Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which outlined for the Police and Crime Panel how he was fulfilling his duty through his work or the work of his deputy and office throughout January to March 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 raised concern that there had been a 4.2% reduction in funding for the Victims Grant. As a result of this cut, the PCC had concluded ten projects on their end date of 31 March 2025. These included projects that provided onward counselling and support to specific groups such as men affected by domestic abuse. The PCC stated that the reduction was to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) funding from which police and crime commissioners commissioned practical and emotional support services for victims, based on their assessment of local need. The reduction in funding would therefore have an impact on victim-support services nationally. The Panel noted that the OPCC had written to the Government regarding the impact that the reduction on funding would have on services and victims.

(ii)       A question was raised regarding the type of data collected at community days and how this informed the PCC’s priorities. The PCC stated that he met with a number of people during community days and that a range of issues within those communities were often raised. The Panel noted that the outcome of all community days were tracked by the Office of Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC). The issues raised by residents would either be reported to the neighbourhood commander, be raised with the Chief Constable, be considered by its Corporate Governance Board, or it could be an issue which was within the OPCC’s remit to commission services for. A similar process would be followed following operations of increased police presence in particular areas.

(iii)      With regards to dog unit kennels at Leicestershire Police Headquarters, the PCC stated that he had visited the kennels on a number of occasions and had joined a group of police and dogs on duty. A member of the Panel highlighted a petition by the Thin Blew Paw Foundation which called on the Government to introduce mandatory financial support for retired police dogs. The PCC stated that he had discussed this issue with the Chief Constable, however it was decided that it was an unnecessary resource as police dogs were often successful rehomed with members of the public.

(iv)      A question was raised regarding whether there was any evidence to suggest that there had been a reduction in crime or improved trust as a result of the work delivered through the People Zones initiative. The initiative was designed to build on the positivity and skills of communities around Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland in order to make these areas safer for residents. The PCC stated that the initiative was evaluated externally and that the results of this evaluation had been resented to the Panel at a previous meeting.

(v)       Concern was raised that 4.6% of victim/survivors of domestic abuse and 14% of victim/survivors of sexual violence withdrew from engaging with the criminal justice system (CJS) despite the support available. The PCC acknowledged this concern and emphasised that this issue was being witnessed nationally. Rape cases were taking an increasingly long time to reach trial, which led to significant delays in the justice system and caused additional distress to victims. The OPCC would continue to work with the Force and victim support services to ensure that victims receive regular communication and the best level of support. In light of concerns raised by the Panel about rape offence outcomes, a sub-group of the Panel had been established in order to provide additional scrutiny of the Police and Crime Commissioners activity and the performance of Leicestershire Police when it comes to rape offences, in terms of outcomes for victims. The work of that sub-group would be shared once it had concluded.

(vi)      A question was raised regarding the OPCC's governance model, in ensuring accountability of the chief constable or effectiveness of commission services, beyond internal reporting. The PCC stated that some external scrutiny panels were established by the OPCC but were operated independently of the PCC. Both the Ethics and Transparency Panel and the Joint Audit and Risk Panel was filled by representatives recruited from the community. The Corporate Governance Board monitored the activity of such panels and provided an update to the Police and Crime Panel, where there were no concerns relating to sensitivity.

(vii)    The Panel were pleased with the work undertaken by the Violence Reduction Network (VRN). The VRN, an alliance of groups, organisations, and communities, aimed to prevent and reduce serious violence locally. However, Some of the Panel felt that there was a large amount of data contained within the report and that members of the public could find it difficult to interpret the complex level of detail.

RESOLVED:

That the report which outlined for the Police and Crime Panel how he was fulfilling his duty through his work or the work of his deputy and office throughout January to March 2025.