Agenda and minutes

11.1  A member of the public asked the following question:-

“As a layman and member of the public I have been led to believe and had the understanding that the police force as a whole was free of external influences with its mandate with respect to monitory, commercial political etc. influences.  That its principal objectives were to “keep the peace” and “maintain the law” within society.

If you accept the above in principal could you explain why we are displaying on police cars the flag of a national organisation I believe within South Yorkshire only.”

11.2  Due to this question being of an operational nature, it was a matter for the Police Force and the Police Commissioner.  The Chair had made the Commissioner aware of question and would respond direct to the member of the public. 

Action:-  That the response to the question be reported to the next meeting.

11.3 A member of the public asked the following questions:-

“(a)  Please provide an update on the appointment of an additional independent member.

(b)  Please add contact details on the agenda for submission of public questions e.g. e-mail address.  There was also nothing mentioned on the agenda page that the meeting is to be webcast and extremely difficult to find out where you could access it.

(c)  It is difficult to find details of public meetings on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website e.g. dates, times, venues etc.  Please clarify.  In particular, 1 issue that was not mentioned were PACT meetings.  These were agreed a few years ago to have local meetings with local Police Officers and various officers for members of the public to ask questions.  We asked questions on this to the previous Police and Crime Commissioner and he did support them.  They do still exist but not very well publicised so the public did not know when and where they were held.

(d)  Your website has a Police and Crime Panel Sub-Committee which last met on 7^th July, 2014.  Please confirm if this still exists and if so who are its members and what is its function.”

11.4  With regard to question (a), the Chair reported that interviews were to take place later that day with, hopefully, an announcement being made as to the newly appointed independent member the week beginning 14^th September.

11.5  With regard to question (b), the Chair agreed that it should be clear as to how a member of the public could submit a question.

Action:-  That Officers include on the agenda page details of how to submit a question together with a link to the webcast – Immediate.

11.6  With regard to question (c), the Commissioner stated that he attended a number of public meetings by invitation; his Office would have to look at whether it was appropriate for them to be included on the OPCC’s website due to them not being meetings they had organised.

There was some confusion around PACT meetings in that they were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.1  Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime panel held on 29^th June, 2015.

Action:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29^th June, 2015, be approved for signature by the Chair.

12.2  Arising from Minute No. 3.2 (focussed scrutiny), the Chair proposed that an item be included on a future agenda looking at public engagement by the Commissioner. 

Action:-  That a briefing be prepared by the Police and Crime Commissioner highlighting current engagement to enable the Panel to discuss current activities and recommend any additions or changes in engagement work. 

12.3  Arising from Minute No. 3.3 (independent co-optee Panel member), it was noted that interviews were to take place later that day.

12.4  Arising from Minute Nos. 4.4 (visit to Atlas Court), possible dates were now available for the visit of 22^nd, 23^rd and 28^th October, 2015.

Action:-  Deborah Fellowes, Scrutiny Manager, to circulate dates to Panel members and co-ordinate the responses – Immediate

12.5  Arising from Minute No. 5.4 and 5.5 (Performance Framework), the Chair proposed that a workshop training session be held in advance of the October Panel to discuss performance monitoring, the measures that the Panel would be looking at in the Commissioner’s Performance Framework  and how they could be effectively scrutinised.  A report would be then given to the meeting.

Action:-  That arrangements be made for a workshop session to be held in advance of the October Panel meeting – Deborah Fellowes, Scrutiny Manager – Immediate

12.6  Arising from Minute No. 6.4 (Capital Programme), although there was inclusion in the budget monitoring report, a more detailed report on the Capital Programme specifically was required.

Action:-  That the OPCC submit a detailed Capital Programme report to the next Panel meeting

12.7 Arising from Minute Nos. 7.5 and 7.6 (Complaints Procedure), it was noted that due to holidays/absences, the report had not been included on the agenda.

Action:-  That the revised Complaints Procedure be submitted to the October Panel meeting – Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser

13.1  Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Finance Officer relating to the budget monitoring for the first quarter of the 2015/16 financial year. 

13.2  The PCC had approved a net revenue budget of £240M for 2015/16.  This was the amount financed by Government grant and Council Tax income.  The precept set by the PCC represented an increase of 1.95%; the level of Government grant fell by 4.7% compared to the amount for 2014/15.

13.3  Currently the budget monitoring was forecasting an approximate £3.8M overspend.  The most significant issues behind the projected overspend were:-

-          Costs of Police Officers, Police staff and Police pensions – forecast underspend of £6M partially offset by the cost of severance payments forecast to amount to approximately £3M

-          Costs associated with the investigation of child sexual exploitation allegations – potential overspend of approximately £7M

-          Provision of National Police Air Service – forecast to exceed budget by £0.7M

-          Hillsborough Inquests costs – currently exceeded grant funding by approximately £0.4M

-          Financial Reserves

13.4  South Yorkshire was dealing with a set of challenges and difficulties not experienced by any single force or Police and Crime Commissioner elsewhere in England and Wales.  There were considerable uncertainties that could mean that the final outturn for 2015/16 was significantly different from that currently forecast.

13.5  Decisions of the Home Secretary in respect of Special Grant applications submitted by the Police and Crime Commissioner would be crucial in providing a degree of certainty about funding but would not be known until later in the year.  Also the use of a “1% rule” may only have a marginal impact on the final outturn.

13.6  There were indications that the level of Government funding for Policing could be cut by up to 8% per annum from April 2016 as a result of the 2016/18 Finance Settlement due to be announced in December, 2015.  This was greater than the 5% reduction assumed in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.  If this were to be the case, there would likely be one-off costs that would require funding in 2016/17 from reserves including the potential for further severance/redundancy costs.

