Agenda item

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 and feedback of his work and performance by the Police and Crime Panel.

The Chairman thanked the PCC and Mr Bryan 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 Mr Bryan left the room).