Agenda and minutes

There were no questions submitted.

 

There were no urgent items for consideration.

 

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

 

No declarations were made.

 

The Chairman will outline the process for the hearings and the options available to the Panel on the conclusion of the hearings.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to the meeting.

 

The Chairman outlined the process for the hearing and the options available to the Panel on the conclusion of the hearing which were as follows:

 

1.          If the Panel was content with the proposed senior appointment, it could agree to report its endorsement to the PCC.

 

2.          Where a candidate met the standards, but the Panel had concerns about their suitability, such concerns could form part of the Panel’s report and recommendations to the PCC.

 

3.          In the event that the Panel determined that the candidate did not meet the requirements for the post, the Panel could provide advice and recommendations accordingly to the PCC in its report.

 

The Chairman asked the PCC how the proposed job-share agreement would work in practice. The arrangement would divide the role of DPCC into three distinct part-time positions: Engagement and Lobbying, Criminal Justice, and Community Cohesion. The PCC acknowledged that, while unconventional, advice had been sought from the Home Office confirming that as long as the individuals collectively did not exceed one FTE, the arrangement would comply with the definition of a DPCC under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

 

The PCC explained that this approach had been designed in order to ensure each appointee could bring targeted expertise aligned with their specific responsibilities. By adopting this model, the PCC aimed to enhance the effectiveness of the role through specialisation and increase flexibility to attract highly qualified candidates who may not be available for a full-time commitment.

 

A Panel member raised concerns about how the three DPCCs would effectively fulfil their responsibilities and meet objectives within their respective areas. Additional concerns were raised regarding on-costs associated with each role. The PCC stated that he was confident that each DPCC would fulfil their duties and that workloads would be kept under review. He acknowledged initial concerns about the time allocated to the DPCC for Criminal Justice but, following discussions with other PCCs, was satisfied that the allocation was sufficient. Regarding costs, the PCC confirmed that they would not exceed those of an equivalent full-time DPCC.

 

In response to a question about how the DPCCs would integrate into the culture and continuity of the OPCC while working limited hours, the PCC stated that it would be the responsibility of himself and the OPCC to provide an introduction to the Office’s expectations. It would also be the responsibility of the DPCCs to adapt accordingly.

 

The Chairman concluded by stating that he and other Panel members remained concerned about the effectiveness of the arrangement and confirmed that the Panel would review and scrutinise it in line with its responsibility to oversee the PCC’s decisions.

 

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) regarding the proposed appointment of Mr Oliver Bryan to the post of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC): Engagement and Lobbying. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 5’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed Mr Oliver Bryan to the meeting.

 

The Chairman asked the PCC to explain why Mr Bryan was his chosen candidate for the post. The PCC stated that Mr Bryan had experience of lobbying at government level on a wide range of subjects and had experience with public affairs and communications. He had all of the skills and experience in order to carry out all of the duties expected of a DPCC.

 

The Panel questioned Mr Bryan with regards to his professional competence and personal independence. In response to questions Mr Bryan made the following points:

 

(i)         He had worked within the Office of the Police and Commissioner (OPCC) and had a good relationship with staff in the Office and with the PCC;

 

(ii)        He had also worked within a team at Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) which had successfully lobbied the Government for concessions for the industry at a national level. He had worked as Head of Investigations for a public accountability organisation in New Zealand, which involved leading nationally reported work into the effectiveness of government spending. Building networks, collaborative working and effective communication had contributed to these successes;

 

(iii)       He had an understanding of the issues and challenges faced by the police force and placed emphasis on the importance of public duty and public safety;

 

(iv)      He had networks within all of the major political parties within the UK and the within the Civil Service;

 

(v)        He understood that young people could be hard to reach due to trust with the police. He had undertaken work with young people in order to understand issues they felt were important;

 

(vi)      He was familiar with the diverse communities of Leicester and understood that there were different needs and challenges within those communities;

 

(vii)     During his time working at the OPCC he had undertaken work to resolve issues with the redaction of documents which were shared between the Police and Crown Prosecution Service. He had brought the issue to the attention of the Public Services Select Committee. This work had been successful in reducing police officer time and reducing costs;

 

(viii)    He had experience of managing a restricted budget and had an understanding of resource challenges within public sector organisations;

 

(ix)      He understood the importance of transparency, accountability and integrity;

 

(x)        He also understood the importance for a transparent, good working relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner. In addition, he understood that public scrutiny from the Police and Crime Panel could highlight where improvements could be made across the force area;

 

(xi)      He had a good understanding of operational independence and personal independence and would apply this knowledge to the role of DPCC. Were the PCC to pursue a course of action that he felt was unwise, he would have a conversation with the PCC, make him aware of his feelings but be careful not to continue to pursue the matter further than was welcome;

 

(xii)     If appointed to the role of DPCC, he would act fairly across the County, City and Rutland to ensure they got an equal focus. Whilst working within the OPCC, he had undertaken work organising community days for the PCC to attend;

 

(xiii)    Whether the DPCC’s term of office had been a success should be judged on the scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The public are likely to be excluded during the following item of business in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972:-

 

Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Engagement and Lobbying.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

 

·       Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Engagement and lobbying.

