Agenda item

·    Any member of the public, who lives, works or studies in North Yorkshire and York can ask a question to the Panel.  The question or statement must be put in writing to the Panel no later than midday on Monday, 22^nd July 2024 to Diane Parsons (contact details below). 

·    The time period for asking and responding to all questions will be limited to 30 minutes. No one question or statement shall exceed 3 minutes.

·    The full protocol can be found at www.nypartnerships.org.uk/pfcp.

A statement was provided to the Panel by Gwen Swinburn as follows:

“I realise we’re in the early stages of a big change round but notwithstanding I first wanted to raise my concerns that the membership of this committee does not reflect all the other committees under the auspices of the Combined Authority. It is an inherited committee but I think we need to ensure that this committee now has equal numbers from York and North Yorkshire if we are to have proper geographic and political representation. As of now only three Members are from York, seven from the rest of North Yorkshire. We should have five each according to the Combined Authority rules we have had to follow to date. What is the legal basis for York being denied its extra places? 

As it seems at face, and I think it is a further democratic governance issue, is the independent people having a vote. As it stands they don’t represent anyone, and have exactly the same weight as the three York Members. Can these issues be formally reviewed? 

My second concern is related to the governance arrangements of the very below radar joint audit committees. I understand there is a proposal to look at the democratic accountability, and I hope transparency, of that committee. We do see the papers now, if anyone can find them.  

Of particular concern is the last two audit meetings were both inquorate, also it seemed most people were on dial-in which we know is not the best for proper oversight, hence not allowed in most local government committees. 

The fact members are in the dark about the major audit and governance issues, and are effectively excluded from the teams meetings is exacerbated by the legal framework that in essence, limits any proper scrutiny as we know it in local government. 

So both audit and scrutiny are a long way off minimal standards we see in local government. We need to find a middle ground, to bring light to these matters.

Finally, I hope now that the responsibility of all of this lies with the Mayor and Deputy the standard local government ModGov and related practices will be quickly adopted, that could go a long way to addressing quite a few of the afore stated concerns.”

A response was provided from the Panel (read by the Secretariat) as follows:

“Thank you for bringing your questions to the Panel.

In relation to the point raised regarding membership of the Panel from the two constituent authorities, a similar question was raised by Gwen to the Panel’s meeting on 5^th of February this year and the full response form the Panel was included within the published minutes for that meeting.  As such I don’t propose to repeat the full response.  However, it spoke to the point that fundamentally, the legal basis for the Panel pre-dates and stands separately to that for the Mayoral Combined Authority so it isn’t bound by any of the same principles of the Combined Authority.  Also that Home Office guidance prior to unitarization recommended that the Panel re-align its membership around population between York and North Yorkshire, which was agreed through both councils. 

The Panel is legally bound to ensure it represents the political make-up of the police force area and this is regularly reviewed.

In relation to the query around the voting rights of independent co-opted members to the Panel, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, legally Panels must have a minimum of two such members.  Para 26 of the same Act states that “All members of a police and crime panel may vote in proceedings of the panel”, so where this entitlement to vote appears in the Panel’s Rules of Procedure this is simply reflecting a legal requirement and is not discretionary.

In terms of the points raised by Gwen about police and fire audit committees, as explained previously at the Panel, the Panel has no legal oversight of these committees and the governance of them sits within the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) arrangements now.  It is therefore a matter for the police, fire and crime function of the MCA to consider.”

The Chair invited Simon Dennis to assist with additional commentary around Gwen’s points regarding audit arrangements under the MCA. Simon briefly highlighted that the police and fire audit committees are constituted under separate arrangements to the Panel in accordance with the financial management code of practice.  Work is underway to align the audit and governance arrangements with those of the MCA. Simon acknowledged that there has been a higher churn in committee membership than would have been ideal but recruitment for extra members will bring resilience. Work is in progress as regards a house style and administrative improvements.  The Annual Governance Statement (AGS) is presented jointly with the Chief Constable and PFCC.  Gwen asked a supplementary on this latter point as regards why the AGS is not reviewed by the Panel.  Simon responded to the effect that the audit arrangements for policing and fire fall within the MCA arrangements and not those of the Panel.