North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Panel

5 February 2026

Panel Scrutiny of the Mayor’s Policing Precept Proposal

2.0       Schedule 5 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and Part 2 of the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012 set out the statutory process for scrutiny of the Mayor’s Council Tax precept proposals.  The guidance note below sets out the key provisions and timescales from the governing legislation.

3.0       The Mayor must notify the Panel of their proposed precept for policing by 1^st February. 

4.0       The Panel must review the proposal and make a report to the Mayor by 8^th February.  The report may include recommendations, including recommendations as to the precept that should be issued for the financial year.

5.0       The Panel may, having reviewed the proposed policing precept, choose to exercise its power of veto.  This can only be done where the decision to veto is made by at least two-thirds of voting members of the Panel (that is, nine members). 

6.0       It is for the Panel to determine how a response from the Mayor to a report or recommendations is to be published.

Where the Panel does not exercise the veto

7.0       The Mayor must have regard to the Panel’s report and any recommendations made therein.  The Mayor must provide a response to the Panel’s report and publish this response.

8.0       The Mayor may subsequently:

(a) issue the proposed precept as the precept for the financial year; or

(b) issue a different precept, but only if this would be in accordance with a recommendation made in the Panel’s report to do so.

9.0       If the Panel fails to make a report to the Mayor by 8^th February then the scrutiny process effectively comes to an end and the Mayor may issue the proposed precept.

Where the Panel does exercise the veto (policing precept only)

10.0     Where the requisite majority vote is passed in favour of a veto of the proposed precept (see paragraph 5), the Panel must include a statement within its report that it has vetoed the proposal.

11.0     The Mayor must not issue the proposed precept as the precept for the financial year.

12.0     The Mayor must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report (including any recommendations therein), and publish their response, including their revised precept proposal, by 15^th February.  

13.0     Where the panel’s report indicates that they vetoed the precept because it was:

· too high, the revised precept must be lower than the previously proposed precept.

· too low, the revised precept must be higher than the previously proposed precept.

14.0     On receipt of a response from the Mayor notifying them of their revised precept, the Panel must review the revised precept and make a second report to the Mayor by 22^nd February.  The Panel may indicate whether it accepts or rejects the revised proposal (although there is no further power of veto) and may make recommendations on the revised precept.

15.0     The Mayor must have regard and respond to the Panel’s second report and any recommendations – and publish this response – by 1^st March 2026.  

16.0     The Mayor may then:

(a) issue the revised precept as proposed; or

(b) issue a different precept, although:

Ø they must not issue a precept that is higher than the revised precept if the revised precept was lowered following the Panel’s initial report on the first proposed precept indicating it was vetoed because it was too high;

Ø they must not issue a precept which is lower than the revised precept if the revised precept was raised following the Panel’s initial report on the first proposed precept indicating it was vetoed because it was too low.

17.0    Where the Panel fails to make a second report to the Mayor by 22^nd February, the Mayor may issue the revised precept proposal.

 18.0    Financial Implications

 18.1    There are no significant financial implications arising from this report.

 19.0    Legal Implications

 19.1    There are no significant legal implications arising from this report.

 20.0    Equalities Implications

 20.1    There are no significant equalities implications arising from this report.

 21.0    Climate Change Implications

 21.1    There are no significant climate change implications arising from this report.

Background Documents:   None

Barry Khan

Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services

County Hall

Northallerton

27 January 2026

Report Author:   Diane Parsons, Principal Scrutiny Officer.

nypfcp@northyorks.gov.uk