Agenda item

·    Any member of the public, who lives, works or studies in North Yorkshire and York can ask a question to the Panel.  The question or statement must be put in writing to the Panel no later than midday on Wednesday, 31^st January 2024 to Diane Parsons (contact details below). 

·    The time period for asking and responding to all questions will be limited to 30 minutes. No one question or statement shall exceed 3 minutes.

·    Please see the rules regarding Public Question Time at the end of this agenda page.  The full protocol can be found at www.nypartnerships.org.uk/pfcp.

Two questions/statements had been agreed in advance by the Chair as follows:

 

1) Councillor John McCartney (North Yorkshire Council):

 

“My council ward borders The East Riding of Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire. Cross-border crime; from fly-tipping to serious burglaries is a local concern, especially in those rural communities very close to the border.  The communities of Kirk Smeaton and Little Smeaton are very close to both South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.  

 

A burglary in Kirk Smeaton, in January involving four men in balaclavas, waving iron bars created an outcry in the two villages. There has been another burglary since then.

 

At a packed meeting with our excellent local neighbourhood policing team and residents of Kirk Smeaton and Little Smeaton on the 22^nd January, I was shocked to hear that residents ringing 999 were being put through to West Yorkshire Police.  They then have to waste valuable time getting transferred to North Yorkshire Police.

 

I am pleased to see from the “Force Control Room Performance Report” that is before the Panel today that there have been improvements to both the 101 and 999 service. But there is an issue with the 999 service for the two communities in my area. Is this more widespread along the county borders and can it be resolved? Is this something that could be raised as you look at the “Force Control Room Performance” item?  

 

A/CC Elliot Foskett provided some further context to the matter raised, which highlighted that the 999 system belongs to and is owned and managed by BT and local phone providers will direct calls to the nearest mast where a community is a long way from a mast.  In communities lying on the county borders, calls may initially be taken by a neighbouring force.  That force will deal with the matter but will also contact the local area force at the same time.  This is not peculiar to North Yorkshire and A/CC Foskett was keen to reassure that there would be minimal delay to dealing with calls as a result.  He offered to look into the matter further for Councillor McCartney if helpful. The Commissioner advised Councillor McCartney that issues of this nature may best be channelled via her Online Public Meetings.

 

2) Gwen Swinburn provided a question but was unable to attend the meeting.  The Panel agreed that her question would be taken and a response shared in the meeting as follows:

“Chair, to give context, I sat in the meeting that accepted the new Chief Constable. In that process I witnessed an overwhelming focus on rural issues both in the prepared questions & debate. That and the issues below, make me feel as a citizen in York, that we are not equal partners, but rather being absorbed. It feels bad, as if York is being merged into North Yorkshire Council, in plain sight.

I also recognise that the whole police and fire part of the constitution came very late and remained confusing. But at face to me, the Panel is the equivalent of the other oversight committees - agreeing key policies, assurances on governance and accounts and so on.

I have also seen no discussion on the make-up of this committee or (other than it is an historical inherited artefact) why it will continue to exist as it was with 70% North Yorkshire seats 30% York which is contrary to all the other 50/50 membership in our Combined Authority arrangements. 

In summary these are my unresolved concerns which I cannot see meet the spirit of a truly Combined Authority. 

1. I cannot see where the 70/30 arrangement is fair or where it is agreed in the constitution. It makes no sense that we do not have a 50/50 split considering the level of responsibility of this committee. 

2. I think the Panel, if it is to be retained, should be renamed the York and North Yorkshire PFC Panel.

3. That it should meet alternately in York and Northallerton, not permanently in Northallerton.

4. That any references to the Lead Authority anywhere should be changed to administering authority or similar.

5. Finally, the constitution, which I understand is now adopted, and active, plainly in my reading, states that no member or substitute of the YNYCA may sit on the panel (page 233-2.8). It doesn’t say, from May, but rather from now. I am conscious that this may be an oversight, and it is an odd interregnum - but I wanted to raise it formally, this in context that the constitution is the defining document that binds this authority, we need to follow it by the letter or make changes do [sic] we can”. 

Diane Parsons provided a response on behalf of the Panel as follows:

 

Gwen, thank you for the points you have raised with the Police, Fire and Crime Panel.

 

I think it’s important to acknowledge firstly that the while, from May this year, there will clearly be some legal accountabilities and interrelationships between the Panel’s role and the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) once the commissioner’s police, fire and crime functions transfer to the MCA, the legislative basis for the Panel pre-dates and stands separately to that for the developing MCA.  The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the Act) defines how the Panel functions and this fundamentally doesn’t alter once the Commissioner’s functions are transferred to the MCA.  The Panel will continue as a committee which is legally separate to the MCA. 

 

To respond to your points as follows:

 

1.     The Order which created the MCA does stipulate that the Mayor, a member of the MCA appointed by the constituent councils or substitute members acting in place of those members may not also be a member of the Police, Fire and Crime Panel (modification to Schedule 6, s21 of the PRSRA 2011).  This element must be observed after May 7th this year once the Mayor is elected and the police, fire and crime commissioner functions are transferred to the Mayor.  In the meantime, until the Mayor is appointed, there is no conflict of interest between being on the Combined Authority and Chairing the Police, Fire and Crime Panel.

 

2.     The Act provides (Sch 6) that there is a duty to provide a balanced panel to ensure that the LA members of a Panel, when taken together, represent all parts of the relevant police area as well as reflecting the political make-up of the force area.  Prior to local government reorganisation last year, eight seats were held between the former district and borough councils and NYCC and two seats held by City of York.  A view was sought from the Home Office as to what the Panel should consider in relation to impact of local government reorganisation and were advised that there may need to be a shift in membership allocations to better reflect population sizes for the two constituent authorities of York and North Yorkshire.  As the population of York is around 211,000 and North Yorkshire is approx. 620,000, this represented a roughly 70/30 split.  As such, it was proposed that York gains an additional seat (3) and NYC has seven and this was agreed through full councils at both York and NYCC last year.

 

3.     While the Order which created the Mayoralty seeks to represent the two elements of York and North Yorkshire, it’s important to note that the Act which created Panels specifies that there should be one for each police force area.  As such, each Panel will take its name from its constituent police force and this is therefore not a locally-determined decision.  For example, Durham Police and Crime Panel comprises Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council but takes its name from the local force.

 

4.     In terms of meeting venues, traditionally, the Panel has tried to ensure some rotation between Northallerton, York and Selby on the basis that this broadly covers the best access for members and the public from the A1 corridor, in order to get some reach to all parts of the force area.  The key is that any meeting venue meets accessibility requirements and also has the ability to easily broadcast so that we can reach a wider audience if possible too.  The Panel meets in York at least once a year, generally at West Offices.  As the Panel operates on a very tight budget we do also have to consider the cost to the public purse when looking at how frequently we meet at certain venues, particularly when off site and requiring others to resource meetings and arrange for our live broadcast. 

 

5.     The term “Lead authority” is used by many Panels within their Rules of Procedure and as you will have seen from the draft paper brought to yesterday’s Panel that the term is also interchangeable with “host authority”.  This simply refers to the constituent authority that has taken on responsibility for support and maintenance of the Panel, in contractual agreement with the Home Office.  For example, as is stated in the Arrangements brought in January, “The Lead Authority shall take steps to coordinate the Authorities with a view to ensuring that the balanced appointment objective is achieved”, so it is a co-ordination role.