The legislation which creates the role of Police and Crime Commissioner also makes provision for a deputy to be appointed by the PCC. This appointment is entirely in the gift of the PCC and is not something for which they need any permission or consent. However an Accountable PCC might be expected to explain their decision, to justify the use of public funds and to ensure that the process used is open and transparent. 

Katy has said: “Since becoming police and crime commissioner the level of engagement has dramatically increased. For example, when an e-mail was sent out recently to each Neighbourhood Watch scheme there were 6,000 sent in total. “It became clear that I needed someone to help” I am more than happy to acknowledge that Katy has made a great start in terms of meeting groups of people. She has been regularly meeting with Police Officers in early morning briefings and attending residents meetings and various networks in the evenings. This is a huge workload, but it was bound to be the case. Katy made it clear she was not expecting that this would be part of the role (based on her responses to public questions during some of the early hustings events) but other candidates did understand the implications of this role. Engaging with the people who elected her, is what the PCC is intended to do, it is part of the job description. The example of sending out lots of emails is a very poor one. During the campaign Katy claimed to be dealing with 200-300 emails a day. She now has a large team to deal with such things and sending out emails to a few thousand recipients is not something that presents a great deal of ongoing challenge with the systems any public agency or business would use on a daily basis.

It has been reported that Katy plans to pay her deputy £45,000 which means the cost to taxpayers will be substantially higher when office costs, National Insurance and any Pension are included. I estimate this will cost around £60,000 of public money. During the election Katy was at great pains to stress her abilities at running an efficient business with a grasp of finance and balance sheets yet she failed to warn us of this rather substantial item on the budget. Katy explains “I think this represents real value,” she said. “The office has still made significant savings, about £50,000, but that does not mean they will be invested in front-line policing.” This is completely contrary to all that Katy said in her hustings when she constantly referred to using all savings from her thorough business like approach to be ploughed back into front-line policing.

In terms of process, as I have written previously the process to select her deputy has been the very antithesis of openness and transparent. However perhaps Katy does not feel that the usual standards of public office are really all that important. Perhaps she is so confident in her own judgement that she can dispense with such things?