johnston told me he did not agree with use of A19 and asked me to consider its continued use in 2013/14. The Deputy Chief Constable provided to all Chief Officers, Mr Johnston and the OPCC team the context and rationale for previous decisions to use A19 . This was a decision that remained under the Police Reform in the hands of the Chief Constable. I did review my decision and agreed not to use A19 in 2013/14. I suggest that the HASC obtains from the now Temporary Chief Constable Mr Jeff Farrar full papers, including any confidential papers provided to the Police Authority on this matter and a copy of the presentation given to Mr Johnston on the rationale for use of A19. This will provide the evidence to the Committee on rationale for the Police Authority and my decisions.

12. Acceptance of the PCC and OPCC - I was clear in my evidence to the HASC that I accepted that Government makes decisions and that PCC and OPCC were here to stay and I and the force would work well with whoever got the post and continue to the excellent journey of improved performance outcomes, improved service delivery to the public, deliver the Police and Crime Plan and savings with the PCC and the OPCC. However when Mr Johnston was elected some police officers and police staff proactively raised their fears and concerns about Mr Johnston's behaviour when he was in the force and their worries that this could reoccur potentially taking the positive values and culture that were now in place in the force backwards. I discussed this with my Chief Officer Team and they supported the decision made to provide clear guidelines to officers and staff to support and protect them in their roles and for me as the Chief Constable who the PCC holds to account to deal directly of issues which are of concern to him with me. Mr Stuart John, head of Corporate Communications in Gwent Police will be able to provide to the HASC the written document which reiterates the presentation I gave to all senior managers - both police officers and police staff- in the force. It is supportive of the PCC and respectful of his roles and responsibilities but is clear on the dividing lines of accountabilities. I believe the HASC will have a different understanding of this than the interpretation presented by Mr Johnston when he gave evidence to the HASC.

13. Evidence of my performance reviews by Police Authority and HMIC show that throughout my service, and particularly when I was in Gwent, I exceeded performance and competency requirements. These documents are available should the HASC seek to review them.

14. First Meeting - Mr Johnston mentions our first meeting and his interpretation of my view of him. The key issues I flagged to him was my willingness to work with him, that we have strength if we work as one team together, that we discuss issues through and resolve any differences behind closed doors, that if he could achieve 2.66 precept then I could deliver the savings required and the performance and service delivery requirements of the Police and Crime Plan. I said we had more to do on public confidence and staff attendance. He

38

offered information to me that he was going to appoint Paul Harris who he told me was a trusted ex colleague of his from Gwent Police as his Deputy. He said Mr Harris had helped him with election campaign. I said I wanted to be open and truthful with him and whilst accepted it was his decision was concerned how this may impact on trust and confidence in the force when no fair and open selection process was going to be held. He said he was going to do it anyway and as I knew he had this absolute power to do it I did not pursue this matter in conversation any further. He did mention his views on use of A19 and the potential closure of the Police Club which I said I would provide updates to him . Likewise when he expressed negative views on the Community Support Officers and Partnerships and Communities Together Meetings (PACT) I talked through with him how policing had changed since his time in the force and said I would arrange full briefings to him on neighbourhood policing which I said was the force key brand and how we did business problem solving with community and key stakeholders.

I trust the above points are helpful. It may assist the HASC if copies of documents supplied to you are also provided by you to me so I can verify their fullness and accuracy. Please do not hesitate to contact me by email or telephone if I can assist further.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Carmel Napier QPM

39

Further supplementary written evidence submitted by Ian Johnston QPM, Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC 15b)

Letter from Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent, to the Chair of the Committee, 17 July 2013

Further to my letter of 3 July 2013, I provide the following information as requested by the Home Affairs Select Committee on 2 July 2013. I met with Mrs Napier on the occasions listed on the attached Appendix when I expressed concerns regarding her performance. You asked me to provide evidence of my concerns over crime recording in Gwent. In the course of my election campaign and in numerous meetings with the public since that time, I received regular feedback indicating that the people of Gwent did not have confidence in Gwent Police’s published crime figures. This came at a time when the force was recording significant reductions in recorded crime. I heard many reports from members of the public which suggested that officers seemed preoccupied with numerical targets and talked about a limit on the number of crimes that could be recorded each day. I was surprised to discover that despite recorded reductions in crime, public confidence in the force, as measured by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) was at an all-time low (December 2012 Crime Survey for England Wales (CSEW)). After taking office I quickly realised that the Chief Constable was pursuing a numerical target-driven culture that focussed on the volume of crime recorded rather than the impact on victims or communities. I became concerned that officer behaviour was being driven by a desire to meet performance management targets rather than provide a service to victims and the public in general. I became aware that Mrs Napier’s mission was to be in the ‘top ten’ performing forces for Crime and Antisocial Behaviour reduction by 2016. In order to achieve this she instigated a system based upon data analysis around reported incidents which, in order to meet the 2016 target needed to show an overall reduction in recorded incidents. The Force benchmarked other forces across the country and an end of year target figure was set. To maintain progress towards this, a daily recording requirement of Crime and Antisocial Behaviour incidents was the subject of daily management meetings to ensure that the target figure was not exceeded and if it was Mrs Napier wanted to know why. Examples came from so many sources (the public, councillors, police officers) that I did not think it was something that could be attributed to individual officer error and that there must be some other driver behind the force wanting to deal with incidents in the way they were, often leading to dis-satisfaction, poor public perception and lack of confidence, as was related to me. I asked my Deputy in February to examine crime recording practices within the force and the extent to which the target-driven culture was influencing officer behaviour. He reported that the relentless focus on daily targets at management meetings was such as to justify my concern and warrant further investigation.

40

I discussed these concerns and others with Mrs Napier at several meetings but she did not share my view and said that I should be celebrating the reductions in crime. I am absolutely satisfied that once a crime or incident is recorded, the due process used meets the required standard. My concern related to the initial contact where it seemed that when the daily limits (set by the Chief Constable at her monthly performance meeting and monitored at the daily management meetings), on the allowed number of reports were exceeded, officers were directed to seek to keep recorded incidents below the daily target. Since Mrs Napier’s retirement, the Temporary Chief Constable has commissioned an internal review of crime recording. The terms of reference are: ‘To undertake a focussed internal review to determine whether the people of Gwent, the Police & Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable can have confidence in Gwent Police’s crime figures’. My deputy will form part of the team undertaking that review. I am also aware that HMIC will visit Gwent later this year as part of their national crime data integrity programme. Ian Johnston QPM, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent

APPENDIX

Date Meeting

19 November 2012 Informal meeting with Chief Constable 23 November 2012 PCC & Chief Constable 11 December 2012 PCC & Chief Constable 13 December 2012 Performance & Strategy Board meeting 19 December 2012 PCC & Chief Constable 7 January 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 14 January 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 21 January 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 28 January 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 28 January 2013 Estates meeting 11 February 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 18 February 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 19 February 2013 Strategy & Performance Board 3 April 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 9 April 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 19 April 2013 Strategy & Performance Board 25 April 2013 Estates meeting 8 May 2013 PCC & Chief Constable 21 May 2013 Strategy & Performance Board 23 May 2013 PCC & Chief Constable

41