The news from the Liverpool Echo that Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, Jane Kennedy has set herself on collision course with the Police and Crime Panel for the area by appointing a deputy without following an open appointment process, sounds disturbingly like the approach taken by her Sussex colleague, Katy Bourne a year earlier. Just like Katy, Ms Kennedy approached a colleague from the same political party and offered them the role. Knowing how critical some Labour Party members were of Katy Bournes decision I sent Jane and a party colleague a tweet regarding her actions. Her colleague did not want to be drawn into the discussion which I found very odd but Jane did respond, which was a very positive surprise, and full marks to her for openness. According to Ms Kennedy “I made an appointment of a Deputy after several months and a clear direction, consulted informally, got a great deputy” she also wrote “Nature of post makes a formal process impossible as only Labour councillors on Merseyside would have been notified of vacancy.” It is vital to understand that these appointments are entirely in the gift of the Police and Crime Commissioner concerned and he or she does not need to gain the support of their Police and Crime Panel. However if the panel is not supportive of an appointment this is clearly unhelpful as there may be occasions when the deputy PCC will need to meet with the panel, either as a group or in their other roles. PCPs are constructed from local Councillors with only a pitiful small number of Independent members, and so by choosing a Councillor for the deputy PCC as Katy did and Jane has creates potential challenges for these Councillors when they meet on other business.

There is no logic to either appointment, based on what these Police Commissioners have explained publicly. As I pointed out to Ms Kennedy she was not bound to appoint a Labour Councillor or indeed a member of the Labour Party. My own view is that appointing someone from a different political party, or someone who is not involved in party politics would potentially be much more valuable than sticking with someone who has similar views to the PCC because of party allegiances. The appointment by Katy Bourne of her deputy as described to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee was listed in a report from earlier this year. She points out that she appointed her deputy because of the need for more capacity in her office, and that whilst the PCP opposed her choice, it was because she had not managed to explain fully to them that his role as a Councillor was only a voluntary role. This patronising response seems to have overlooked the fact that 15 out of the 17 members are also Councillors with a great deal more experience of these roles than Ms Bourne had achieved in her time as a Councillor. Katy goes on to explain that when Steve Waight resigned for personal reasons a few months later, that she understood his reasons and accepted them. However the Home Affairs Committee did not ask her what had changed in that time so that she could manage without a deputy after he resigned.

As we approach the next General Election, there will be a new Government in post in May 2015, with a year before the next PCC elections. That is not long enough for major legislation to be passed, but there will be time for minor tweakings to the current legislation. Let us hope that the incoming Government will strengthen the role of the PCP so that they are able to hold their PCC to greater account than at present, and in a naïve thought, it would be great if the PCP could have its membership changed so that the number of Independent members is substantially increased. This would return the balance of Independent voices to that of the previous arrangements. Returning to January’s report from the Home Affairs Committee, Katy Bourne was asked if she agreed with the report on Police Governance by John Stevens. She conceded it had some important elements but in essence she discounted its conclusions because it was not Politically Independent. Sadly neither Katy Bourne nor Jane Kennedy really want Political Independence, apart from the few occasions when it suits them. This seems to be at odds with the rest of us!