Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (Engagement and Lobbying) which provided an update on activities carried out since his appointment. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 16’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i).       With regards to the forward programme of continued lobbying, expanded engagement, national representation and updated reporting, a member of the Panel asked how progress against these commitments would be measured and when the Panel could expect to receive evidence of outcomes. In response, the DPCC advised that Police and Crime Commissioner offices (OPCCs) nationally were working collectively in order to secure concessions from Government regarding proposed police force amalgamation plans. He stated that updates would be provided as developments emerged and explained that a key objective was to ensure officers funded by local taxpayers and committed to serving local communities were not disproportionately redirected to meet wider regional priorities. He added that there appeared to be scope for further discussion with Government on these matters.

(ii).      A Panel member asked how lobbying activity was progressing across the East Midlands and whether collaborative work had been undertaken between Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) and their deputies. The DPCC confirmed that there were established networks for both PCCs and DPCCs and that regular engagement continued to take place. He reported that the majority of regional colleagues shared concerns regarding proposed reforms to policing and were broadly united in their opposition to the changes.

(iii).    With regards to the report’s comments regarding democratic accountability with regards to policing reforms, a member of the Panel stated that Police Authorities had provided oversight of chief officers prior to the creation of PCCs. The Panel member suggested that consideration should be given to learning from previous governance arrangements and questioned whether replacing the current PCC model might ultimately prove beneficial. In response, the DPCC acknowledged the observations and stated that the principal issue remained that the decision to proceed with reorganisation appeared to have already been taken at a national level. He stated that the reforms were linked to wider local government reorganisation proposals and that meaningful discussions regarding future governance structures would only be possible once further details had been confirmed.

(iv).    A member of the Panel referred to engagement with underrepresented communities and asked which communities had been engaged with, what issues had been raised and what actions had followed. The DPCC advised that he had completed mandatory training in this area and had attended a variety of events across urban and rural communities, in addition to meetings of the Ethics and Transparency Panel where such issues were regularly discussed. He stated that he intended to continue this engagement activity. When asked to provide a specific example of an underrepresented community, The DPCC referred to the range of engagement events he had attended and reiterated the value of participation in the Ethics and Transparency Panel.

(v).     A question was raised regarding the DPCC’s definition of underrepresented communities and concern was raised regarding the difficulty in identifying examples within the report. The DPCC responded that interpretations of what constituted an underrepresented community could vary.

(vi).    A member queried who had drafted and signed representations made to the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the policing minister, as referenced within the report. The DPCC confirmed that he had prepared and signed the correspondence. A further question was raised as to whether lobbying Government was a responsibility that would ordinarily be undertaken by the PCC. In response, the DPCC stated that lobbying formed part of his delegated responsibilities and that the PCC had reviewed all correspondence and had co-signed a number of representations.

(vii).   A member commented that effective scrutiny of lobbying activity was difficult without sight of representations made to Government and suggested that future lobbying activity be shared with the Panel, either directly or through the Chair. The DPCC welcomed the suggestion and agreed to share relevant lobbying correspondence and summaries where appropriate. The Chairman supported this approach, noting that summaries of significant lobbying representations would assist the Panel in carrying out its scrutiny role.

RESOLVED:

That the update regarding activities carried out by the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (Engagement and Lobbying) since his appointment, be noted.