Meeting documents

To adopt and publish the Annual Report and ask Panel Members to submit the Annual Report to their respective Authorities for information.

The Panel noted the draft Police and Crime Panel Annual Report.

The draft report included a section for Panel Members who were asked ‘what could the Panel do better’. One of the areas that was raised in this section was public engagement. Nationally Panels did find public engagement fairly limited and locally Thames Valley had the additional issue of covering such as a wide media area it was difficult to get consistent messages out to the public. The Chairman asked that Members liaise with their Communication Teams and their Council to publicise this report as much as possible. One of the new Panel Members reported that she had public relations skills and could help in this area.

Cllr Bendyshe-Brown asked that the following amendment be included in the Annual Report:-

Page 6 – In relation to the Cyber Crime event the report should be amended to say that CSPs are looking at a Strategy from which local areas can develop local or collaborative action plans.

Cllr Hayes referred to feedback from Panel Members which related to lack of public engagement and also obtaining a timely response from the Office of the PCC. He also commented that the public still did not understand the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Curtis James Marshall referred to the low turn out for the PCC elections and commented that this was a wider issue and more publicity needed to be undertaken by the Home Office. Cllr Hayes asked the OPCC whether they would be prepared to commit to a 2 week response period. Cllr Egleton reported that it would need to take slightly longer than 2 weeks because of the need to liaise with Thames Valley Police. He also referred to public engagement and commented that the Panel did have a public question time but that it had not been used much by the public.

The Panel also had a recommendation monitoring item to follow up on recommendations made to the PCC. Cllr Burke commented that it was difficult for the public to ask questions as the Panel agenda was only published the week before the meeting. Cllr Egleton reported that the Work Programme of the Panel was published giving advanced notice of items and also that the public had time to put questions to the Panel once the agenda had been published. If any Members had any concerns they could put a request in writing to the Scrutiny Officer asking for the rules of procedure to be amended.

Reference was made to the fact that Oxford Scrutiny Committee had suggested that the Panel should rotate. The Panel had held meetings across the Thames Valley in previous years but there had been no public attendance and had made it harder for Panel Members to attend.

Cllr Mallon suggested that Members of the Panel should put forward any ideas for the Work Programme which would engage the public. He also commented that the PCC does attend Council meetings once a year to engage with each local area. If any Members had any suggestions on how to improve public engagement which they used for their own Councils they should inform the Scrutiny Officer.

Cllr Egleton commented that it would be helpful to meet with new Members to discuss how the Panel operated and the limits of the legislation and also to hear if they had any ideas on how to improve the Panel. Nationally Thames Valley was seen as a Panel that provided effective scrutiny and good practice but the question had been put to Members about what they could do better as the Panel were always looking at the drive for continuous improvement and hold development sessions with Frontline Consulting to enable this. Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel were also in a unique position having representation from across the 18 Authorities and used this opportunity to look at spreading good practice across this wide area.

RESOLVED

That the Annual Report be adopted and published and that Panel Members submit the Annual Report to their respective Authorities for information.