Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at here.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2025 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2025 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no questions submitted.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

No declarations were made.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an update on the financial position for 2025/26, an updated MTFP including an update on the assumptions, an update on the pressures facing the policing area over the MTFP and progress made towards the efficiency savings target. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 6’, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, the PCC thanked the Chairman and the other members of the Panel for their contribution towards a joint letter which had been sent from him and the Panel to the Secretary of State with responsibility for policing. The letter had outlined concerns relating to financial pressures faced by the Force, victim support, and community safety within LLR. The PCC and the Chairman agreed that the response which had been received had not outlined solutions to the issues raised.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)         With regards to efficiency savings and closing the budget deficit gap, the PCC stated that a number of areas for possible efficiency savings had been identified by the Office of the Police and Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and the Force, within the 2025/26 budget. Many of the savings had either been realised, or were on track to be realised, with exception of two areas. One of which was a £1.4m saving relating to reorganisation of police staff roles. It was noted that only £1m of this would be realised. The other area related to a £0.4m underachievement of income relating to the recharge of officers to regional collaborations, as a result of the officer establishment reducing for the unit. However, the PCC stated that additional grant income had been awarded which had reduced the funding gap by £2m. A further £0.5m had been realised from debt charges and £0.3m non-pay savings relating to national ICT costs and online rental charges. This resulted in the overachievement of the savings target by £0.9m.

(ii)        A question was raised regarding a 10% increase in ICT costs and whether steps would be taken in order to mitigate future inflation risks for technology related expenditure. In response, it was explained that inflation was not applied as a blanket rate across all contracts. Each contract was reviewed individually, and its specific inflation mechanism was taken into account. Known inflation factors within contracts were built into the MTFP wherever possible. The best available information and historical trends were used in order to estimate future ICT costs. It was noted that some ICT costs related to national systems, such as the Police National Database, where the Force had no control over pricing. Forecasting these costs was often difficult because increases had been inconsistent year to year. Information on national charges often arrived late in January, making timely budgeting challenging.

(iii)       Concern was raised relating to the longstanding and recurrent nature of the Force’s financial challenges, noting that similar issues had been highlighted consistently over several years by both the current PCC and their predecessor. This included underfunded police pay awards, pension contributions, and employer National Insurance costs. It was emphasised that these funding gaps had increasingly resulted in greater reliance on the policing precept. The PCC acknowledged these pressures and confirmed that further detailed correspondence had recently been submitted to Government outlining the extent of the underfunding, reflecting similar representations made in previous years. The Panel remained concerned that despite repeated efforts, many of the same financial issues persisted. The PCC stated that an updated position would be outlined within the proposed 2026/27 budget and precept, which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an update in relation to the delivery of the 2025-29 Police and Crime Plan as at the end of Quarter 2 2025/26 (July - September 2025). A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)         The Chairman commented that data relating to two metrics in the table in the appendix had been redacted – ‘Staff satisfaction for Force’ and ‘Abstractions from Neighbourhood Policing’. The data had also been redacted when presented to the Panel at the meeting on 27 October. The PCC stated that during a recent Corporate Governance Board meeting, he requested that the Temporary Chief Constable consider releasing the two currently redacted figures for public transparency. It was noted that the Temporary Chief Constable had provided assurances that work was being undertaken to address issues with staff satisfaction. It was also noted that the metric numbered 25 had been reviewed and would instead measure ‘the proportion of available hours extracted from the frontline’. This change was made because there were questions about what the original data actually represented. The updated metric better reflected the data the police force used internally and would provide clearer, more appropriate information for the public.

(ii)        A point was made regarding historical issues where recorded crime appeared to have significantly reduced but was later found to be the result of crimes not having been recorded, rather than an actual reduction in crime. The PCC stated that the performance framework combined independently assured crime‑recording data with internal operational metrics. Crime statistics continued to be validated through His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) Crime Data Integrity inspections, which consistently showed high recording accuracy.

(iii)       The Chairman commented that it would be valuable for the Panel to be presented with information regarding the abandonment rate relating to the Force’s crime reporting page, noting that the Panel had previously received data relating to the abandonment rate relating to both 101 and 999 calls.

