Cumbria Police and Crime Commissioner Richard Rhodes reveals details over £700 taxi fares saga as crime panel says he caused 'confusion and uncertainty'UNDER-fire Police and Crime Commissioner Richard Rhodes has given a detailed explanation of the background to a saga which led to calls for his resignation, as Cumbria's crime panel criticised him for causing 'confusion and uncertainty'.
Mr Rhodes, who took office as the Commissioner for Cumbria in November 2012, answered questions put to him by the Cumbria Police and Crime Panel - whose job it is to support and scrutinise his work - over two controversial chauffeur-driven trips which cost the public purse £700.
Last month Mr Rhodes apologised 'unreservedly' to the people of Cumbria for the 'embarrassment' the issued had caused.
There was national anger following the arrests of three people - including two police workers - after Cumbria police received complaints that confidential information about the cost of the journeys had been leaked to the media.
In the answers, which have been made public by the panel, Mr Rhodes said he had been 'uncomfortable' about the cost of the two trips - one to have dinner with the Archbishop of York in a hotel, and the other to the Pheasant Inn at Bassenthwaite, and had been considering repaying the money when the information was published in the media.
"The information would have been published on my website in due course, but not in the timescale ultimately dictated by the media," he said.
"On April 8, 2013, I requested, through the Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, that it be deducted from my salary payment.
"This was an entirely personal decision as the arrangements had been made by my office in accordance with normal procurement procedures.
"I should stress that this was an expense that was legitimately incurred. I repaid it not because I was obliged to, but because I wanted to."
He said he now uses a car which was left over from a former police scheme, and which is a better use of public money.
He also reiterated that concerns over the disclosure of the information had been reported from within his own office, but that he has no control over Cumbria police's operational policy, and that it was a matter for the Chief Constable.
In response, the Police and Crime Panel said it had accepted his explanation of events and welcomed the change in travel arrangements, which now provides 'better value for money for local taxpayers'.
"However, much of the confusion and concern around this issue could have been avoided if statements you issued had been clearer and more specific at the time," Chairman Celia Tibble said.
"Indeed you state in your letter that you in fact did not do something that, in previous statements at the time, you said you did. I am sure you will appreciate the uncertainty this has caused.
"In short, it is disappointing that the detail and clarity provided in your letter was not present when events were unfolding.
"Should new information come to light as a result of the ongoing police investigation it would, of course, be necessary for the Panel to look at these issues again, but we accept the responses you have provided at this time as adequately addressing our concerns."
Cumbria Police and Crime Panel's questions and Richard Rhodes' answers in full.
1. When exactly were you made aware of the amounts being spent on chauffer driven vehicles for your use?
After the second use of the vehicle to attend the King’s Own Border Regiment event, after which the exact amount charged became available.
2. When exactly did you make the decision to stop using such vehicles?
As soon as I had details of the actual cost, some time in the week beginning February 11, 2013.
3. Your spokesperson stated that you took the decision to re-pay the costs of these trips, but only after the issue was raised in the press. When exactly did you take that decision and why did you wait until the issue became public knowledge?
As you know the cost of the use of the driven vehicle was published in the press in the week ending April 5, 2013.
The information would have been published on my website in due course, but not in the timescale ultimately dictated by the media.
I had been uncomfortable about the cost that had been incurred from the moment I became aware about it.
I had been considering repaying the cost, but there had been no imperative to make the decision quickly.
Reflecting on the matter over the weekend of April 6/7, I decided to expedite the re-payment of the cost of the journeys.
On April 8, 2013 I requested, through the Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, that it be deducted from my salary payment.
This was an entirely personal decision as the arrangements had been made by my office in accordance with normal procurement procedures.
I should stress that this was an expense that was legitimately incurred. I repaid it not because I was obliged to, but because I wanted to.
4. Your office has purchased a vehicle for your use, when was this vehicle purchased, what is its value and when was it delivered?
As I have stated publicly, when I was first elected the possibility of me being allocated a driver was raised.
The rationale for the suggestion was the amount of travelling I would be required to undertake to attend meetings and other engagements throughout the county in my new role.
I rejected the proposal as overly expensive. However, it quickly became apparent that I was undertaking a significant amount of driving and reimbursing me for the use of my own car, even at the Inland Revenue approved rate of 45p per mile, was not the best use of public money.
I inherited from the former Police Authority a provided car scheme for Chief Police Officers. It was put to me that this scheme could be used to provide me with a vehicle for use in my role as Commissioner.
A vehicle was already available having been purchased for use within the scheme but not allocated. It was being stored by the provider.
Once it had been decided to provide me with the vehicle it took several weeks for it to be prepared and delivered. When the vehicle was delivered it had some faults which necessitated it being returned to the dealer for attention.
I record all my journeys in the vehicle and reimburse the cost of my private mileage. This is a taxable benefit.
The purchase price of the vehicle is not disclosable as it was purchased through a Home Office framework agreement.
5. You have stated that you have no influence over operational policing; however your statement said that you raised “concerns” about this issue with constabulary.
- What was the exact nature of these concerns?
- When were they raised and how? Can you supply us with any relevant written correspondence, including emails?
- Who in your office raised the concerns and did they do so with your authority?
The “concerns” were raised with the Constabulary by staff within my Office. The OPCC’s Section 151 Officer had a statutory duty to raise this matter – an apparent unauthorised release of information - with the Constabulary once it had been raised.
As such it was not necessary for me to authorise the raising of concerns, though I was aware that the matter was going to be raised.
The Section 151 Officer would be anxious that the matter was investigated to ascertain whether this was an isolated incident or the result of a system failure.
The matter was raised at a face to face meeting with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable, which was also attended by the Constabulary’s Chief Finance Officer.
In any event it would have become public knowledge through the newspaper coverage, at which point the matter would have to have been investigated.
There is no correspondence, in any media, on this matter.
6. You have also stated that you have “…asked the Chief Constable to review as a matter of urgency the scale and nature of the investigation.”
Could you clarify how this relates to the earlier part of the same statement where you said you had no powers to influence operational policing? Again please supply us with any written correspondence, including emails, relevant to this request to the Chief Constable.
This is an operational matter and it is therefore a matter for the Chief Constable. I am sure he constantly reviews all operations.
As you rightly say I have no powers to influence operational policing, though I do have overall responsibility for budgetary matters. I have not put this request to the Chief Constable. There is no correspondence in any form on this matter.
7. In your view has the Police response to this matter been proportionate and appropriate?
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this question.
8. If relevant, can you confirm any actions you intend to take with Cumbria Constabulary in terms of reviewing and resolving this matter?
I do not have any authority to resolve this matter – it is subject to an active criminal investigation and, in addition, the staff involved are under the line management of the Constabulary.
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/ ... ertainty_/
Login
Register
FAQ
