Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to this oral evidence session of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Today is a warm day; I apologise for the lack of air conditioning, as this is an old building. If you would like to remove your jackets, please feel free to do so. There is water in front of you and if you need more, please indicate: the staff will supply you. If you need a break, please indicate and we will stop for a small break. Today we are considering the future of policing in Wales, and we are hearing from the police and crime commissioners of Wales. There are four police forces, and I am pleased that all four of you are able to be here in person today; it helps matters to have you in front of us face to face. This session is intended to scrutinise the UK Government’s proposals for reforming policing across England and Wales, which were outlined in a White Paper published in January of this year. It is expected that these proposals will form the basis of legislation that is to be introduced sometime in the autumn, depending on personnel. The White Paper itself features a broad range of proposals, and we are here today to understand what those might mean for Wales. We are particularly keen to know what comes next for police accountability in Wales, given that the proposals include a plan to abolish the roles that you currently hold at the end of the term in 2028. With that in mind, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to appear before us today. Before the session begins, can I ask Members to declare any interests they may have?

My father is a retired police officer and is currently in receipt of the police pension.

Thank you, that is noted. Let me start by asking all four of you to briefly introduce yourselves, state the police force you serve, and share the strapline for your top priorities; we will get the details later.

On behalf of my colleagues, may I thank you for your interest as a Committee in the fundamental changes that are afoot in relation to police governance? I welcome the opportunity to share our experience in our roles. I am Dafydd Llywelyn, the police and crime commissioner in Dyfed-Powys. I was first elected in 2016, so I have been in the role for over a decade now and bring with me some experience from previously working within policing for circa 14 years, and for a short time as a university lecturer in criminology. I hope I can bring that experience to this evidence session. In terms of priorities, there are three fundamental points that we will touch upon today. The first is in relation to the local scrutiny and accountability of police forces. That is fundamentally important for us in Wales. Secondly, there is the interaction that we have with the Welsh Government, where we need to articulate the benefits—in some cases disbenefits—of our relationships with the UK Government and the Welsh Government, which is the unique nature of working in a devolved setting. Thirdly, there is financing. You will hear us possibly repeating calls in relation to fair funding for Welsh police forces and the nuance of working in that devolved and non-devolved space.

Good afternoon; thank you for inviting us. I am Jane Mudd, the police and crime commissioner for Gwent Police. In May 2024, Emma and I were the first women in Wales to ever be elected to these roles and we are very proud of that. Prior to that I was the leader of one of the local authorities within the police force area. I share the priorities of PCC Llywelyn, although I would add that it is important to us in terms of engaging with our parliamentary colleagues today that we are able to help you to better understand the nuances and complexities of the role within Wales. That is quite important.

Prynhawn da pawb. I am Andrew Dunbobbin, the police and crime commissioner for North Wales, first elected in 2021 and re-elected in 2024, so this is my second term now. I share priorities with Jane and Dafydd, but I welcome this discussion and however we can assist in bringing forward our experiences in Wales, and the localism, the relationships and everything else that we do so strongly within Wales. We are dealing with policing in a devolved environment, which presents its own challenges, but we perform very well, and hopefully during the course of the afternoon we will be able to give some excellent examples of that.

I am Emma Wools, the police and crime commissioner for South Wales, and I was elected in 2024. Prior to that I served as the deputy police and crime commissioner to our previous commissioner for six years. My background is in the criminal justice system, where I worked as a senior leader within the Prison and Probation Service. I will not echo the priorities that my colleagues have already outlined, other than to say that as a group it is incumbent on us today to ensure that you understand the strengths of the current PCC model and the things that we would want to see preserved in relation to any future local policing governance as we move forward. It is also important to say that at present I am the chair of Policing in Wales, which as you will know is the co-operative, collaborative partnership between the four police and crime commissioners and chief constables in Wales. We will expand upon that in terms of our evidence.

The reason this inquiry was first set up was because of the Police Reform White Paper, but before we discuss that, let me take this back a bit further. What are the problems that you think the White Paper is trying to solve, and how do those apply specifically to Wales?

At this stage, the White Paper is seeking to solve a number of systemic issues on an England and Wales basis in relation to inconsistencies across policing and the need to ensure that access to specialist capabilities is equal across all forces. We all know that public trust and confidence in policing has fallen, albeit comparatively not as much as with other public bodies; it is important to make that point. There are a range of things that the White Paper is seeking to solve in terms of creating consistent standards and a policing system that is fit for the future. By and large the policing model has not changed for 60 years; therefore it stands to reason that it needs to evolve. The White Paper seeks to set out in facets how the policing system across England and Wales will do that.

Andy Dunbobbin, looking at the White Paper, do you think it is an effort to streamline and save money?

Just to build on what Emma has said, there are a lot of things in the White Paper that we can get behind; some are from a central perspective, but the devil is always in the details regarding how it will look, and at this current time that is extremely vague at best. As Emma said, policing has not been looked at this way for over 60 years. We are all acutely aware of the opportunities that come with the speed of developments in technology, but also the threat that this presents to our society. It is a good thing to look at the use of technology to find out whether some efficiency savings can be made. I have a lot of responsibilities within the APCC, and I am joint lead on numerous DDaT portfolios within the Home Office. There is a real opportunity for that to be scoped out, but the main objective is how this is going to affect us in Wales. That will come along as the afternoon progresses, especially surrounding governance arrangements and local accountability. There are other things the National Police Service will be facilitating, such as NPAS, the air support service, and the ESN—Emergency Services Network—project; that also has its challenges. Some things would sit quite well within a central function but how does that translate on the ground? I am conscious that the Home Secretary has said that this will improve local neighbourhood policing; I am sure we can all get behind that in providing support to our local communities.

If we look at the current White Paper, it is evident that there have been a range of contributions that diverge somewhat from the original manifesto commitments that were made around policing and criminal justice in the UK. Within that, there has been an opportunity for a broader range of views and a broader range of ideas to make a contribution. As such, there is a range of proposals in the White Paper that are additional contributions rather than focusing on the manifesto commitments. So there is an opportunity within that for us to look at how we might make some changes. As colleagues say, the current system has been in place for many decades and has not been reformed. This is a great opportunity to look at it and consider how we might improve it because the threat, risk and harm that we experience now in the 21st century is very different from what we would have experienced 50 years ago. The focus is not just to build trust and confidence but to protect our citizens going forward. That is a very important part of the aspiration of the White Paper. However, I would qualify that by saying that a range of reforms are taking place across Government, including in the criminal justice area, and going forward we need to be mindful to avoid any unintended consequences of legislation. Change in one area of Government may impact in a detrimental way on another.