13.7  Dr. Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, placed on record his thanks to the Home Secretary who had listened to the additional representations that had been made and had increased the amount she was prepared to give South Yorkshire for the first 2 years of the Hillsborough Inquiry.  Although the Special Grant for the reimbursement of costs incurred in 2015/16 had been limited to £1M, she had also said she would be prepared to listen when applications were made for Special Grant funding.

13.8  Issues raised following the presentation included:-

-          The new local policing model was being rolled out across South Yorkshire, following the pilot in Doncaster from which there would be lessons to be learnt, and the whole culture of the Police Force had to change.  The new model brought together all uniformed Officers, Neighbourhood Teams and Response Officers together  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.1  In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), Dr. Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, presented his draft 2014/15 annual report setting out how he had exercised his statutory functions as well as an overview of the work undertaken by the South Yorkshire Police Authority of its statutory functions between April, 2014 and March, 2015.

14.2  The main purpose of the report was to highlight performance against the functions of a Police and Crime Commissioner as set out in the Act and to demonstrate performance against the key objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan. 

14.3  It should be noted that the report included the following priority areas of the previous Police and Crime Commissioner:-

-          Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

-          Protect Vulnerable People

-          Improve Visible Policing

together with Dr. Billing’s priorities for 2015/16 which were:-

-          Protecting Vulnerable People

-          Tackling Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

-          Enabling Fair Treatment

14.4  The reporting year was another very difficult year for all public services and Policing was not immune from the further significant cuts made by Central Government.  The reduction in Government funding and the Service finding ways of running the service more efficiently had had the combined effect of £50M of cashable savings since 2007/08.

14.5  The Police and Crime Commissioner invited comments on the annual report and responded as follows:- 

·           The term anti-social behaviour covered a wide range of activity some of which may be the responsibility of the local authority.  It was hoped that the new local policing teams would be better at managing certain aspects of anti-social behaviour working with other parent organisations, however, it had to be recognised that unless the Police engaged with those other partner organisation and brought the public with them, then some aspects of ASB would continue. 

·           Until publication of the Jay report, the scale of the problem had not been understood.  A lot of work had taken place on changing the understanding in South Yorkshire Police, training Officers and co-locating Officers concerned with CSE with other professionals. 

·           Prosecution cases were being put together and would be taken to trial later in the year.  However, it had to be recognised that some of the victims had been abused whilst quite young and were now in their late 20s/older and had new lives, partners and children.  Some of them wanted to go to trial and bring the perpetrators to justice whilst others did not; some co-operated with the Police in bringing cases to trial and some did not; some victims and survivors were strong now but it was not known how they would be when they went to Court.

·           A Victim, Survivor and Families Panel had been established and was helping with the training of Police Officers. 

·           Discussion would take place with the Chair of the Independent Ethics Panel as to whether it was appropriate for a member of the Police and Crime Panel to become a co-opted member.  However, care would need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.1  Dr. Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, presented a report outlining actions resulting from the HMIC’s National Child Protection Inspection Post Inspection Review.  It was noted that the review was not specifically about Child Sexual Exploitation but child protection issues in general.

15.2  As part of a rolling programme of child protection inspections of all police forces in England and Wales, HMIC had published an initial report in September, 2014, which found that South Yorkshire Police had an inconsistent approach to child protection and improvements to the care of children in custody.  Following a post inspection review in April 2015, Inspectors were pleased to find:-

-          Improvements to the Force’s initial response when attending incidents involving children at risk

-          Child protection had been prioritised and there was a strong desire to improve outcomes for children who were at risk of harm

-          The Force was developing new joint working arrangements and structures to improve consistency across its four districts

However, Inspectors were concerned to find:-

-          That although the Force had undertaken a review of arrangements with care homes and provided guidance to Police staff, this had not resulted in improvements in practice

-          The Force was still failing to recognise risks to some children and work jointly with other agencies

-          That recording practices remained poor which limited the ability of staff to make good decisions about children

15.3  In accordance with Section 55(5) of the 1996 Police Act required Police and Crime Commissioners to prepare comments on any of the HMIC’s published reports that related to their Force and then publish in a manner they saw fit.  Section 55(6) required a copy of the comments be sent to the Home Secretary (attached at Appendix A of the report).

15.4  Discussion ensued on the report with the following comments raised/clarified:-

·           The Chief Constable had been requested to focus on all the areas highlighted in the report and to make improvements.

·           The question of children’s homes was a bigger issue in some districts more than others.  A bigger piece of work was required giving consideration to the relationship between them and Child Sexual Exploitation trafficking etc.

·           The Jay report had illustrated that a number of the vulnerable children were from children’s homes as they were deemed as easy targets but it was clear that many also came from good homes with very caring parents.  Agencies had to be very careful not to put all their focus onto one area.  Grooming was increasingly moving from the streets to the internet which required a different response and Police Officers with different skills/training.  New developments must not be lost sight of.

·           The Police had not waited for the results of the investigation but had been making improvements.  By the time of the report a number of the improvements required had been made.

·           The Commissioner’s role was to scrutinise the Police Force and ask what they were doing.  It was easy for an organisation like South Yorkshire Police to become so focussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Friday, 16^th October, 2015, at 11.00 a.m.

Resolved:-  That meetings of the Police and Crime Panel be held as follows:-

Friday,            16^th October, 2015               .

                        27^th November                     

                        15^th January, 2016  

                        4^th March

                        27^th May

all to be held in Rotherham Town Hall commencing at 11.00 a.m.