(iv)      It was noted that the Violence Reduction Network (VRN) had appointed a new Prevention and Diversion Manager with a focus on engagement with the education sector. It was confirmed that the change in job title would not reduce the organisation’s work with children or families. The VRN continued to deliver a range of youth and family‑focused projects, supported by the wider team. Oversight of the VRN delivery plan remained with the Strategic Partnership Board.

(v)        With regards to independent scrutiny arrangements, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had recently conducted a review of its scrutiny functions. This included the Ethics and Transparency Panel, the Joint Audit and Risk Panel, and associated sub‑groups. The review involved engagement with partner organisations and current panel members. The PCC stated that the findings had reflected positively on the existing arrangements. It was agreed that the results of this work would be made available to the Panel once it had been completed.

(vi)      A member of the Panel asked a question regarding recent national proposals relating to the criminal justice system, including suggested restrictions on the use of jury trials in some cases. The PCC emphasised strong concern regarding the potential impact on long‑established rights relating to jury trials and on public confidence in the justice process, and the Panel were in agreement. The PCC assured the Panel that he had written formally to the Government to express opposition to the proposals.

(vii)     It was noted that high levels of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which outlined how he was fulfilling his duty by holding the Chief Constable to account by utilising the independent Ethics and Transparency Panel. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)         Concern was raised regarding poor attendance at the Hate Crime Panel and the Out of Court Resolution Panel which had meant that meetings had been cancelled. The PCC acknowledged that attendance remained a key issue. It was noted that whilst an allowance was paid to the chair of a panel, most participants were volunteers. Work was being undertaken by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in order to improve attendance at meetings. The results of the work would be presented to the panel at a future meeting.

(ii)        It was noted that work was being undertaken by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in order to establish a joint scrutiny function and to improve communication across scrutiny panels. A framework was being developed in order to clarify the structure of scrutiny activity. At the time, four panels were operational, with recommendations for additional panels, including a flexible Public Treatment Panel which could be convened in response to emerging issues. An audit which would focus on all areas of scrutiny was planned to take place in 2026.

(iii)       Concern was raised regarding concerns highlighted by the Ethics and Transparency Panel relating to LGBTQ+ victims. Concern was raised regarding a case of misgendering during an interview and it was noted that feedback had been provided to the relevant officer. Concern was also raised regarding the vulnerability of LGBT+ victims, noting that one in three had experienced abuse from a family member. The Ethics and Transparency Panel recommended that an audit be conducted focusing specifically on LGBTQ+ hate crimes, which would help determine whether the highlighted cases were isolated incidents or indicative of a broader pattern which required further attention. A member of the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) requested that results of this audit be reported to the PCP.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the report outlining the annual report of the Ethics and Transparency Panel, be noted.

(b)       That the results of work being undertaken by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in order to improve attendance at scrutiny panel meetings, be presented at a future meeting.

(c)        That the PCC be requested to provide the Panel with results of an audit focusing specifically on LGBTQ+ hate crimes.

The Panel considered a report of the Director of Law and Governance at Leicestershire County Council which provided the Police and Crime Panel with an update on complaints relating to the PCC over the last 12 months. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, are filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the update relating to complaints received relating to the Police and Crime Commissioner over the last 12 months, be noted.

The Panel considered a report of the Panel’s Secretariat which outlined the options for the recruitment of coopted independent members of the Police and Crime Panel. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

The Panel agreed that the term of office of Parisha Chavda should be extended for the next four years, subject to any abolition of Police and Crime Panels. It was also agreed that a subcommittee of three panel members be appointed to shortlist and interview candidates for the vacant coopted independent member position.

The Chairman placed on record his thanks, on behalf of the Panel, to Salma Manzoor for her work as a coopted independent member of the Police and Crime Panel over her four-year term.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the term of office of Parisha Chavda be extended for the next four years, subject to any abolition of Police and Crime Panels.

(b)       That a subcommittee of three Police and Crime Panel members to shortlist and interview candidates, be appointed.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 4 February 2026.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 4 February 2026 at 14:00.