Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Cleveland Police and Crime Panel Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 6th July, 2016
Time:
5.00pm
Place:
Jim Cooke Conference Suite, Stockton Central Library, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1TU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Norma Stephenson (Chairman); Cllr Alec Brown; Cllr David Coupe; Chu Chu Nwajiobi; Mrs Gwen Duncan; Cllr David Harrington (Sub Cllr Ken Dixon); Cllr Dave Hunter; Cllr Chris Jones; Cllr Jim Lindridge; Cllr Charlie Rooney (Vice Chairman); Cllr Matt Vickers; Cllr David Wilburn.
Officers:
David Bond, Michael Henderson (Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council).
In Attendance:
Iain Spittal (Temporary Chief Constable), Barry Coppinger (Police and Crime Commissioner), Simon Dennis and Joanne Hodgkinson (Police and Crime Commissioner's Office), and a Member of the Public.
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Billy Ayre, Cllr Ken Dixon and Cllr Linda Lewis
Item Description Decision
Public
PCP
59/15		 EVACUATION PROCEDURE /MOBILE PHONES
Preamble
 
PCP
60/15		 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Preamble
 
PCP
61/15		 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIRMAN
Preamble
 
PCP
62/15		 CONFIRMATION HEARING PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE
Preamble
RESOLVED that the purpose and procedure of the Confirmation Hearing be noted/agreed.
PCP
63/15		 KEY DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPOINTMENT
Preamble
 
PCP
64/15		 QUESTIONING OF THE CANDIDATE
Preamble
 
PCP
65/15		 CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PANEL TO CONSIDER ITS RECOMMENDATIONS
Preamble
RESOLVED that the Panel unanimously confirms its full support for the appointment of Iain Spittal as Chief Constable for the Cleveland Police Force.
5pm/6pm

Preamble

ItemPreamble
PCP
59/15		Members noted the evacuation procedures relating to the meeting room.
PCP
60/15		There were no declarations of interest.
PCP
61/15		The Chairman, Panel Members and all those present introduced themselves.
PCP
62/15		The purpose of the meeting was explained, which was to hold a confirmation hearing before making a report and recommendation to the Police and Crime Commissioner ("the Commissioner") in relation to his proposed appointment of a Chief Constable. The hearing was a meeting of the Panel, held in public, at which the Candidate, Iain Spittal, was requested to appear for the purpose of answering questions relating to the proposed appointment.

The procedure to be followed at the meeting was explained, and it was indicated that when the questions asked of the Candidate by Panel members were concluded, the Panel would go into closed session, in order to agree a report and recommendations to the Commissioner. The Panel's decision would be communicated to the Commissioner in writing by the next working day following the hearing, and a copy of the communication would be provided to the Candidate.
PCP
63/15		Details of a report and notification and accompanying documents from the Commissioner, regarding the proposed appointment, were considered by the Panel. These provided details of the appointment process leading to the Commissioner's proposal to appoint Iain Spittal, as Chief Constable, and comprised a copy of the advert for the position; key terms and conditions of appointment; a Chief Constable Guidance Document; Job Description; Person Specification and a report from the Independent Member of the Selection Panel.

The Independent Member's report confirmed that the process leading to the proposed appointment of the preferred candidate had been open and fair; that it had been conducted in accordance with the College of Policing guidance and all relevant legal requirements; and that the proposed Appointee fully met the agreed and published requirements of the role.

In his report to the Panel, the Commissioner indicated that he believed that Iain Spittal had demonstrated his suitability for appointment across the key personal and professional qualities of Serving the Public; Leading Strategic Change; Leading the Workforce; Managing Performance; Professionalism; Decision Making and Working with Others. He had also expressed a strong, personal motivation to devote himself to providing the best possible policing services to the communities of Cleveland, as well as ensuring that the area's interests were well served in the regional and national policing context.
PCP
64/15		Panel Members asked questions of the Candidate regarding his approach and commitment to identifying, removing and preventing racism, sexism, or any other kind of discrimination in the Force; how community cohesion could be maintained and improved bearing in mind the rise of hate related incidents following the EU Referendum result; the commitment to retaining and developing more effective neighbourhood policing; how Cleveland Police would remain active and committed to collaborative partnership working against a backdrop of cuts in budgets and increased service pressures; in view of the limits on finance and the increase in cybercrime, for instance, what the priorities for the Force were and what had to give; how would he wish his performance as Chief Constable to be measured and what would the appropriate indicators be in that respect, and what one indicator would he prefer his performance at the end of his term of office to be recognised by.

When responses had been provided to all of the Panel Members' questions, the Candidate was given an opportunity to clarify any answers given and to ask questions of the Panel.
PCP
65/15		Panel Members indicated that they were immensely impressed by the Candidate's openness and honesty; his clarity of focus and clear recognition of what needed to be done; his exceptional confidence and belief in what could be achieved and the tremendous passion and commitment he showed for the job and the obvious dedication he demonstrated to ensuring that the communities of Cleveland had the best police service possible.

There was a unanimous view that the Commissioner's proposed appointment of Iain Spittal should be supported.

This was relayed to the Commissioner and the Candidate after they had returned and the public meeting had resumed.

The Panel's decision would normally be embargoed until a period of five days had elapsed following the hearing, however it was agreed that in the particular circumstances of this case that would not be necessary, or appropriate. Details of the Panel's decision could therefore be released immediately following written confirmation to the Commissioner and the Candidate.

My Stockton Logout

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction