For most people in Sussex, the Police & Crime Commissioner election on 15^th November was either irrelevant or an offence. Nevertheless nearly 200,000 did vote and the end result was the election of Katy Bourne, the Conservative party candidate with 32% of the available votes.  As Katy made clear at several husting meetings, the PCC will next be held accountable by the people of Sussex in May 2016. However there are a small number of people who are acting on our behalf in the intervening period. An important element of accountability for the PCC is the Police and Crime Panel (PCP). This panel has been operating behind the scenes for several months in shadow form but on Monday 26th November they became a fully fledged panel at their latest meeting. The Sussex PCP intends to hold their meetings in public via webcam and the first meeting can be watched here if you have 2 hours to spare. This includes a presentation by Katy on her future plans.

The PCP consists of 18 elected Councillors from across Sussex and two Independent members who were chosen by the 18 Councillors. Thankfully we have two excellent Independent members Graham Hill and Sandra Prail. A full list of members and the Councils which have nominated them is available from my posting.

The 18 Councillors represent the 4 Political Parties which reflect the Council leadership across Sussex. 12 of them are members of the Conservative party like Katy Bourne and there are 3 Lib Dems, the other part of the coalition which brought us the PCC policy. There are then two Labour members and one Green. If we did not have Katy’s assurance that she would work without fear or favour and her signature on a document she and the government seem to insist on referring to as an ‘oath’ of impartiality (it is not technically an oath) we might feel that she would make decisions based on her party political judgement and begin to wonder if this accountability structure is fit for purpose (indeed this obvious bias was one of the reasons why I stood as an Independent PCC).

It seems obvious to me that robust scrutiny of the very powerful PCC role will depend on the majority of the panel being drawn from a source other than the political tribe of the PCC. This is one of the points I raised consistently during the campaign. However the fault lies entirely with the Government and certainly cannot be laid at the door of the 15 Councils in Sussex. If we accept that the political balance is what it is, we can at least hope that these 20 people will act responsibly and do what they can to deal with the challenges that they have been handed by Cameron, May and Herbert.

As with most committees the PCP is obliged to create a Chair and very wisely the Sussex PCP has also decided to create a Vice-Chair role. Prior to the election when no one knew who the PCC would be, the shadow PCP chose from amongst their number for these temporary roles. As a prospective PCC I asked to meet with Brad Watson who was the shadow Chair (he is a Conservative Councillor from the Horsham area and sits on West Sussex County Council). Brad and I got on very well and I would have been delighted to have worked with him had I won the election. However that is in part because Brad and I do not share any obvious common links such as membership of the same political party which could lead to a conflict of interest.

On the morning of the 26th November the PCP had several items of business, and selecting a permanent chair and vice chair (until the first annual review in June 2013) was just the first of these items. Often the first action of any organisation sets the culture for future decisions and so deserves some attention. The administration asked for nominations for the Chairs role, and only one name was proposed. This was Brad Watson. He was elected with one abstention and none against. Brad then assumed the Chair and he asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Here at least there was a choice. The first was Cllr John Unger who is a Lib Dem Councillor from Eastbourne (there is an understanding that as Brad is from West Sussex, the Vice Chair would be from East Sussex). Five members of the PCP voted for Cllr Unger. The second was Dave Elkins who represents East Sussex County Council and is also an Eastbourne Councillor. Cllr Elkins, like Brad Watson is a member of the 12 strong Conservative group on the PCP. Without any real surprise all of the Conservative Councillors voted for Cllr Elkins and he was duly elected.

The lack of debate on this issue and apparent lack of awareness on the part of the majority group that electing two Conservatives in these roles will send out a message to Sussex residents is disconcerting but at least no one could suggest that there was any reason to act differently, or was there? All of the elected members of the PCP are also members of the Local Government Association (LGA) via their Councils. In May the LGA published a guide  which states on page 6 “the chair might be agreed for the same period that the PCC is elected for. In such circumstances it might be arranged that the chair represents a different political party from the serving PCC so as to help the panel deliver robust and independent scrutiny.” It seems inconceivable that all 18 elected members of the PCP are unaware of this 19 page pamphlet and none of them have read it. Of course there is no suggestion that Brad and Cllr Elkin will wish to serve beyond June, but the lack of discussion does not suggest otherwise at this stage. Unless the members of this panel debate the issue, it seems improbable that simple electoral maths will ever prevent the Conservative group from effortlessly choosing both the Chair and Vice Chair in perpetuity. As previously stated this is why I believe the PCC should not be a party politician. However that contention will not be tested again until May 2016. In the meantime these 20 people are honour bound to deliver robust and independent scrutiny. On the basis of these first two decisions I have strong misgivings. If you agree I hope you will find your own way of expressing your own concerns to your local Council.