Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 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 Panel’s Secretariat which provided details of the recruitment process which had taken place for an Independent Co-opted Member of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 5’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman outlined that the subcommittee which had undertaken interviews were pleased with the quality of all applicants, and that Mr Peter Jones would be a valuable Co-opted Independent member of the Panel.

RESOLVED:

That the recruitment process which had taken place for an Independent Co-opted Member of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Police and Crime Panel, and the appointment of Mr Peter Jones, be noted.

The Panel considered a report of the Director of Law and Governance which sought approval to formally amend Part 4 of the Constitution, in order to provide clarity regarding the process for dealing with serious complaints and conduct matters relating to the PCC/DPCC, and to include detail regarding the authority which the Panel has delegated to the Director of Law and Governance at Leicestershire County Council with regards to complaints.

RESOLVED:

That Part 4 of the Constitution be amended as outlined within the report.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) concerning the Proposed Precept for 2026/27 and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the budget and precept proposals the PCC outlined the process for setting the 2026/27 policing budget. He emphasised that he was not cutting the police budget, as he suggested had been reported elsewhere, but was increasing it by £13.5million. He explained the need to balance police funding requests with the financial pressures faced by local residents and suggested that a consultation undertaken by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) showed that 31% of the public did not want any increase in the precept. The PCC stated that throughout the budget setting process, he and the Temporary Chief Constable had not been in agreement with regards to the budget nor the precept proposal. He then outlined the detail of these discussions. The PCC stated that the proposed £11 precept increase, was responsible, fair, and proportionate. He maintained that he had followed all statutory requirements, had consulted appropriately, and had acted in the best interests of residents by avoiding tax burdens whilst still increasing police funding. He advised that a copy of his full statement would be published on the OPCC’s website.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)            The Panel raised strong concern regarding the length of the statement provided by the PCC and that this had been provided at the meeting, rather than prior to the meeting. Concern was also raised regarding the detail included which related to disagreement between the PCC and the Temporary Chief Constable. The PCC stated that he believed his comments were relevant and reiterated that whilst disagreements between him and the Temporary Chief Constable were unusual, the detail had been provided in order to present the differing views on the precept and budget. The PCC stated he retained a professional relationship with the Temporary Chief Constable and believed disagreements were ultimately matters of judgement. The Panel remained concerned regarding the content of the statement provided, in particular the points made in relation to the Temporary Chief Constable.

(ii)          The Panel were concerned about the cumulative long‑term impact of setting the proposed £11 precept increase, and that not raising the precept to the maximum would have consequences for service delivery, including strain on call handling, safeguarding responsibilities, frontline visibility, and pressure on reserves. The PCC acknowledged these points but stated that budgetary growth had exceeded inflation in previous years and that savings could still be made without compromising public safety. The Panel remained concerned and warned that reduced funding risked undermining services which supported the public, in particular the most vulnerable.

(iii)         A member of the Panel stated that the PCC had previously made statements relating to central government funding, the adequacy of police equipment, and concerns about community safety, and suggested that his current position had contradicted these concerns. The PCC responded to say that he believed that central government funding formulas were flawed but stated that he believed that local taxpayers should not be required to compensate for national funding shortcomings.

(iv)         Concern was raised regarding the shift in police funding between 2017 and 2024, during which central government’s contribution fell from 66% to 58%, placing a greater burden on local taxpayers. It was noted that in previous years, the PCC and the Panel had jointly written to the Government to advocate for fairer funding. The Force remained the seventh worst-funded police force nationally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an overview of his work and the work of his Deputy and office throughout October 2025 to December 2025 (Quarter 3 2025/26). A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, the PCC stated that misleading and untrue statements had been made about him within the press and on social media, with regards to the police precept proposal and budget. A member of the Panel suggested that it was inappropriate for the PCC to suggest this and made reference to the way in which the PCC’s utilised social media. The Chief Constable then placed on record that he had not utilised social media in relation to the police precept proposal and budget prior to attending the meeting.

(i)        In response to a question asked, the PCC stated that he did not attend meetings of the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB), however he did review the associated paperwork and also raised questions and concerns. It was noted that the LCJB was chaired by the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable. The PCC had intended for a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, with responsibility for the criminal justice portfolio, would chair the Board. However, the appointment of such a DPCC, as supported by the Panel at a meeting on 30 October 2025, had not taken place as intended. The PCC stated that he would continue to update the Panel in relation to this arrangement.

(ii)       A member of the Panel suggested that the PCC should consider the appointment of an additional DPCC against financial constraints within the budget. The Chairman suggested that it would be useful for the PCC to provide an update regarding his plans in relation to the appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner with responsibility for the criminal justice portfolio, at a future meeting.

(iii)      Concern was raised regarding domestic abuse and rape case data, and a question was asked as to whether the risk level associated with these crimes could increase as a result in cuts within budgets. The PCC emphasised that he had not proposed any cuts to budgets and provided assurances that work undertaken regarding domestic abuse and rape would continue.

RESOLVED:

(a)      That the contents of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s update be noted.

(b)      That the PCC be requested to provide an update regarding his plans relating to the appointment of a Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner with responsibility for the criminal justice portfolio, at a future meeting.

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 Joint Audit and Risk Assurance Panel. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the report outlining the annual report of the Joint Audit and Risk Assurance Panel, be noted.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 21 April 2026.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that a special meeting of the Police and Crime Panel would take place on 12 February at 14:00.

The next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel would be held on 21 April 2026 at 14:00.