Agenda item

The Chair introduced the report which sought agreement from members on a set of principles to inform the LGA’s future work in relation to Police and Crime Panels’ handling of complaints, and also sought agreement to raise a number of practical points which would assist police and crime panels in their work.

The Chair invited Mark Norris, Principal Policy Adviser, to introduce the item. Mark highlighted the following key points:

·       Dealing with complaints against PCCs is a secondary but important function of panels. The issue had been raised recently in the quarterly meetings between the chairs of the APCC and LGA; APCC Chair Mark Jones had raised a case of a PCC who had been through the PCC complaints process based on a complaint from an MP, where the case had been referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct before the PCC was notified. The APCC had requested guidance on complaints handling for PCPs.

·       Management of PCC complaints is split between the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), which oversees criminal issues, and panels, whose role is more akin to a standards committee looking at conduct issues  There is a clear issue of misunderstanding amongst the public as to what complaints panels deal with as opposed to the PCC and IOPC.

·       Some panels have had a lot of experience of managing PCC complaints, while others haven’t, and there are different views regarding whether panels should maintain their role.

·       Following the conclusion of the Part 2 Review the Home Office committed to giving further consideration to the processes for how complaints of misconduct against police and crime commissioners (PCC) are handled; the paper sought the Board’s views on this. A set of proposed principles for managing complaints was outlined in the paper, with a broad objective of simplifying a complex process.

·       Mark asked whether if PCPs maintain this role, there would be agreement with aligning the process of dealing with PCC complaints with that already in place for standards committees in local authorities.

Following the discussion, members made the following comments:

·       Members raised concerns over public confusion emphasising that more clarity is needed and that it was important to outline who did what when it came to complaints panels, IOPC and PCC. It is difficult to help people understand that the panels cannot come to conclusions when they cannot investigate a matter.

·       Members felt that the LGA should have a view on the next steps, or at the least comment on processes. The Chair added it was important for processes to fulfil public expectation and have teeth.

·       Members on panels should be provided with complaints training to they have the background on the process to deal with complaints properly, as with licensing committee members.

·       Concerns were raised that if panels were to receive greater powers around complaints, the people making the complaints may subsequently complain about panels too.

·       Members commented that there should be consistency Across panels regarding what is treated as a serious matter band what is not.

The Chair concluded that the key message to take away was the importance of the structure, integrity and faith of the process.

Decision:

Members agreed the principles for reforming the system for resolving

non-serious complaints against PCCs set out in paragraph 11 with further work required to look at the practical proposals set out in paragraph 12.