Agenda item

-report by Legal Adviser

31.1  Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser, submitted the current Complaints Procedure with suggested revisions.

31.2  The initial handling of complaints had previously been delegated by the Panel to the Monitoring Officer.  However, following a review of the current procedure, an alternative means of operating the Procedure was proposed as set out in the flow chart at Appendix 1 of the report submitted.  This was based on the procedure adopted by Hampshire PCP, amongst others, and which had been referred to in publications of the LGA as being good practice.

31.3  The revised procedure allowed for a ‘triage/role for the Chief Executive of the OPCC following delegation of receipt and initial handling and recording functions of the Panel.

31.4  Members of the public may view the complaints process as not sufficiently independent should the proposed revisions be approved.  However, there were a number of factors which would provide reassurance:-

-          Regulation 13(1-3) required cases which were serious and criminal in nature to be investigated by the IPCC

-          The Panel would monitor any ‘triage’ of complaints to check that complaints were sifted in a fair and transparent way.  It was proposed that the ‘triage of complaints’ would be carried out in consultation with an Independent Member of the Panel

-          If a complaint was made to a PCC about their own conduct, the PCC had to inform the Panel (under Regulation 9(4))

-          The PCC or other relevant officer could not deal with complaints about themselves (Regulation 7(2))

-          Ability of the IPCC to compel the Panel to record and refer a particular matter if it considers it to be in the public interest to do so

-          Home Office did not consider that such a role for the Chief Executive of the OPCC represented a conflict of interest

31.5  If approved, the Chief Executive, in conjunction with an Independent Member of the Panel, would consider:-

·           whether the complaint was a complaint against the Commissioner;

·           was a complaint for which the Panel was the relevant Police and Crime Panel;

·           whether it was a complaint at all or was a complaint relating to an operational matter of South Yorkshire Police to be resolved in accordance with the Force’s complaints procedures.

31.6  The report included a flowchart illustrating the proposed handling of a complaint.

31.7  Discussion ensued on the proposal with the following issues raised/clarified:-

-          The proposed revision to procedure was seen as a more efficient way of dealing with matters.  Officers in the OPCC had the experience and knowledge of dealing with such matters rather than the current practice

-          Does the handling of the complaints by the Commissioner’s Office not seem to be a less transparent process than the one in operation currently?  Why take the risk of being less transparent?

-          In accordance with the Regulations, any issues would be referred onto the IPCC or the Panel and any deviation would be in breach of the Regulations

-          The Panel had limited resources and it was felt that if the initial handling of complaints could be delegated to the OPCC the Panel’s resources could be used differently.  There was no suggestion whatsoever that the PCP would no longer handle complaints about the Commissioner

-          The most popular mechanism across the country for handling complaints was for the initial role to be delegated to the OPCC. 

31.8  Mr. Carter, Independent Member, felt that the Independent Member would play a role in the new procedure, more so than within the present process which he felt was not transparent enough and that there was a far more efficient way of dealing with complaints than currently adopted.   The Panel needed to monitor/report on complaints to the Panel on a regular basis.  The revised procedure should be implemented with himself and his fellow colleague undertaking to report to each Panel meeting of any complaint(s) there had been and what their involvement had been to assure the Panel that matters were being dealt with in a proper and responsible manner.

31.9  Mr. Chufungleung requested information on the following:-

·      Clarity as to whether the procedure would just be applicable to the Commissioner himself or the OPPC and if not and the complaint was with regard to the OPCC, what was the procedure for those?

Yes the procedure only related to the Police and Crime Commissioner as set down in the Legislation.  However, the Home Office was looking at a national Code of Conduct for Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners.

With regard to transparency, an Independent Member would sit with the Chief Executive in the early stages of the process and witness the decision making and exercise of judgement to reassure themselves and the Panel that the duty had been exercised efficiently.

·      If the complaint was to be dealt with by the Panel, it appeared that the only possible outcomes would be Informal Resolution and the IPCC.  Were there other complaints in between that could be potentially dealt with by other means?

The OPCC had its own internal complaints procedure, details of which were available on the website.  There was a large section on informal resolution and the IPCC but there were other means, as set out in the report submitted, of the Chief Executive fulfilling the triage role.

·      To go straight to the Panel’s Complaints Sub-Committee may seem to be overkill particularly if something had been resolved informally.  Why did it have to go to the Complaints Sub-Committee?

A matter would not be referred straight to the Sub-Committee; if it appeared that the issue could be resolved through discussion/correspondence that would be the route pursued.

·      Was there an appeal process

There was no appeal in these circumstances.

·      Was there a route to the Local Government Ombudsman if the procedure had been exhausted?

There was a route to the Ombudsman if a complainant was not satisfied.

Having heard the above, Councillor Otten still felt concerned with regard to the issue of transparency and opposed the proposal to revise the procedure.

Action:-  (1)  That the receipt, initial handling and recording of complaints in respect of the Police and Crime Commissioner be delegated to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

(2)  That a revised Complaints Procedure and Protocol be prepared based on the changes set out in the report submitted.