 

The Panel, having gone into exempt session, considered the statement and answers provided by Mr Bryan to their questions, in addition to the introduction and responses to questions provided by the PCC and all relevant paperwork provided.

 

RESOLVED:

 

In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and following consideration of the information submitted to it, the Panel recommends that the candidate is appointed to the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Engagement and Lobbying.

 

The Panel determined that the candidate understood the role, met the criteria, and will be fully committed to carrying out his duties as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Engagement/Lobbying. The Panel made some observations about the appointment, noting that Mr Bryan was clearly competent, had a good level of experience in engagement and lobbying, partnership working and had experience of working within the OPCC. Whilst the Panel was satisfied that he demonstrated that he understood operational and personal independence, they had some concerns about his ability to retain a level of personal independence from the PCC and advised that there would also be some training/onboarding needs in relation to gaining a wider understanding of the diversity of communities within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and their different needs. The Panel will be keen to receive feedback on the outcomes from Mr Bryan’s work through Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner update reports, which are presented at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel. The Panel would like to see the frequency of these reports increased to reporting every three months.

 

(The meeting moved back into public session).

 

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) regarding the proposed appointment of Reverend Gwyn Davies to the post of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC): Criminal Justice. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Reverend Gwyn Davies to the meeting.

 

The Chairman asked the PCC to explain why Reverend Davies was his chosen candidate for the post. The PCC stated that he had experience working within the criminal justice system as a magistrate and understood the system well. He had all of the skills and experience in order to carry out all of the duties expected of a DPCC.

 

The Panel questioned Reverend Davies with regards to his professional competence and personal independence. In response to questions Reverend Davies made the following points:

 

(i)         He had experience working within the criminal justice system as a magistrate at both Leicester and Loughborough Magistrates Courts. This experience gave him an understanding of the complexity of the system as well as the stakeholders and partners involved;

 

(ii)        He also had experience of working with different organisations and partners. He had been the ordained chair of the South Leicester Christian Partnership, an ecumenical group of eight local churches of varying denomination and tradition;

 

(iii)       He understood that individuals from different organisations had different objectives, roles and responsibilities;

 

(iv)      If appointed to the role of DPCC, he would undertake to Chair the Local Criminal Justice Board, and work closely with partners from statutory and non-statutory organisations in order to deliver improvements to the criminal justice system;

 

(v)        He understood the importance for a transparent, good working relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner. Were the PCC to pursue a particular course of action he felt was unwise, he would have a conversation with the PCC to make him aware of his feelings;

 

(vi)      He also understood the importance of transparency, accountability and integrity;

 

(vii)     If appointed to the role of DPCC, he would take on board training and guidance from the PCC and the OPCC;

 

(viii)    He had experience of representing the voice of Christians to the Police;

 

(ix)      With regards to taking into account the diverse and hard to reach communities across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, he had experience of working with the homeless, the elderly, and people with disabilities. He also had an understanding of the diverse range of communities within Leicester;

 

(x)        He understood the challenges faced by all partners and stakeholders operating within the criminal justice system;

 

(xi)      He emphasised the importance of focussing on victims and how crime affected them;

 

(xii)     Whether the DPCC’s term of office had been a success should be judged on the scrutiny and feedback of his work and performance by the Police and Crime Panel.

 

The Chairman thanked the PCC and Reverend Davies 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 PCC and Reverend Davies left the room).

 

(At this point of the meeting Cllr. Cutkelvin and Cllr Dawood left the meeting).

 

The public are likely to be excluded during the following item of business in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972:-

 

Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Criminal Justice.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

 

·       Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Criminal Justice.

 

The Panel, having gone into exempt session, considered the statement and answers provided by Reverend Davies to their questions, in addition to the introduction and responses to questions provided by the PCC and all relevant paperwork provided.

 

RESOLVED:

 

In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and following consideration of the information submitted to it, the Panel recommends that the candidate is appointed to the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

The Panel determined that the candidate understood the role, met the criteria, and will be fully committed to carrying out his duties as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Criminal Justice (0.2FTE). The Panel considered him to be thoughtful and intelligent and demonstrated a welcome approach to personal independence in the role. Although the Panel considered some of Reverend Davies’s responses to be more high level rather than detailed and in-depth, the Panel advised that there would also be some training/onboarding needs in relation to his new role and understood that he will continue to develop the knowledge and skills needed to help the Commissioner deliver his Police and Crime Plan.  Some external mentor support is advised to help him transition into the role and to deepen his understanding of, and relationships with, the range of strategic structures and full diversity of communities and stakeholders across the whole of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

 

The Panel expressed concern that the number of hours allocated to this role may be insufficient for the work involved and are keen to receive feedback on the outcomes from Reverend Davies’s work through Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner update reports, which are presented at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel. The Panel would like to see the frequency of these reports increased to reporting every three months.

