Agenda item

Following notification from the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner of her intention to appoint the preferred candidate, Ellie Vesey-Thompson as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, the Surrey Police and Crime Panel has a responsibility to hold a Confirmation Hearing, in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

 

Note:

 

See Appendix C for the Surrey Police and Crime Panel - Confirmation Hearing Protocol for the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey.

 

See Item 22 - The Panel will hold a closed session in Part 2 to agree its recommendation to the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner.

Witnesses:

           

Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Proposed appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC)

 

Key points raised in the discussion:

 

1.    The Chairman:

·         Welcomed the proposed appointee to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC), Ellie Vesey-Thompson.

·         Noted that the Panel received informal notification on the proposed appointment to the role of DPCC on 27 May 2021 and formal notification was provided from the PCC on 22 June 2021 - date of agenda publication.

·         Noted that following notification from the PCC, the Confirmation Hearing had been convened in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in order for Panel members to question the proposed appointment on whether she had the professional competence and personal independence to exercise the role.

·         Referred Panel members to the Surrey Police and Crime Panel - Confirmation Hearing Protocol for the DPCC, included as Appendix C in the agenda.

·         Further noted that after the Panel had dealt with the remaining items, Panel members would go into a private closed session under Part 2 (item 22) to decide upon its recommendation to the PCC, which may include a recommendation as to whether the individual should or should not be appointed.

·         Concluded that following the decided recommendation, he would then write to the PCC with the Panel’s recommendation.

 

2.    The Panel began with asking the PCC to introduce the proposed appointment:

 

In response the PCC stated that:

 

·         The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 provides, under section 18(1), that the PCC for a police area may appoint a person as the DPCC for that area.

·         It was understood that the Home Office would bring forward legislation to mandate that each PCC must appoint a DPCC, rather than wait she noted that she wished to appoint a DPCC and in her view was fortunate that the perfect candidate was willing.

·         Miss Vesey-Thompson brought a lot to the role and complemented her own competencies, she was passionate about public service and around 75% of her time would be spent on issues of youth and crime prevention - tacking problems such as antisocial behaviour, school exclusions, speeding - which the PCC noted were areas of focus lacking in the OPCC.

·         Miss Vesey-Thompson assisted her on her election campaign, where she saw her commitment to liaising with the public and with young people in the community, stressing that a young person could be both a victim and perpetrator of crime.

·         She was delighted to nominate Miss Vesey-Thompson and looked forward to working together with the Panel.

3.    The Chairman asked the PCC whether her proposed appointment of DPCC would be identified as her preferred successor and whether she was assured that Miss Vesey-Thompson had the required skills, experience and knowledge to effectively discharge the functions of her office in such an event.

-       In response the PCC noted that it was not Miss Vesey-Thompson’s intention to succeed her in the role of PCC, but in the event that the PCC was absent, then yes, the proposed DPCC did have the required skills to take on the role.

4.    A Panel member asked the PCC what procedures (with key dates and details of persons consulted over matters such as setting the specific role responsibilities and selection criteria, interviews, references and assessments) were adopted prior to her decision to propose Miss Vesey-Thompson for appointment as Surrey's DPCC.

-       The PCC noted that the appointment to the role of DPCC was exempt from Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which stipulated that all staff appointments should be made on merit.

-       However, the PCC noted that she had spoken to number of staff members in the OPCC and wider Conservative Party who knew Miss Vesey-Thompson and were satisfied that she was the perfect candidate.

5.    The Panel member referred to the following criteria used by the OPCC to assess the candidate’s suitability: ‘ability to complement the PCC’s own experience, background and skills’; asking whether it was a valid assumption that the candidate and PCC appeared similar in their backgrounds.

-        The PCC explained that Miss Vesey-Thompson would complement her skills by spending around 75% of her time on working with young people, drawing on her previous work experiences.

 

6.    Panel members were invited to question Miss Vesey-Thompson and a summary of the questions and responses can be found below:

 

·         Asked Miss Vesey-Thompson to outline what experience she would bring to the role, particularly in relation to interacting with young people in communities, noting the importance of genuine interaction between the police and young people.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she had previously represented her peers in the UK Youth Parliament, had worked for the National Citizen Service Trust which offered programmes for young people to re-engage them in their own communities, worked closely with schools giving presentations on her career path.

-       She agreed with the importance of engaging with young people across a broad spectrum including groups that struggled to engage and access services, noting her previous work with young carers.

·           Stressed the importance of the Safe Drive Stay Alive campaign and hoped that both she and the PCC would support the campaign.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that she had discussed the campaign yesterday with the PCC when visiting the Surrey Safer Roads Partnership.

