Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Baker and Carr, who were substituted by Councillors Lunn and Irwin, and from Miss Woodhouse.

The Chair advised that he intended to vary the order of the agenda to bring forward Chair’s Announcements.

To receive communications from the Chair.

The Chair welcomed all those present and made the following points:

·         The purpose of the meeting was to enable the Panel to scrutinise decisions taken by the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) connected with the appointment of an interim Chief Fire Officer in July 2023.  

·         The Panel was appointed to carry out specific tasks such as scrutinising the PFCC’s Police, Fire and Crime Plan. The Panel also had the more general responsibility to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, by the PFCC in connection with the discharge of the PFCC’s functions.

·         The Panel was required to carry out all of its functions with a view to supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the PFCC.

·         The Panel had the power to require information from the PFCC and to make reports or recommendations to the PFCC. The PFCC must respond to a report or recommendation, although the PFCC was not required to agree with it. The Panel had no power to sanction the PFCC. The PFCC was ultimately answerable to the electorate not to the Panel.

·         It was recognised that the situation that had led to the current meeting had attracted considerable attention. It was right that the Panel scrutinised this situation. However, the way that the Panel did this had to reflect the requirements and parameters that the Chair had mentioned.

·         At the start of the meeting the Panel would hear addresses or questions from members of the public who had been registered to speak. The Chair had not agreed some requests to speak that had been received ahead of the meeting. However, after further consideration, if any of those members of the public were present they would be given the opportunity to speak. Councillors wishing to raise points could do so through colleagues on
the Panel.  

·         The Panel would then ask a series of questions to the PFCC intended to produce information about the matter under scrutiny in addition to that included with the report on the agenda. The PFCC had been given advance notice of these questions. There would be the opportunity for follow-up questions and for the Panel to pursue lines of enquiry that may emerge. The extensive list of questions might limit the number of supplementary questions needed.

·         The Panel would then discuss and agree any resolutions or recommendations that it wished to make based on the information it had gained. As was normal practice, the Panel would aim to reach a consensus but conclusions could be decided by a vote if necessary. 

·         All those present were thanked for taking the time to attend and the Chair looked forward to their contributions.

Any requests to speak on an item on the agenda should be notified to the Chair (c/o the Committee Manager) by 12 noon two working days before the date of the meeting.

The Chair advised that eight members of the public had been registered to speak but others who had requested to speak ahead of the meeting would also be accommodated if they were present. Speakers would be heard together and the PFCC would then respond to their points.

Mr Adam Taylor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         He wished to present the concerns and anger raised by Northamptonshire Fire Brigades Union (FBU) members arising from the appointment by the PFCC of an uncredible Chief Fire Officer (CFO). The FBU considered that this decision had made the PFCC’s position immediately untenable.

·         The reasons given by the PFCC for the appointment of Nicci Marzec as interim CFO were not credible. The PFCC had argued that the appointment needed to be made urgently in time for the British Grand Prix on 7 July 2023, but Ms Marzec had not been available for the event and had had no operational authority to act.  

·         The PFCC had stated to the FBU on 10 July 2023 that neither the incoming Deputy CFO nor the Assistant CFO of Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service (NFRS) could carry out the role of interim CFO. The FBU disputed this view.

·         The PFCC had been wrong to proceed with the appointment without a confirmation hearing, which was backed up the legal advice obtained by West Northamptonshire Council’s Monitoring Officer on behalf of the Panel.

·         The FBU believed that the intention to appoint Ms Marzec was premeditated. He suggested that Mr Jones had indicated at a meeting with the FBU in June 2023 that he would be forced out of the role of CFO due to differences with the PFCC. 

·         The creation of a Deputy CFO role at NFRS was intended to support the PFCC’s agenda at a time when there were no resources for firefighters’ pay.

·         The Northamptonshire FBU had unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in the PFCC on 4 September 2023. They felt that the PFCC had turned his back on firefighters during the past two months.

·         He demanded that the Panel held the PFCC to the highest account and pass a vote of no confidence in the PFCC.

Mr Chris Kemp addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The Northamptonshire FBU had passed a vote of no confidence in the PFCC, which was a stark and unprecedented step. He believed that the PFCC could not justify actions he had taken during the past two months.