Could you give us an example of an unintended consequence?

Yes, of course. If we take, for example, the changes proposed in the sentencing review, I am sure that as parliamentary representatives you have had constituents write to you expressing concerns about people serving shorter sentences. I know there has been media interest in the review over the past week in relation to specific crimes. The actual consequence is that it will place a greater demand on community policing; there will be people returning to their communities who may require greater levels of supervision, may re-offend, and may be a cause for concern because of behaviours they have displayed previously. That comes back to policing. Because of the potential impact, the overall estimated cost of those reforms on policing is £400 million. Everybody wants to improve the systems that we operate within but sometimes there can be unintended consequences.

That is helpful; I like concrete examples. Dafydd Llywelyn, do you have anything to add?

I concur with the comments that my colleagues have made. Andy commented on the role of the National Police Service, which is a fundamental part of the Police Reform White Paper; it talks about the various capabilities and capacities that service will provide. But for us as commissioners looking forward to the future, it is not certain how that will be funded. You commented in relation to elements of the White Paper that talk about making efficiency savings and their monetary value. The quantum of savings is over £100 million due to the ceasing of elected representative roles such as the police and crime commissioners; that would be an obvious saving to be made but we must consider the democratic deficit that comes from having a new governance in place. There are things within the White Paper that we would all subscribe to. The focus on local policing areas and neighbourhood policing teams and the emphasis on prevention is ideal and exactly what we would want to advocate for Wales; we have a track record over decades of investing in early intervention and prevention activity, so it makes sense. If I was to be a little more sceptical in relation to the White Paper, there is somewhat of a power shift and a drawing back of greater control into the Home Office—potentially directly back to the Home Secretary herself—as part of this. For example, the Home Office will now have a role in the selection criteria for chief constable appointments, which is currently the responsibility of police and crime commissioners. I have had the experience and the privilege of appointing three chief constables in the Dyfed-Powys area. That is one element of a shift of power and control. Again, the creation of a national police lead for the National Police Service will put focus and control across England and Wales in that central entity. We need to make sure that our governance structures reflect the “and Wales” element and that—for want of a better description—this is not seen to be just an England-only project with Wales as an afterthought. When you read the White Paper you can potentially come to that conclusion. Have they thought about the nuance of how things are delivered in Wales? It is much more collegiate and on a partnership level, in my opinion, and the role of the Welsh Government is vitally important.

The UK Government have a mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls within a decade, and in doing so, to increase the perception of community safety within our communities. What is your view on whether the proposals will have a negative or positive impact on the mission to achieve those things?

As Welsh PCCs, we support the Government mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls. A number of facets set out in the White Paper will support and strengthen policing’s capability to do that. My colleagues have already made reference to the establishment of the National Police Service, which is being designed to support greater data collection and better prevention capability centrally in terms of the wider factors that contribute to both knife crime and violence against women and girls. It is incredibly important that local policing remains strong because these are harms that remain in local communities. Neighbourhood policing uplift is going to be part of the mission in terms of being able to tackle knife crime and violence against women and girls. As police in Wales, both those areas are an absolute priority to us. We have set out in our respective police, crime and justice plans that we aim to end violence within Wales or to see a Wales without violence. As colleagues have already mentioned, it is incredibly important that in any of these reforms we have the opportunity to strengthen our collaborative relationship with the Welsh Government, given that it is the devolved areas that will contribute to and underpin the long-term success in driving down violence against women and girls, and knife crime and violence among young people.

There are really important questions there. It is right that we fully support the Government’s ambition; we are already making great steps in Wales, especially with regard to violence against women and girls. Previous Welsh Governments have made ending violence against women and girls a priority and that continues with the new Welsh Government. The Welsh Government have funded around 340 PCSOs; sometimes we have subsidised those through our precept level. We also have the SchoolBeat programme in Wales, which has had a lot of success; it is a good value-for-money exercise. We have school liaison officers going into our schools and educating our children, about not only knife crime and violence against women and girls but other things such as online harm and topical issues they need to be aware of; we can educate them in that regard. Regarding prevention, safeguarding and early intervention with young people, as well as working with the Welsh Government we are all to various degrees able to support local initiatives within our arena, which can divert or prevent children from taking the wrong path. Without going into too much detail, we are supportive of those and have had a lot of success with them across all four force areas. Again, it comes down to the local neighbourhood policing team as well. As the Home Secretary set out, the old phrase is, “Prevention is better than cure.” Strengthening our local policing teams with the work that has already gone on through the Clear, Hold, Build programme is a positive step; we are on a really good path.

As Emma mentioned, this is a priority for us all in our police, crime and justice plans, and we welcome it. I categorically state that the Government missions are the right missions, but your question was about the risk that the reforms might pose to those missions. We are already investing significantly in services to support many of the victims in relation to this. We are also investing, as Andy said, in early intervention and prevention. For example, one of the groups that we fund is an organisation called Fearless, which is similar to Crimestoppers but for younger people. The organisation goes into schools and connects with young people; it does a lot of work on violence against women and girls. They are younger people themselves, so they are better able to connect with our young people. We are also investing in prevention activity. We have seen a great deal of investment; we now have the National Centre, which is really positive. I would say that there is a risk that the uncertainty around reform will have an impact on our commissioned services. We were fortunate recently that the Police Federation held a roundtable in Wales, where they brought our partners and collaborators together to seek their views on the potential impact of reform. The strong messages that came out of that were first about the strength of our relationships and partnership working, and secondly that our providers are feeling uncertainty around the reform we do not yet have in terms of what it will mean for our commissioned services. That is a real risk because it could impact delivery on the aspirations of this mission.