-       She had previously received the Safe Drive Stay Alive roadshow which had a lasting impact on her and she valued other workshops delivered by the emergency services in schools such as on cybercrime and internet safety.

·         Referring to the three most recent jobs Miss Vesey-Thompson had since leaving university, asked how that experience would help her be Surrey’s DPCC.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that her job history since leaving university had been a combination of supporting young people and representing the public; noting a past role in Parliament representing an MP and dealing with resident enquiries. 

·         During the PCC’s election campaign and since becoming the PCC’s proposed appointment for DPCC, asked how she resolved a dispute with the PCC if an issue arose or she took a different view.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that she had not had any major disagreements with the PCC and that should any issues arise discussions would be had to reach an agreed conclusion, noting that the DPCC would respect the PCC’s authority.

-       In response to the Panel Member’s further question, she explained that in her previous roles she had disagreed with employers but noted that she respected the views of those she had been representing and she provided assurance of political neutrality.

·         Asked if Miss Vesey-Thompson was to become the DPCC, whether she could fulfil the roles and criteria stated in law, such as living in Surrey and undergoing checks on any past criminal convictions.

-       The Chairman highlighted that Miss Vesey-Thompson’s signed declaration of office regarding her eligibility was included in the agenda as Appendix A.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson confirmed that she lived in Chertsey, Surrey and had undergone background vetting checks.

·           Asked whether she had any previous experience in contacting the police or looking into crime prior to her proposed appointment to the DPCC role, and if not how she would gain such practical experience.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that in undertaking her law conversion at university she spent time as a voluntary advisor in a family law clinic handling emotive cases in relation to women suffering domestic abuse.

-       She added that having witnessed a domestic abuse incident last week she had provided a formal statement to Surrey Police.

-       She explained that she had met police officers already and that her experience and knowledge of policing would increase in the role, with a key focus on victim support. 

·         Noted concern that although Miss Vesey-Thompson lived in Chertsey, there were eleven distinct Boroughs and Districts in Surrey and asked how well she knew the county or proposed to make herself more widely known.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she knew Surrey fairly well as she had travelled with the PCC across Surrey throughout her election campaign and had developed relationships with representatives across the county.

-       She noted that she was keen to spend time integrating with local communities and councillors; and would take a lead on consulting with councillors concerning the draft Police and Crime Plan.

·         Highlighted that there were a number of hard-to-reach residents in the county and asked for examples of how she had worked with such individuals.

-        Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she was not an expert on liaising with hard-to-reach individuals and noted that she valued the input from as many residents as possible on the draft Police and Crime Plan.

-        She welcomed support in relation to reaching as many individuals as possible across the county and would strive to reach them, noting that she had previously worked with young carers and those with addictions at the National Citizen Service Trust.

·         Noted that whilst the DPCC’s role was not politically restricted, the roles of both the PCC and DPCC were to remain politically independent and asked how she would maintain that.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she had worked in both politically restricted and non-restricted roles and would work equally with all councillors across Surrey irrespective of their political party, their values and needs would be considered equally by herself and the PCC.

·         Asked what she saw herself doing in five years’ time.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that her current plan was to return to law school and to join the family and criminal bar.

·         Stressed that Surrey had a serious problem with drugs; treated as a county lines crime. Noted that there was a fine line between young people being a victim of crime or being guilty of crime concerning drugs and asked how that could be addressed to stop young people getting involved with drugs.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that she had identified work underway with officers across the county with children and young people, however the quality of that delivery was inconsistent across Surrey.

-       She recognised the fine line between victim and perpetrator and noted that a key priority was to level out the provision of high-quality services to young people from an early age, noting the importance of prevention.

·         The Vice-Chairman asked for her to highlight an example in her previous experience concerning strategy formulation and its evaluation as well as a performance monitoring framework.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson recalled her role at the National Citizen Service Trust where she supported the lead individual in the process that the Trust went through for obtaining Royal Charter, requiring a large evidence base, oversight and the identification of improvements.

·         Noted that rural crime in Surrey was an issue different to urban crime, asked what experiences or knowledge she had of rural crime.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she grew up in a rural part of England, she noted a personal experience of a rural crime concerning a theft.

-       That during the PCC’s election campaign, she had spoken with the National Farmers Union and organisations from the rural sector; and recognised the challenge of rural crime in Surrey.

·         Noted that should the PCC become incapacitated the DPCC may be asked to step up as the acting PCC, therefore asked what experience she had of organisational management and strategic decision-making.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that whilst she was willing to step up if needed, she did not have any ambition to take on the role of PCC.

-       That throughout previous political campaigns she found herself as the senior officer needing to make rapid decisions involving high profile people.

