Agenda item

The Police and Crime Commissioner and the Candidate for the post of Chief Executive Officer have been invited to attend this session.

A copy of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s report on the appointment is attached.

A document explaining the process to be followed at the Confirmatory Hearing will be circulated separately.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) in regard to its proposed appointment of Mr. Paul Hindson to the post of Chief Executive Officer. A copy of the report of the OPCC, marked ‘Agenda Item 3’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Mr. Paul Hindson to the Hearing. Officers and Panel members each introduced themselves to Mr. Hindson.

The Chairman outlined the process to be adhered to, taking those present through a process document which had been circulated to all members.

The Chairman invited the PCC to explain the recruitment process for the Chief Executive Officer role and why he chose Mr. Hindson for the post. The PCC stated that applicants were required to undertake a psychometric test, be assessed by a Community Panel and attend a formal interview. The PCC stated that Mr. Hindson was an outstanding candidate who had successfully completed all aspects of the recruitment process. In the view of the PCC Mr. Hindson was extremely well qualified for the role as he had previously carried out several senior jobs in the criminal justice arena including working for Probation, he had been an advisor to Central Government and also had private sector experience as well.

(The PCC left the room.)

The Chairman invited Mr. Hindson to explain why he chose to undertake the role of Chief Executive Officer and how he felt he was qualified for the role. Mr. Hindson explained that he was attracted to jobs which were about increasing social value to the public, and that the role with the OPCC involved more engagement with the community than his previous jobs. Mr. Hindson said that he also felt the role would challenge him which was a positive. Mr. Hindson said that he felt he had the skills and experience to carry out the role due to his previous leadership experience. Mr. Hindson stated that he would bring to the role a range of qualities such as leadership skills, determination, creativity and the ability to carry out tasks in a different way, and the ability to work collaboratively.

The Panel then questioned Mr. Hindson regarding his suitability for the post under the following key headings:

·                     Professional Competence;

·                     Personal Independence.

Arising from questioning, the Panel noted the following points made by Mr. Hindson:

(i)        An example of Mr Hindson’s ability to strategically plan was his work with the national development of Offender Management. This work required him to write a strategy and visit prisons promoting the work and dealing with issues that had arisen. As part of this work Mr. Hindosn took account of potential developments which were on the horizon and was prepared to adapt should circumstances change.

(ii)       Mr Hindson preferred a collaborative management style which involved providing clarity on other people’s roles and what he expected of them. He also liked to help develop colleagues professionally and encourage them to gain new skills.

(iii)      Mr. Hindson’s leadership skills were further developed whilst carrying out a change programme for 2 private companies, and whilst employed by Working Links he was required to manage culture changes whilst governed by a strict statutory and contractual framework. Whilst employed by Interserve Mr. Hindson designed new ways of working and made his vision as clear as possible. Changes were developed collaboratively by service users and those working on the front line.

(iv)      In order to stay up to date with policy and guidance from central government Mr. Hindson stated that he would maintain regular contact with ministers and officials in government and that he had strong links with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

(v)       Mr. Hindson’s previous jobs gave him experience of delivering services at a time of reducing resources and he approached times of austerity with a positive attitude as it gave the opportunity to reassess ways of working and go back to basics. Mr. Hindson stated that he had the ability to prioritise and make tough choices about which areas of work to focus on and invest resources in.

(vi)      When commissioning services Mr. Hindson had in the past been required to utilise very detailed contracts with providers however he was not in favour of this approach and preferred to focus on the outputs of providers.

(vii)    Mr. Hindson acknowledged that there was an abundant set of partners in the area of criminal justice throughout Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and stated that he would identify the key stakeholders and use their sphere of influence. He aimed to build relationships with all Councillors in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and take their views on board.

(viii)   Mr. Hindson acknowledged the importance of community engagement and noted that some communities were hard to reach and therefore required different approaches of getting messages across such as community forums and social media.

(ix)      When prompted Mr. Hindson noted that the Police and Crime Plan clearly set out the vision for the work of the OPCC but stated that circumstances could change both nationally and locally and he would be horizon scanning to identify new priorities.

(x)       Mr. Hindson stated that he was familiar with the Nolan principles and recognised the importance of acting appropriately and with integrity.

(xi)      Mr. Hindson clarified that his company Encompass Innovation Ltd was dormant and would be closed down once the end of year accounts had been submitted. Therefore there would be no conflict of interest with the job of Chief Executive Officer at the OPCC should he be appointed.

(xii)    Mr. Hindson stated that should he be appointed he would seek to develop a positive relationship with the PCC but at all times be mindful of his role as Monitoring Officer and make sure the PCC conducts himself appropriately, legally and fairly. Mr. Hindson had experience of working with politicians from his previous jobs such as working with government ministers where he was able to encourage them to temper their ideas and ensure projects were compatible with existing legislation.

The Chairman thanked the PCC and Mr. Hindson for their attendance and informed them that it would be necessary for the Panel to come to a view in private on whether to endorse or otherwise the PCC’s proposed appointment.

The Chairman indicated that the OPCC would be notified of the Panel’s decision within one working day.

(Mr. Paul Hindson left the room.)