·         The Panel should hold the PFCC to the highest account and vote that it had no confidence in him.

Mr Gary Lovell addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         He was speaking as an ordinary citizen who was disgusted by the appointment made by the PFCC.

·         The Mail on Sunday on 23 July 2023 had published an article claiming that the PFCC was in an intimate relationship with Ms Marzec. The PFCC had denied this and had been quoted as saying that had he been aware of related rumours  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

None declared.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The Panel notes the error of judgement made by the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner in respect of a recent appointment. The Panel is disappointed that reputational damage has been done to the Commissioner’s office. The Panel recommends actions in the following areas:

·           Improved communications between the Commissioner and the Panel

·           Training for the Commissioner in relation to the Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Code of Conduct

·           The addition to the Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Code of Conduct paragraph 6.3 (Appointment and other Employment Matters) of a specific definition of ‘close personal relationships’

·           The addition to the Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service Recruitment and Selection procedures paragraph 6.4 (Exceptions to the requirement to advertise a vacancy) of more precise wording regarding the process for dealing with temporary appointments.

·           The production by the Commissioner of an action plan dealing with these areas that is reported back to the Panel    

b)    The Panel writes to the Home Office regarding the need for clarity about whether interim appointments by police, fire and crime commissioners to the positions of chief constable, chief fire officer, deputy commissioner, chief executive of the commissioner’s office and chief finance officer of the commissioner’s office should be subject to confirmation hearings by the relevant police, fire and crime panel.

c)    The Panel expects interim appointments by the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner to the positions of Chief Constable, Chief Fire Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Executive of the Commissioner’s Office and Chief Finance Officer of the Commissioner’s Office to be subject to confirmation hearings in future. 

d)    The Panel agrees to hold a future meeting with the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner and Fire Brigades Union representatives.

e)    The Panel recommends that the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner recognises and acknowledges the importance of the discussion that has taken place at the current meeting.

The Chair introduced the report and invited Panel members to raise any questions about the background information included in the report or the process that the Panel would follow at the meeting.

The Director Legal and Democratic responded to points of clarification raised by Panel member as follows:

·         The redactions in the two sets of legal advice appended to the report related to the names and personal information of individuals. A particular redaction at the start of the email from the OPFCC to EMPLS on 27 June 2023 concerned information about a third party that was not relevant to the Panel’s purpose and it was not appropriate to publish it. None of the redactions should prevent the Panel from understanding the facts of the matters that it was scrutinising.  

·         The PFCC would need to advise whether he had sought any legal advice directly. However, it was normal practice for an elected representative such as the PFCC or a councillor to seek such advice through a support officer.

The Chair invited the PFCC to respond to points raised by the public speakers. The PFCC advised that this would be covered in his responses to the Panel’s questions.

The Panel then asked the PFCC a series of questions on different aspects of his decisions connected with the appointment of an interim CFO in July 2023.

Decisions relating to the departure of Mr Jones

The PFCC was asked when he had been informed by Mr Jones that he was considering retiring as CFO and what steps the PFCC had taken regarding that information. The PFCC made the following points:

·         He thanked the Panel for the chance to explain the rationale for his decisions regarding the appointment of an interim CFO. He regretted that he had not had the chance to do so before now.

·         He hoped that information provided at the current meeting would also inform the Complaints Sub Committee meeting on the following day.

·         As PFCC he had regular one-to-one meetings with Mr Jones to hold him to account as CFO and to discuss any personal matters. It was vital that these meetings remained confidential. Mr Jones had left NFRS on 7 July 2023 by mutual agreement.

·         The confidentiality of discussion between the PFCC and Mr Jones was also subject to a legal agreement.

The PFCC was asked what his understanding was of the reason for Mr Jones’s resignation. The PFCC responded that the statements issued to the public and staff members on 7 July 2023 had stated that Mr Jones had been affected by injuries.

The PFCC was asked if he had considered whether any health issues that led to Mr Jones’s resignation were associated with his employment with NFRS. The PFCC responded that Mr Jones had never raised any issues relating to NFRS at his regular meetings with the PFCC. The PFCC did not believe that the working environment at NFRS was a factor in Mr Jones’s decision. 

The PFCC was asked whether Mr Jones’s notice period had been waived  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

The Chair to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.