I have submitted the following to the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel meeting on Wednesday 29th June, 2016 for the “Public Questions / Statements” agenda item:

1. Will the panel make clear which decisions it expects the Police and Crime Commissioner to report to it for scrutiny?

   Currently the Police and Crime Commissioner decides what to report to the panel for scrutiny.

   I am surprised that only one decision taken by the new Police and Crime Commissioner has been reported to-date.

   I suspect many decisions, such as those relating to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s operating arrangements will have been made since the Police and Crime Commissioner came into office. Material published on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website indicates for example that the new Police and Crime Commissioner has decided, like his predecessor, to hold private Business Coordination Board meetings to take decisions behind closed doors without pre-published papers.

   Perhaps the panel could request that where a recommendation is formally put to the Police and Crime Commissioner, for example by the Chief Constable or the Chief of Staff of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office, then the Police and Crime Commissioner’s decision on it, or decision not to make a decision, ought be reported to the panel for scrutiny. Such a policy would, for example, have resulted in a decision on the relocation of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to Police HQ being reported to this meeting for scrutiny.

   I am also surprised no decisions relating to the appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner have been reported to the panel under the “decisions” item.

2. Will the panel, at the confirmation hearing scheduled for the afternoon of the 29th of June, hold those elements of its deliberation on the proposed appointment of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner which do not involve a likelihood of disclosure of any specified exempt information in public?

   In particular I would like to suggest any votes be held in public session; and if votes are held in private they should be recorded and minuted.

   When the panel held a confirmation hearing in September 2015 for the Chief Constable it returned to a public session to announce its decision, I suggest this approach is taken again for the hearing in respect of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner appointment.

   I note the Public Questions / Statements agenda item has been omitted from the agenda for the 29 June 2016 confirmation hearing.