 

(Subsequent to the meeting, the Panel was notified that Reverend Davies would not take up the role due to health reasons. The PCC stated that he would inform the Panel of his intentions with regard to the Criminal Justice Portfolio in the near future).

 

(The meeting moved back into public session).

 

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) regarding the proposed appointment of Ms Neetu Squire to the post of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC): Community Cohesion. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 11’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Ms Neetu Squire to the meeting.

 

The Chairman asked the PCC to explain why Ms Squire was his chosen candidate for the post. The PCC stated that she had experience with community engagement, partnership building and networking. She had all of the skills and experience in order to carry out all of the duties expected of a DPCC.

 

The Panel questioned Ms Squire with regards to her professional competence and personal independence. In response to questions Ms Squire made the following points:

 

(i)         She had experience in community engagement and building bridges between communities, local authorities, police, and faith groups. She had worked with community cohesion teams in order to foster positive relationships across different communities;

 

(ii)        She had a background in the youth service. This experience included working in a wide range of settings including hostels, mother and baby units, children’s homes and schools. She had experience with supporting charities to enhance their delivery of youth work and crime prevention work;

 

(iii)       She had experience in engaging with vulnerable young people and implementing initiatives to address social issues such as youth crime and anti-social behaviour;

 

(iv)      She understood the importance of transparency, accountability and integrity;

 

(v)        She also understood the importance for a transparent, good working relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner. Were the PCC to pursue a course of action that she felt was unwise she would have a conversation with the PCC, make him aware of her feelings but be careful not to continue to pursue the matter further than was welcome;

 

(vi)      She had supported communities in order to improve relations following public disorder, through conflict resolution, active listening, and responding to community concerns with empathy and professionalism;

 

(vii)     She had undertaken work alongside partners and stakeholders to co-create the first Connecting Communities event, a citywide initiative which aimed to build bridges between diverse communities, local services and the police. The event successfully brought together residents, community leaders, faith groups and public sector partners;

 

(viii)    She had worked alongside police, councillors, businesses, and community leaders to create safer, more cohesive communities within Leicester City. If appointed to the role of DPCC, she would aim to continue this work alongside the PCC and replicate the work within communities in the County;

 

(ix)      She had experience in working to improve relationships between communities and the police;

 

(x)        Whether the DPCC’s term of office had been a success should be judged on the scrutiny and feedback of her work and performance by the Police and Crime Panel.

 

The Chairman thanked the PCC and Ms Squire 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 PCC and Ms Squire left the room.)

The public are likely to be excluded during the following item of business in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972:-

 

Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Community Cohesion.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

 

·       Panel deliberations on the proposed appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Community Cohesion.

 

The Panel, having gone into exempt session, considered the statement and answers provided by Ms Squire to their questions, in addition to the introduction and responses to questions provided by the PCC and all relevant paperwork provided.

 

RESOLVED:

 

In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and following consideration of the information submitted to it, the Panel recommends that the candidate is appointed to the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

The Panel determined that the candidate understood the role, met the criteria, and will be fully committed to carrying out her duties as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner: Community Cohesion (0.2FTE). The Panel considered her to be very passionate and committed towards her work with a wide skill set and experience making her ideal for a community cohesion role in a multi-cultural area. The Panel advised that there would be some training/onboarding needs in relation to her new role and understood that she will continue to develop the knowledge and skills needed to help the Commissioner deliver his Police and Crime Plan.  In particular, it would be important for her to develop and deepen her understanding of, and relationships with the full diversity of communities and stakeholders across the whole of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, not just the city area, and across all age groups.

 

The Panel expressed concern that the number of hours allocated to this role may be insufficient for the work involved and are keen to receive feedback on the outcomes from Ms Squire’s work through Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner update reports, which are presented at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel. The Panel would like to see the frequency of these reports increased to reporting every three months.

 

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 1 December 2025.

 

Meetings of the Panel in 2026 are schedule to take place at 14:00 on the following dates:

 

Wednesday 4 February 2026 (budget meeting)

Tuesday 21 April 2026

Tuesday 23 June 2026

Tuesday 29 September 2026

Tuesday 27 October 2026

Tuesday 8 December 2026

 

(The meeting moved back into public session).

 

RESOLVED:

 

It was noted that future meetings of the Panel would be held at 14:00 on the following dates:

 

Wednesday 4 February 2026 (budget meeting)

Tuesday 21 April 2026

Tuesday 23 June 2026

Tuesday 29 September 2026

Tuesday 27 October 2026

Tuesday 8 December 2026