I will not repeat the comments that have been made but there is nothing that I disagree with. I would be somewhat sceptical that the bold targets of halving violence will be achieved within the timeframe that the Government have set. I am just being honest in relation to the scale of these issues, especially in relation to violence against women and girls. We are still in a process of trying to encourage people to come forward to the policing service to highlight the issues that they suffer, from the perspective of both domestic abuse and sexual violence. We are not seeing levels dramatically decreasing but because of the Government focus we are seeing an improved picture of what we would describe as positive outcomes through the criminal justice system. I can point to a change in positive outcomes in the Dyfed-Powys force through Operation Soteria in which Betsy Stanko, an eminent academic, has been instrumental. In effect it influences police forces to respond in a certain way to sexual violence. That will continue with specialist, dedicated rape investigation teams, but many of these facets of activity rely on specific funding streams that the Home Office has within its power. For example, serious violence duty funding is provided to pockets of communities but not universally across all forces; the Dyfed-Powys force has not received additional funding for serious violence activity to the same level as other forces. Again, that would be commensurate and proportionate to the threats within communities. I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the important role that the Welsh Government play in this space; they have many of the levers of power in relation to the community societal issues that need to be tackled in relation to violence against women and girls, knife crime and serious violence. It is vitally important for us to understand that a whole-system approach—including education and health services—is needed to address these issues, not just a reliance on policing to step into this space. That is an area where we have strong relationships with the Welsh Government. There has been a change of Government in Cardiff Bay, of course, with the Senedd, but from early meetings we have had with the new Government in Cardiff we expect that to continue. I would add that we need to cite the investments that have been made by successive Welsh Governments in this space alongside policing investments.

Just for clarity, the deployment of operational resources is a matter for the chief constable; we are at pains as police and crime commissioners to ensure the integrity of the chief constable’s operational independence. This is not an issue that has specifically raised its head when I have gone through data and performance data within the force. The way that the force responds to violence against women and girls and serious sexual violence, for example, will be layered and tailored in certain ways to ensure that resources, according to the chief constable—I hold him to account in relation to this—are adequate to respond. What is interesting about Pembrokeshire—it is not unique in the Dyfed-Powys area—is the population surge that occurs during the summer months. That means that data often gets skewed per head of the resident population of Pembrokeshire to show that there is a higher offence rate in the Pembrokeshire area. I am not disputing the figures that you quote but there are perhaps some nuances within them. It is the responsibility of the chief officers to deal with and respond to that and ensure that we have adequate resources to respond to those fluctuations. We have officers specially trained in relation to violence against women and girls and serious sexual violence. We have sexual offence trained officers, for example, and people working within the domestic abuse space; we have dedicated resources to this area. It has not been brought to my attention that there is a disproportionate lack of resources in Pembrokeshire but I would be happy to take that away as an action to write to you specifically on that point and to get a reassurance from the chief constable.

I want to build on what my colleagues PCC Mudd and PCC Llywelyn have said around the risk to commissioned services. While many of our commissioned services are grant-funded by the Home Office or MOJ, there is also discretionary spend, which we take from our core policing budget to invest into those services. Going forward, it is important to highlight that this is subject to change dependent on who is setting the priorities for policing at the local, regional and national level. I also want to make a point around the UK Government’s new violence strategy, which is much welcomed; I absolutely support the approach in terms of it being a whole-system, cross-Government strategy. However, I would like to illustrate that there are potential implications and impacts for Wales where Government Departments will take responsibility in terms of budget investment for aspects of that whole-system approach. That will be a change from the finance coming through the Home Office or MOJ and into Wales; it has implications for Wales going forward, and that is something that these reforms need to better understand.

PCC Mudd alluded to our victim services. In order to break the cycle of criminality, it is vitally important to safeguard victims 100%, and I take the role of being the victims champion locally seriously. But there is also a requirement to fund perpetrator programmes in order that those who are perpetrating these offences can understand how to change their behaviour. In my opinion, that investment is not sufficient or adequate compared to victim services. We would not want victim services funding to be reduced to fund perpetrator programmes—I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that additional funding is required for perpetrator programmes, often funded through the discretionary funding to which Emma alluded. The police and crime commissioners have some flexibility in relation to that, whether through precept setting and raising council tax locally to fund those programmes, or through the delivery of early intervention and prevention activities, which takes money away from the core policing budget.

I can see lots of nodding from your colleagues there.

I have a quick question on police resources. The Government have pledged 13,000 police officers over the Parliament; do you have any figures in terms of the number allocated to Wales for each force? Given that we are on question three and time is moving on—the Chair will be giving us strong glances—can we just have the figures in terms of how many have been allocated so far and how many you intend over the next period?

In terms of the allocation, all forces in Wales are exceeding their year one target in terms of the uplift into neighbourhood policing. Our target was 193 additional neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, and we delivered 201 by February 2026, so we are exceeding that agreed target. For South Wales specifically, that translates to 70 additional officers into neighbourhood policing teams for 2025-2026, with a further 40 for 2026-2027. At the moment, we are still unclear in terms of future apportionment, although in my view the current apportionment seems adequate. The bigger question is about how future tranches and uplift will be funded, and that is the question that remains outstanding.

I do not have the exact figures, but we have around 3,000 police officers and police staff. A key thing to know is whether many police officers are leaving, but our attrition rate is good; it is always solidly within the top quartile, consistently in North Wales as well. We are all experiencing challenges in the pipeline for new police officers to come through. We are always looking, for example, at the recruitment of special constables in various departments across policing. That is a good pipeline to attract new police officers, as well as the PCSO route.

I do not have the exact figures for Gwent; I can provide you with those, but I would say that in each force area officers have been deployed in terms of the chief constable’s priorities. In Gwent, we are starting to see a performance improvement in relation to the areas of activity that matter to the citizens that we serve. For example, in terms of antisocial behaviour, the chief constable has been able to establish community action teams with additional officers. Using the evidence and data they have gathered in terms of demand, they can then target particular areas with the teams. They are starting to have positive performance results and that helps to build public trust and confidence. That is how some officers have been deployed in the Gwent force area. However, I would be remiss at this point not to mention that there is a nuanced difference in the discussion between England and Wales. As you will know, the Welsh Government have provided funding for police community support officers at the community level, so in Wales we have not had the experiences that your English colleagues have perhaps had in relation to their constituencies, because the forces in Wales have had that additional benefit of Welsh Government investment in the PCSOs as well.

The important point in relation to the Government’s priorities is that these are neighbourhood officers who work within neighbourhood policing and prevention teams. We have taken a slightly different tack in Dyfed-Powys in employing police staff; we have modernised the workforce in order to release police officers from office-based roles. They were not necessarily using their warranted powers, so they have been pushed back out to the front line. We are able to evidence, as Emma alluded to, that the quantum is above the target that we were set. The Home Office takes an arbitrary baseline from our annual data returns and we have surpassed those targets locally. The important point that has been made in relation to blending that reinvestment into neighbourhood policing teams with the already retained strength of having police community support officers within Wales—which is the envy of many English forces—is that we were able to retain those front-facing, public-facing assets that are in effect the cornerstone of local policing across Wales.

We will follow up in writing about the figures because that would be helpful; we are looking at the additionality on that one.

The Committee has received evidence from the Liverpool Centre for Advanced Policing Studies, which stated that these reforms should be assessed against the values of community, capability, capacity and confidence. My question is simple: how do the reforms measure up against those values?

It is uncertain at the moment; we do not know. The White Paper sets out a clear vision for change but the detail of the legislation and the legislative statutory instruments is yet to be seen. I will give you an example of what the local policing areas will look like. The White Paper talks about local policing areas and the National Police Service, but as we alluded to in earlier answers, the reach of the National Police Service and the size of those local policing areas is somewhat unknown. It is going to be difficult to answer that question specifically and directly, but we have some measures in relation to trust and confidence from the public’s point of view and we can use those as a baseline to monitor these changes and reforms as they become implemented. Of course, there will need to be a lot of scrutiny within the parliamentary timetable for these statutory instruments and how they will ultimately influence what they describe and what you describe in your question. I would conclude that at the moment it is difficult to make that assessment because there is so much uncertainty. There is uncertainty on the timing of the governance structures that they talk about. There is uncertainty in relation to funding, as we have alluded to. As a result, I find it difficult to answer that question.

That is great and it is useful to the Committee. Unless there are any other answers, we can move on.

The recommendation is to abolish PCCs in 2028. Do you support these plans? I know you have put your own written evidence forward so we are just probing the evidence that you have already provided. Is there a danger that it would cost more? In terms of democracy, can you make sure that the police are accountable to local communities rather than distancing themselves?

It is going to sound like terrible advice but the role of the police and crime commissioner brings a lot of positives that are too often undervalued. A primary example of that would be the convening power; we have touched on the commissioned services that we fund, and the nuanced things that we can support as well. That power to convene and bring other partners together is something that we do exceptionally well in Wales; I know I would say that anyway but this is the right audience. We are extremely good at that and we know from our English counterparts that those relationships and partnerships and the way we collaborate in Wales is really strong. When we look at things that have happened in the past that have been constructive, it is about that power. We have talked about the police in Wales; that is just one aspect of how we can bring people together. There are other things that we do more locally as well. For example, I have been able to bring farmers together with local communities about sheep trailing on to the A55. We worked with the local authority and got in touch with landowners and the Snowdonia National Park to see how we could work together to try to find a solution to that problem. We were able to do that within our office. That convening power has also been useful when the introduction of the serious violence duty was placed upon all commissioners across England and Wales, giving the ability to bring in not only local authorities, but health boards, the fire service, and third sector agencies as well. That is a real strength and something that I am proud to say we do well in Wales. It probably has not been thought through as much as it could have been, but we are working with what has been set out in the terms of reference in the White Paper, along with what the Home Secretary announced. While we recognise that challenge and we will work through it, there are too many questions for me to see if there would be value in removing the role of the police and crime commissioner.

Let me move on to Emma because we are asking about the evidence that you have provided. Is this not taking democratic accountability further away from the people? That is the real question here.

As Welsh PCCs, we do not support the ending of the PCC governance model; we do not feel that the case in terms of the governance challenges identified nationally has been caused by the PCC model itself, particularly given the experience that we have in Wales. The aspects of evidence around there not being sufficient collaboration are not recognised from a Welsh perspective, given that we feel we are strong in that space. As you mentioned, Chair, Policing in Wales has developed proposals and we have submitted those within the framework of the White Paper, making sure that we are giving cognisance to the unique delivery landscape that we operate within in terms of devolved services. We are looking for a stronger collaboration in terms of our partnership at a Wales level, particularly with the Welsh Government and our wider justice partners, and we feel that any future model would benefit from putting our policing partnership board on a statutory footing. As you will know, the White Paper sets out the intention, at a regional or current force level, to move to mayoral areas; in Wales, where those are absent, it will be police and crime boards with a policing lead. We are strong in our position that the policing lead and the police and crime boards should have parity with deputy mayors and that mayoral model; the functions and responsibilities that the deputy mayor and the PCCs have now should shift into that new arrangement. At a regional level, our ability to continue to make sure that there is democratic accountability, a clear connection to local priorities and a local voice is predicated on how both those multi-member boards, made up of leaders and the police and crime lead, have the necessary delegated authority and powers.

The decision has seemingly been made, and I cannot see that any scrutiny of the legislation will change that position. It seems pretty clear that the role of the PCC will cease. We have alluded to savings in terms of the election—those are obvious to everybody—but it is important to put on record that I do not subscribe to what I would describe as the crass statement made in relation to the police and crime commissioners as being a failed experiment. That is disrespectful not only to the individuals in the role but to our offices and teams, which undertake diligent work in the scrutiny space holding to account the diligent work around the commissioning of services. Our valued team members have worked tirelessly in supporting us as commissioners over the period that the offices have been in existence. That is an important point to make but I am not going to cry over spilt milk. It is then important for us to think about the context of our evidence in response to a White Paper that sets out a framework for new governance structures. There are things that we need to ensure from a Welsh point of view. First, parity with the mayoral structures: we should have sufficient levers of powers for the new police lead, so that they are body corporate themselves and are able to employ individuals in the functions that I earlier described. That is a fundamental point. It sounds hypocritical but I have been on record saying that I am not necessarily a huge fan of the police and crime commissioner role because of the politicisation of policing. My political party was not supportive of the creation of this role back in the Act of 2011 and when it was first enacted through elections in 2012. We stood for election in 2016 and were successful in having police commissioners under the name of Plaid Cymru at that time, so it would be hypocritical for me to say whether I agree or disagree with not having police commissioners. My ambition is to see the further devolution of policing to the Welsh Government. That is something the Welsh Government are calling for, and it has been called for by other eminent individuals. The Silk Commission back in 2014 and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd’s Commission both cite that the next natural progression for the devolution of policing should happen in Wales. If we are making such a seismic shift and change in the reform of policing, now is the time I would advocate for it to happen in Wales.