-       That the OPCC was effective at providing required information and recommendations for decision-making, should the need arise to act up as PCC she was confident in the OPCC’s support.

·         Noted that as she would spend around 75% of her time working with young people, asked if appointed what she would do in the next three months if Surrey Police had different priorities.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson commented that every police officer she had met had been delighted that someone would be focusing on youth crime and prevention.

-       She explained that the first three months would be split into supporting the PCC on genuine consultation on the draft Police and Crime Plan with councillors, representatives, young people and headteachers and spending time on the ground with police officers engaging with young people through schools.

·         Asked how much time she could commit to rural crime and whether it was a good strategic fit with the other responsibilities she would be given.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she and the PCC would be working on different briefs, freeing up the PCC to look at other areas of crime including rural crime which had been an issue raised by councillors she had met.

·         Noted confusion in the OPCC’s press release which noted that the DPCC if appointed would lead on rural crime and whether that remained a responsibility.

-       The PCC noted concern with the distinction between urban and rural crime as both were crimes occurring in different settings rather than categories.

-       The PCC highlighted that Miss Vesey-Thompson had taken a lead on responding to questions sent into the OPCC on rural crime. 

·         Noted that she had been a former office holder at Conservative Future which was disbanded after the suicide of a young member as a result of bullying, asking what she learnt from that experience in terms of personal resilience.

-          Miss Vesey-Thompson noted the above awful situation, which she had learnt from in terms of greater personal resilience, the willingness to be bold to stand up to bullying and an understanding that young people were vulnerable often in ways that they did not always realise.

-          In response to a Panel member’s further question, Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that the PCC would be taking a lead on the OPCC’s relationship with the Home Office, the PCC would continue to fight for fairer funding for Surrey.

·         Asked if she was subject to any commitments or financial obligations to the Conservative Party.

-           Miss Vesey-Thompson explained that she was not subject to any financial obligations nor expectations and would challenge the party should they place such expectations on her.

-           Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that within the Conservative Party she had agreed to be the campaign support officer for the Runnymede and Weybridge Conservative Women’s Organisation.

·         Queried that other than the above role in the Runnymede and Weybridge Conservative Women’s Organisation, whether she would be politically active and if yes how she would ensure that her political activities - such as attending conferences or election campaigning - would not affect the PCC’s political independence.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson did not share the Panel member’s view that attending conferences showed preference to a political party as noting the current Conservative Party administration, it was important that the PCC was represented at conferences or other forums where decision-makers were present.

-       Miss Vesey-Thompson noted that she may consider attending a political campaign day in the future but not in the capacity as DPCC.

 

Panel members asked further questions of the PCC:

 

7.    A Panel member asked the PCC how many people she considered for the role of DPCC and when she first met Miss Vesey-Thompson.

-       The PCC explained that she had met Miss Vesey-Thompson when she was selected as a PCC candidate earlier in the year. Although a number of individuals during the campaign were willing to put themselves forward as DPCC, Miss Vesey-Thompson did not put herself forward. However, it was clear to the PCC that she was the right candidate.

8.    A Panel member asked the PCC that as soon as she discovered Miss Vesey-Thompson’s suitability to the role as DPCC, why she did not highlight Miss Vesey-Thompson in her campaign.

-       The PCC noted that PCCs do not run on a joint ticket and that she waited to see the outcome of the May elections before making a proposed appointment to DPCC - there was no requirement on her to announce her proposed appointment to the role of DPCC whilst campaigning.

9.    The Chairman:

·         Concluded the item by thanking Miss Vesey-Thompson for answering the questions asked of her by Panel members and asked whether she would like to clarify any of the answers she had given or had any procedural questions going forward. 

-        Miss Vesey-Thompson provided a clarification on initial areas of focus in her brief such as rural crime, explaining that until the consultation had ended on the draft Police and Crime Plan, both her and the PCC’s briefs would vary until residents’ priorities had been established.

·         Noted that in line with the Confirmation Hearing Protocol, he would contact the PCC by the next working day with the Panel’s recommendation regarding the appointment.

·         Explained that in item 22 the Panel would hold a closed session in Part 2 to agree its recommendation to the PCC on whether or not to appoint the candidate as DPCC.

·         Noted that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 allowed the PCC the right to accept or reject the Panel’s recommendation; however, the PCC must inform the Panel of her decision.

·         Noted that it was recommended that a period of five working days should elapse before the recommendations of the Panel were made public, although the information could be released at an earlier stage if there was mutual agreement between the Panel and PCC.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Panel noted the responses provided to their questions by Miss Vesey-Thompson as the PCC’s proposed appointment to the role of DPCC, and noted the responses provided by the PCC.