Agenda item

Members to receive a report which recommends revisions to the Constitution following review of it by the Monitoring Officer in accordance with the duty under Part 3 paragraph 115 to do so once per year.

Members will be asked to consider the revisions proposed, and either agree, amend or reject them.

Mehrunnisa Lalani and Keith Culverwell declared an ordinary disclosable interest in this item, as the report considered the level of allowance for Independent Members, but as neither were applying for the role again, the interest was not felt to be prejudicial, therefore they remained in the meeting.

The City Barrister, Kamal Adatia presented the report, which recommended a new rate of remuneration for future recruited Independent Members of the Panel. The proposed rate was to be aligned to the rate paid to other Independent Members who took roles at Leicester City Council, plus a 50% uplift to reflect the additional meetings of the role and to be consistent with other Police and Crime Panels.

In response to the proposed new rate, it was noted that the work of an Independent Member included more than just meeting attendance, but also considerable background reading and detailed research. It was further noted that those attracted to become Independent Members would be more motivated by an interest in the subject area and public service, rather than the remuneration. The proposed rate was generally felt to be acceptable.

Arising from the discussion on the remuneration, the Chairman commented that she would welcome further clarity about the Home Office grant which funded aspects of the Panel’s work. She therefore requested details be provided to a future meeting which looked at matters such as the amount of grant available, what it was used for and whether there was any unused funding which could be utilised for the improvement of the Panel.

The City Barrister referred to the Terms of Reference regarding handling Police and Crime Commissioner complaints and suggested technical changes to the procedure in referring criminal complaints to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC).

It was noted that whilst the power to deal with such complaints was vested in the Panel, referring such complaints to the IOPC could only be delegated to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, not the Monitoring Officer, which was currently the case. Therefore, a technical change was proposed.

A query was raised regarding who undertook the assessment about whether a complaint was referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The City Barrister noted that whilst there existed national Guidance on IOPC referrals it was not primarily aimed at referrals about PCC conduct. There was a balance to be struck between establishing that a potential criminal allegation is made, versus not becoming embroiled in an investigative process. His own practice was to err on the side of caution and make referrals if the complaint asserts criminal misconduct, leaving it to the IOPC to lead.

The Panel thanked the City Barrister for the report.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the amended rate of the Independent Members Allowance be approved for future appointments.

2.    That the power of delegation to refer criminal complaints to the IOPC be amended to the Chief Executive Officer of the OPCC with immediate effect.

3.    That details of the Home Office grant be presented to a future meeting.