That debate will be ongoing. Jane Mudd, do you want to add anything?

I would like to return to the failed experiment narrative. I want to emphasise to colleagues the impact that has, not on us as police and crime commissioners and elected representatives but on the very diligent, dedicated and experienced staff who work through our offices on commissioning, community engagement and policy. We have given you examples of the work we do around violence against women and girls. It would not be possible to do that without the knowledge, skills and dedication of the teams that we have. When the announcement was made in relation to the abolition of the role of police and crime commissioner, the narrative around it is more than unfortunate; it is detrimental to the wellbeing of the people who work in the offices of the police and crime commissioners across England and Wales. I really want to emphasise that because it is entirely within the decision-making powers of the Government, should they wish to make a change; how you announce that is a different matter. A greater regard should and could have been given to that. In terms of governance and the role that we play in holding the police to account, it is absolutely critical that there is a facility for that to continue to happen at the local level. A previous question was about how you measure it, and the first point was community. It is essential that the citizens and communities we serve have that connection and are able to connect and challenge in relation to it. There is a risk with reform that that will be diminished, so whatever governance model replaces this really needs to ensure that that connectivity not just remains but is strengthened.

How satisfied are you overall with the engagement with the Home Office about these reforms? Just a sentence will do.

We have had a good engagement opportunity. I have been able to second a member of my team who happens to be with me today in support of this evidence session. As part of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ engagement with the Home Office, we have had multiple meetings and discussions. There have been relatively strong lines of communication, albeit I have not seen the fruit of that yet because we are still, as I alluded to earlier, waiting for some of the detail. That detail will be what we need to pore over post the summer recess for yourselves and into the autumn.

How satisfied are you, Jane Mudd?

Not as satisfied as my colleague, PCC Llywelyn. I feel there could have been greater engagement. At times, the engagement has been unbalanced in terms of the opportunities to contribute to the debate. While there has been an opportunity to engage, I could not estimate how much listening has gone on in terms of the Home Office.

Thank you, that is helpful.

If it was a school report, it would be: could do better. I appreciate that this has been at some real pace as well. The timelines are really important for legislation and pieces of work that need to be completed by a certain time. I appreciate and acknowledge the challenge, not only for Members of Parliament but for civil servants, to undertake that piece of work, both in the UK Parliament as well as colleagues in the Senedd. It could have been better, but I appreciate that the challenge was the timeline as well. Things may alter as we work through this.

At the moment, how satisfied are you?

It has been okay.

I have had the opportunity to be represented as a member on various aspects of the governance arrangements that are overseeing the reform programme. I sit on the Police Reform Ministerial Board and the programme board that relates to the reform governance. I recognise the frustration of colleagues in that we, as PCCs, have done as much as we can to engage constructively with the proposals that are set in, whether we agree with the principle of the decision or not, because we are absolutely keen to ensure that the voice of Wales and the distinct needs of Wales are represented. The frustration is that, as PCC Dunbobbin noted about the pace of policy design, while we are engaging, inputting, and sharing feedback, the policy detail coming out is somewhat lagging. That obviously creates frustration and ongoing uncertainty, with very practical implications for our teams and our partners.

That is helpful.

A quick-fire question: there is an ongoing review of how many forces we need in Wales. How many forces do you think we need? I will come back to more detail.

Apologies, but I am going to dodge the question by saying it is an incremental process, and there is a lot you can do through greater collaboration that does not require a merger of forces in the first instance. I would advocate for the devolution of policing to the Welsh Government, for the Welsh Government to work with other key stakeholders in Wales to determine the adequate number of forces that should be operational in Wales.

Clearly, we are waiting for the review to be publicised. We don’t know what its recommendations will be. I firmly believe there is a lot to be achieved and a lot more to be achieved through collaboration. We collaborate really well in Wales. In response to your question, there is a lot more that we can do with what we have now and I would not change that.

It is a really topical question. I am going to swerve it a little. In North Wales, we have criminality from east to west and west to east, which ties in with the north-west of England. A prime example is that we have the North West ROCU. It is one of the busiest ROCUs in England and Wales. I know from what people have said to me that there needs to be an appreciation of how criminality takes place within North Wales. It is a bit subjective at the moment because we are still waiting to hear what comes from that piece of work, but that is what the residents of North Wales are saying to me. It is my duty to say that in this Committee.

As my colleagues have already said, I am absolutely supportive of the UK Government’s approach in terms of examining structures with the commission of the independent review. I would personally want to see the evidence. I hope that review sets out the evidence for what the optimum model is. Most importantly, it is not simply about restructures and moving capabilities around at a national, local or regional level; it is about the evidence showing how outcomes for the public of Wales will be improved as a result of any changes. For me, it is about being evidence-led and waiting for that evidence to be published.

While we are waiting for that to be published, any force mergers, no matter which model is adopted, are significant structural changes. How can that be delivered while still maintaining and ensuring continuity of service? I will start with PCC Llywelyn.

Thank you for the question. This is at the nub of the issue in relation to the police reform element. What you describe is that tension that would exist of delivering services day in, day out, and the cost of change. We have done some initial thinking from a policing perspective in Wales. There would be a significant cost to that change. We can think of a scenario where merging forces creates an issue in relation to the council tax precept level. Dyfed-Powys currently has the lowest council tax precept level across the Welsh forces. There would need to be an equalisation of that, which would therefore mean that the taxpayers of Dyfed-Powys may need to pay more, as the others, in effect, stagnate in terms of that future funding. We all have mid-term financial plans that we are working to, which would then have to be altered to take cognisance of the cost of change. That is a very practical example of how it could be somewhat challenging to deliver that, in my opinion; that is my argument. Coming back to the point that others have made, surely there is greater ability to have a greater strategic alliance across the Welsh forces to collaborate with one another, as opposed to the wholesale merger, which also brings into account things in relation to the equalisation of terms and conditions of service. It would not be for police officers because that is set nationally by a police review body, but for police staff. I sit on the Police Staff Council across England and Wales, where there are already discussions with staff associations in relation to whether we can have an assurance by the Home Office that any force mergers will not have a detrimental impact on police staff. Let us not forget that about a third of our employees are police staff, not warranted police officers. We have to take into consideration the impact on them as individuals. To come back and immediately respond to your question, it would be challenging to deliver both day-to-day services and the scale of the potential changes for force mergers.

