Anthony Stansfeld's open letter about deputy appointment

Dear Councillor Parker,

With reference to your email to me, copied to Bucks Free Press and The Bucks Herald, concerning the above matter, may I clarify the process by which a police and crime commissioner (PCC) may appoint a deputy police and crime commissioner (DPCC), as set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 ("the Act").

Under the Act, the appointment of a DPCC is at the discretion of the PCC. As you know, the Act required me to notify the local, independent, Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel of the name of my proposed candidate (Mr David Carroll) to be appointed as my Deputy.

It also required me to set out for the Panel first, the criteria which I had used to assess the suitability of the candidate; second, why the candidate satisfied those criteria, and third, the terms and conditions on which the candidate would be appointed.

In turn, the Panel was required to review my proposed appointment at a confirmation hearing which, in accordance with the Act, had to be held in public and at which the Panel were able to ask questions of me and my proposed Deputy to satisfy itself that he was a suitable appointment.

The Panel was then required to make a report to me incorporating its recommendation as to whether or not the candidate should be appointed and I then had to notify the Panel of my decision whether I accepted or rejected its recommendation.

Accordingly, I submitted my report to the Police and Crime Panel on the 28th November setting out the criteria, reasons and terms of conditions supporting my proposal to appoint Mr Carroll as the DPCC for the Thames Valley.

That report is a public document and is available via the websites of both the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel (www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/overview_and_scrutiny/tvpcp/page) and my own website (www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk ).

The Panel held its confirmation hearing in public on the 6th December at which it considered my report and proposed candidate, asked me questions and, after satisfying itself that Mr Carroll was a suitable appointment, subsequently recommended in writing that I appoint him as my Deputy.

I am sure you will agree that this appointment process was not only fully compliant with the requirements of the Act but also ensured public transparency and accountability of the decision-making process, and the opportunity for rigorous, independent, scrutiny and challenge.

As to the alleged suggestions you refer to, that the appointment was "unadvertised and unopposed", may I make it clear that although the post of DPCC is a member of my staff, under the Act the appointment of a DPCC by a PCC is specifically exempt from the requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, that all staff appointments should be made on merit.

Therefore, quite deliberately, there is no legal requirement for an open recruitment process to this unique post that would normally apply when recruiting other staff to the PCC’s office.

In response to your comment that the appointment was "ratified by a body comprised overwhelmingly of (Mr. Carroll's) political colleagues", as you know the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel is an independent body. Its overall membership and composition must be constituted in accordance with the Act.

The Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel comprises 20 members, being 18 councillors representing each and every local authority across the Thames Valley plus two independent co-opted members.

The individual membership of the Panel is determined by the local authorities themselves (including yours), who each must appoint an appropriate representative of their Council to be a member of the Panel within rules set out in the Act.

The councillors appointed to the Panel must then make arrangements to appoint the two independent co-opted members. Therefore, the membership and composition of the Panel is a matter for the local authorities themselves, and not for Mr Carroll or me.

As to the cost and value for money of this appointment, the Thames Valley police force area that I am responsible for is the largest non-metropolitan force area in the country.

Nevertheless, under the Act, all PCCs are restricted insofar as they are able to appoint no more than one deputy - irrespective of the size of their force area.

Given the size and population of the Thames Valley I do not think any reasonable person would disagree that I need a deputy to help me undertake and effectively discharge my full range of duties on behalf of all the communities across the whole area.

Nevertheless, you will have noted from national media coverage of this issue that some PCCs responsible for much smaller sized force areas and population than me have appointed a deputy on a higher salary than I have done for the Thames Valley.

This is because of my desire to minimise the cost burden and to maximise value for money on behalf of the local Thames Valley taxpayer.

Finally, insofar as you may object to the process set out in the Act that applies to the way all PCCs may select and appoint a deputy, may I remind you that this legislation was introduced by the Coalition Government - which includes your Liberal Democrat Party.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Stansfeld,

Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley.