[Matthew Garrard]

Tom surely it will depend on what issue you are scrutinising and what other hats your scrutiny Members wear.

[Robert Mack]

You don't necessarily have to co-opt someone from the Police Authority - you can just issue a standing invite but this could end up as just being a token excercise. The MPA has 20 odd members, half of whom come from the Assembly. There are link members for all London boroughs, with some members covering more then one borough. If all the London boroughs decide they would like to co-opt someone from the MPA to scrutiny, they may find themselves a little stretched, particularly as they will also already have links to local CPCGs . Incidentally, the guidance does not refer at all to CPCGs but they would be a very useful resource for scrutiny to take advantage of, particaurly as they will have developed strong community links.

[Tom Barrett]

Precisely some of the difficulties I am wrestling with Robert.

There seems to be a slight disconnect between the 'may' co-opt (in the Act) and the line given by the Home Office at CfPS Conference that they 'expect as a minimum that police authority members be co-opted'. I am erring towards recommending an 'expert adviser' from (most likely) the Police coupled with CPCG co-optee(s).

Question marks are also being raised here about the ability of an MPA rep to sit as a formal co-optee scrutinising the Police's role in the partnership - this seems like a clear conflict of interest. Executive members/officers are not allowed to sit in such a position. The guidance is very quiet on this.

Advice welcomed.

[Matthew Garrard]

Tom Barrett Wrote:Precisely some of the difficulties I am wrestling with Robert.

There seems to be a slight disconnect between the 'may' co-opt (in the Act) and the line given by the Home Office at CfPS Conference that they 'expect as a minimum that police authority members be co-opted'. I am erring towards recommending an 'expert adviser' from (most likely) the Police coupled with CPCG co-optee(s).

Question marks are also being raised here about the ability of an MPA rep to sit as a formal co-optee scrutinising the Police's role in the partnership - this seems like a clear conflict of interest. Executive members/officers are not allowed to sit in such a position. The guidance is very quiet on this.

Advice welcomed.

Tom, the line given by both the Home Office and the Thames Valley Police Authority delivered a message that Police Authorities have to be involved in everything. But fortunately that's not so, the regulations very clearly set out a right to co-opt and not a duty to. Its slightly amusing that the speakers were insisting crime and disorder scrutiny shouldn't focus on an individual organisation (the Police) and should be about partnerships and then went on to insist that an individual organisation (the Police Authority) should be involved in every review. I'm sure that they will be able to make a contribution, but crime and disorder scrutiny is not always going to be relevant to them and therefore their involvement should be on an issue by issue basis - though that's not to say that you shouldn't keep them informed of what scrutiny is taking place

[Robert Mack]

As it happens, the point about possible conflict of interest has just come up here. Looking at the roles of police authorities, they cetainly seem to have an executive type role.

If co-optees are non voting, what does co-option actually acheive? Assuming that you are taking an enlightened view to particaption in scrutiny meetings, there is nothing to preclude people from contributing to meetings anyway (subject to the Chair's discretion). I think that it is highly unlikely that a Chair would prevent a police authority representative to speak merely because they had not been formally co-opted. The guidance does provide the option of issuing a standing invite to the police authority and you could also specifically invite them to contribute if there were issues of particular relevance to them.