I am very aware that there are a lot of questions left, so unless any of you have something additional to add, we will move on.

Just to add on mergers and the scale and size of forces, we have evidence that we can draw on that highlights the challenges around that. I would urge all colleagues to look back over the review that Baroness Casey undertook of the Metropolitan Police Service, which is a really detailed assessment of some of the challenges of putting in place a large structure for a police force. It is really important that when we look at this, we think about the impact on our citizens. It is important that we draw on that evidence, but going back to the example that Dafydd mentioned about precept equalisation, we know that for Gwent alone, it would cost. The precept equalisation would mean a reduction of £7 million in policing in Gwent over the period where that was happening, which would impact on our citizens in terms of service delivery. If there is to be a restructure of forces within Wales, it would require significant investment, probably in the region of £140 million, if not more.

The White Paper suggested that funding reform is required. I am interested to learn whether you have received any reassurances from the Home Office that Welsh forces will not lose out as a consequence of any reform. Can I ask PCC Wools that?

There are already a range of funding inequities in relation to the Welsh forces, which I know my colleagues are also quite keen to set out. One principle that I would like to see the funding reform correct is the fact that South Wales Police receives no funding towards its capital city status, unlike of course London and the other devolved administrations. The cost to taxpayers in south Wales is £8 million per annum. This obviously runs the risk of drawing policing away from local communities to be able to service national sporting events, VIP visits, cultural events and, of course, policing of the Senedd and the seat of Government. I am disappointed that, despite a huge amount of support, particularly from Welsh MPs in this room, Welsh local government, and our police in Wales colleagues, the UK Government have still not sought to rectify that. I hope that will be a principal consideration within any reform.

PCC Dunbobbin, are there particular concerns you might have from a North Wales perspective?

I will try to do it from a North Wales perspective while also covering the whole of Wales. When we look at things such as the apprenticeship levy, the disadvantage is to the tune of around £30 million. Emma has mentioned the capital city grant. Sometimes it can be quite difficult for us to draw down on other grants that are available in England because of devolution, so we could be missing out on other contracts through MOJ. Anything like that we could be missing out on, especially capital works. Although I was not directly involved in it, there was the firearms centre that my three colleagues contributed to, which would be a really good example. Dafydd will probably be able to give a bit more detail surrounding that funding shortfall. It would be those things that we are just missing out on, which is really sad.

Forgive me, perhaps PCC Mudd would be able to elaborate, but you mentioned that we are missing out or losing out on some opportunities. What is the reason for that?

There is already an imbalance; police forces in England receive a grant of over £500 million a year, which does not come into Wales. It dates back to a historic issue where council tax increases were frozen so there needed to be some sort of compensation for that, while we continued to be able to determine what the precept was in Wales at that point. There is that imbalance. However, I am sure colleagues would agree that is a significant imbalance when it comes to grant funding. I will not speak to the apprenticeship levy because I know that Daf is well-versed in it, but the lack of capital grant is really significant for us. As three South Wales forces, we have invested in the development of a joint firearms unit. It is a much-needed facility that will not just be for Wales. We hope that our English colleagues will want to come and use it as well. When the facility is complete, we welcome a visit from you, as colleagues, to see the public investment that we have made, but we have had to borrow to do it because of the lack of capital investment.

Forgive my ignorance here: if you had been English police forces collaborating in this way, do you mean to say that there might have been some support for the capital spending there?

It is a problem across the public sector, more broadly, that there is a lack of capital investment.

I can answer your immediate question in relation to whether I have confidence that some of these funding arrangements will be worked out quite simply by saying no. For the last 10 years, I have been highlighting issues such as the apprenticeship levy disadvantage we face in Wales, which still has not been sorted. The exact quantum of that is that we are now reimbursed by the Home Office to the tune of £2.4 million, which is our contribution to the apprenticeship levy, but it does not take into account the fees that would be available to be funded through the higher education sector in Wales, because it is devolved, where they are reimbursed in English forces. We have a perverse example where a senior officer in the Dyfed-Powys area wants to do a master’s course in a university in England. The cohort will consist of people attending that course from English forces who receive that funding directly, whereas in Welsh forces we either have to provide some bursaries to those officers or they pay for them themselves. These are real, specific examples of how that works. The immediate answer would be that I do not have confidence, but there are multiple examples, such as the apprenticeship levy and the council tax freeze grant—the £500 million that police forces in England get—and capital city status. There are a number of economic disadvantages we can highlight. At times, it can be quite difficult to follow the money trail from a point of view of announcements made by the UK Government that are deemed to influence policing, but might be increases in budgets, let us say, within health or local government. We then do not see the benefit directly within policing because they are then—as part of the Barnett formula—consequential to the Welsh Government, an increase. Then we are stuck between the two stools of the Treasury UK Government and Welsh Government in trying to make the case to Welsh Government around the funding imbalance, notwithstanding the support of the Welsh Government. We have to always acknowledge the support we have received, particularly regarding the PCSOs. That is perhaps the silver lining within the complexity of the way in which policing works. Of course, the funding formula itself has been under review for many years and successive Governments have put it in the too-hard basket for the last 10 or 15 years. That needs addressing. Again, you would expect me to say this, Chair, but I would argue that a straighter settlement through a devolution model to Welsh Government with a clear population-share Barnett consequential would be better for Wales. It would be cleaner, and an opportunity for us to potentially reset some current idiosyncrasies in the funding model.

Very briefly, in your written evidence, you have detailed how the Welsh public pay more for their policing than English communities. Just for the record, could you reiterate and explain why that is?

We are partly to blame in relation to that because we have greater flexibility than our English counterparts in terms of the precept setting. We have exercised that over the last 10 years; we have seen a continued increase in that precept setting to the point where the gearing in Wales is now slightly different across the forces, but it is consistently over 50%. There is a spectrum. It is quite complicated because it is linked to the housing stock within force areas, which will be different in different communities across England, as it is different across communities in Wales. The spectrum runs from a high point of 55% gearing from local taxation down to about 25% to 30% reliance on the precept. That is the position we are in.

Despite the differences, all four are at the higher end of the gearing.

All four are in the top quartile. In fact, all four of us are in the top six or seven forces in terms of the gearing percentage.

That is helpful. Thank you.

I do not agree with that description of how the local delivery does not have the levers and powers in terms of the resources provided to it.

Yes, that is true, but they are set out in a more complex, less binary way. We have specialist capabilities that work across county boundaries, across force boundaries, and within a collaborative arrangement. For example, we have counter-terrorism firearms officers—CTSFOs—who work across the three Welsh southern forces. It is a capability that is a pooled resource, so we would be gaining those economies of scale and resources.

I am not disproving the argument for going to central capabilities and capacity being made available. We have acknowledged that a function for the National Police Service should be created, and we agree with that, but we are uncertain how it will be funded. Were I to say to you, as a local representative of the communities in Pembrokeshire, that we will take a third of the resources that currently fund Dyfed-Powys Police to run a national service that is being run out of the Home Office, or quasi-run through the College of Policing or National Police Service elsewhere, it would further exacerbate the point you made in relation to the local delivery of services because the control of it would be even further away than it is now.

With the creation of the National Police Service, there is a danger that resources will be pulled to more urbanised central locations.

In terms of the structures in relation to the National Police Service, we cannot answer that question because we do not know what is in the remit of the National Police Service. Once we do, we will be better informed and more able to respond to that. This is very nuanced. In Gwent, the operational model is functional, so we do not have BCUs in Gwent. The chief constable determines his requirements for delivering his plan for the area. That resource is then allocated by the chief constable and his senior colleagues in terms of that model. For us in Gwent, some of the issues with BCUs do not currently exist but could be detrimental. Were we to move to one force for Wales, we know from Gwent that we have evidence of significant performance improvements since we moved to a functional model. There is a risk that performance would decline if we had to move to a BCU model. That overlaps with that question.

North Wales is about 75% rural. We have established our dedicated rural crime team. That was due to police and crime commissioners as well, in fact. That is another string to our bow, as well as for colleagues in England. While I acknowledge the risk of NPS and what that could bring to our rural communities, with us already investing and it already being well embedded, especially in North Wales and in Dyfed-Powys, I would like to see our rural crime team classed as business as usual because of how long it has been established and how well it has been performing. Maybe that is a conversation to be picked up with the National Rural Crime Network.

Can I just add that the neighbourhood policing guarantee sets out very clear expectations for policing at a local level: that local priorities be set and that local capacity and capability should be responsive to the nature of the community it serves. In South Wales, we predominantly have a very urban centre but also more sparse, rural communities, and as the PCC, I expect to see evidence that the chief constable and local commanders have prioritised and made resources available that meet the distinct needs of their specific neighbourhoods and communities. Certainly, from my perspective, my scrutiny and holding to account would be able to see strength in relation to adhering to that model and additional resources. I acknowledge what colleagues have said about risks and capability. I do not think we can properly articulate what they look like until we have seen what might go into the NPS and beyond.

Yes, we have three BCUs.

Emma is spot on in relation to the neighbourhood policing guarantee that has been set out because fundamentally within all communities, rural and urban, neighbourhood policing teams will remain. I suppose the sceptical element is more to do with those more specialist capabilities. Again, just a nuance in terms of how policing currently operates across the UK: we already provide additional resources through mutual aid to communities. Officers from Wales will move across boundaries, for example to support Bristol and Avon and Somerset Police or across to London and the Met Police when they have protests and other public order issues. That cross-border activity happens now. You could argue that there is a draining of resources already in that space. But fundamentally, it is really important for leaders to ensure that the neighbourhood policing teams are the foundation and the cornerstone of delivering policing locally.

No, because it is not a matter for police commissioners, because of the operational independence of chief constables.

I foresee that there would be less control over that asset deployment locally because at the moment, as in the phrase “the mutual aid”, it is a response on a mutual basis, when there is a National Police Service at play, dictating, dare I say, some of that resource and asset movement. Again, it is very operational and subjective. I would need to be reassured in relation to how that would play out across boundaries. But that is a function of any central control of resource deployment that the National Police Service would develop.

I am very conscious of time; we have 10 minutes left.

It needs to be monitored. I referred earlier to the democratic deficit of losing the PCCs. That is true at all levels. We need to ensure that we have great local governance and that there is, for want of a better description, a tripartite governance of the functions of the National Police Service from an operational point of view and, if it is not the PCCs, the entities that sit in that governance role. An important aspect of this that we need to put on record is ensuring that there is a Welsh seat around that table. The National Police Service will be an England and Wales endeavour, not an England endeavour that also responds to Welsh needs. It is an England and Wales endeavour. We would all advocate for a Welsh seat around that governance table of the National Police Service.

I am conscious that this session is due to finish at 4 pm. It is not a hard finish if people can stay, but if we can do another five minutes, that would be great.

I will be very quick. I strongly concur with what my colleague has said regarding Wales having a seat at the governance table within that tripartite arrangement. It speaks to making sure that we understand performance and that capabilities are allocated against Welsh need. Second to that is to make sure that within the design of the NPS the specific requirements and needs of Wales are taken into consideration. In fact, I would go as far as saying that we need a physical and enduring footprint in terms of the NPS in Wales to ensure that those specific needs are drawn in and not simply an afterthought, as unfortunately can be the case on numerous England and Wales endeavours.

Do you think that policing should be devolved to the Welsh Government, and do you think the White Paper proposal helps or hinders that process?

You will be able to predict my answer. The answer is yes, and it is more of a hindrance because I would argue that this is the statutory vehicle to make it happen and the White Paper should be amended to include the devolution of policing to Welsh Government.

My answer is no. We have to look at the evidence base. In terms of the White Paper itself, as Dafydd said, there is potential to develop it further in order to enable that to happen. However, just to qualify that, the reason I say no is that I would need to have confidence that the funding required to do that would follow that decision. It is not just about the decision itself but it is really important that Wales is fairly funded to enable that to happen. It is not just about investment in policing; it is about the additional investment required within the Government. We are a relatively young democracy. We have a small civil service that supports us, so as well as the investment in policing that would be required, we would also need to see investment in strengthening that capacity within Government to ensure value for money and accountability to the citizens of Wales. It is probably not no, never; it is just no, not at this point.

In the fullness of time, I would be supportive of the devolution of policing and criminal justice but it would be caveated, as Jane has outlined. There is a lot of evidence, as David referred to earlier. There is a lot of academic research on the reasons policing and criminal justice could be devolved. I see a lot of strengths in it, but caveat that for the same reasons. When we are looking at how policing could look, that work is ongoing with the force mergers. I would not want Wales disadvantaged in any way and I would not want North Wales disadvantaged in any way.

I support exploring further devolution powers to Wales, in particular in relation to policing and justice. I strongly concur with my colleagues, though, in terms of that being conditional on there being the sufficient funding, capacity and capability that comes with those additional responsibilities, and it being evidence-based in that we are able to say how the devolution of those powers will give better outcomes to the communities of Wales.

You have started to answer my question in some ways. There are too many variables to the devolution of policing at the moment. Most people are more interested in how something impacts them at a local level and how that service can be improved, rather than constitutional arrangements about who administers the service or how. What do you think the benefits would be, in terms of resources, given where we are now? Presumably we are not talking about significantly more resources coming into this? How do you think residents would benefit from devolving policing? The second part of the question is: do you think devolving policing per se means there could be a loss between the partnership working that currently goes on between the 43 forces across England and Wales and whatever it happens to be in the future? How do you think that level of partnership would be maintained in a devolved setting?

In terms of benefits to the people of Wales, in principle further devolution of policing and justice powers means that both the drivers and the policy issues that would be able to contribute to crime prevention, and obviously support wider community safety, public protection and safeguarding, means we could plan, prioritise and think about budgets appropriately to create benefits. However, it will all be predicated on the settlement that would come with the devolution arrangement or agreement, to make sure that we are absolutely benefiting the people of Wales. The justice system and policing is incredibly complex; there is clearly reliance on capabilities and specialisms at an England and Wales basis, so I want to know that the disaggregation is strong, robust and able to service the people of Wales while maintaining a relationship with colleagues in England where we need to share capabilities, resources, etc.

It is a really good question. Within Wales, our criminal justice partners that we work strongly with perform better than our English colleagues. We have a lot of things set up, such as the Criminal Justice Board for Wales and things flow from that, although we are not devolved. Although things can be quite nuanced, significant improvement will be seen due to those little alterations made. I know it sounds pedantic, but that is how I feel because of how devolution is currently arranged.

In terms of the benefits for the people of Wales if devolution of policing and criminal justice were to occur, it would probably strengthen the accountability and ability to scrutinise. In the face of current proposals, it could strengthen that. If you look across our partnerships across the wider criminal justice system, there are existing partnerships between different nations in the UK anyway, so I do not feel that partnerships would be compromised in that sense. Going back to a point Emma made, it is also about capability and capacity: do we have the capability within Wales at this point in time, without having to develop it further, to enable us to take that and deliver an effective service for our citizens? I cannot answer that; that is the uncertainty for me.

There are some very positive outcomes that we currently have within the criminal justice system in Wales. For example, we have less court delays than our English counterparts; very recently, the Youth Justice Board provided data and showed that 67% of young people were being diverted out of the criminal justice system in Wales, which is the highest percentage across all the UK nations. You may think, why would we want to devolve and change those positive outcomes for Wales? It would be an opportunity to build on the strengths that we have in Wales, bearing in mind that a lot of our infrastructure is based on goodwill and partnership working. None of what we talk about in terms of our Policing Partnership Board for Wales, where we have invited Home Office Ministers and Welsh Government Ministers to sit around the table with policing colleagues and other key stakeholders, is set in any statutory footing. We also have the Criminal Justice Board for Wales. All the infrastructure that we have in Wales is based on good will, for want of a better description. I would rather see it being devolved and allow that to form part of statutory instruments that are very Welsh-specific. In response to your point in relation to the cross-border activity, that would remain. We currently provide mutual aid across border into Northern Ireland when there is a requirement; I am familiar that there are cases that North Wales officers get deployed into Northern Ireland and the same is true for our Scottish counterparts. Devolving does not mean you are fragmenting that arrangement; if anything, it could strengthen the arrangements and ensure that an adequate level of resourcing is always made available from a Welsh perspective, based on the need Emma described earlier. I suggest it would strengthen the strong performance from a policing and partnership point of view in the future.

This is a question just for Emma, because you are the national lead for biometrics policing in the UK. The White Paper is talking about an increase in the number of live facial recognition vans. Given your force’s experience in deploying those, what assurances would you like to see in the upcoming framework that will govern their use?

As you rightly said, South Wales Police has been an early adopter of facial recognition and has a long history of testing and deploying it across the South Wales footprint. That long and careful history of testing the use of the technology has meant that we have been able to contribute very strongly to the influence on professional practice arrangements that need to be in place to ensure that there are standards for deployment. There are parameters in terms of a watch list. I know that some groups are very concerned about striking the right balance between civil liberties and public protection. It is quite right to continue to have the debate publicly about technology. I am proud of the fact that South Wales Police has made sure that it is engaged with the public and made sure that the public have come on the journey with us. I have to say that the overwhelming public response to the deployment of facial recognition has been really positive and they understand the proportionality. The safeguards you would naturally want to see include clear governance arrangements. Again, our test as an early adopter has meant there is a PCC’s office. We have made a significant contribution to shaping governance arrangements. I have the opportunity to understand where the technology is being deployed with clear detail about the operational necessity, proportionality, and who might be on that watch list. We also have the opportunity to scrutinise the watch list as specific to the deployment. I absolutely support the use of technology. We are in a time when criminals continue to exploit technology, and policing has to have the right tools and capabilities. They do not replace human interaction and decision making; as part of the process and model, there is always a highly skilled and qualified officer who gives consideration before taking any action in relation to positive matches. Testament to the way in which it has been managed is that there have been no false positives, which is a concern that the public has expressed. From my point of view, I have not received any complaints from the public about its use. In fact, the public’s response is very much, “We thought you would be doing this anyway.” Just to qualify, the fixed-camera vans, as well as Op Gwalia that was piloted last year, are starting to test the use of the technology on wider flexible mobile infrastructure, meaning that those zones of safety are wider and can be deployed safely in terms of being an additional tool to manage events. For me, it is a very valuable public protection tool, safety, and prevention, and something that the public have been incredibly supportive of in my experience to date.

I will bring the session to a close now, but I thank the witnesses and the Members for your patience, endurance and stamina this afternoon in incredibly hot conditions. Thank you so much for the evidence and for appearing before us in person. It has been a very useful evidence session, and one we will come back to because we want to look further at the Police Reform White Paper. The evidence you have provided today is a baseline for us. Thank you so much for your time.