Agenda and minutes

27.1  Due to the long term absence of Councillor Bowler, nominations were sought for the position of Chair for the remainder of the 2015/16 Municipal Year.

Action:  That Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards be appointed Chair until the Annual Meeting.

Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards in the Chair

28.1  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 from external influences with the mandate to keep the peace and maintain the law within society, therefore, free of external influences.  If you accept the above in principle, can you explain why advertising on Police cars in South Yorkshire?”

28.2  Due to this question being of an operational nature, it was a matter for the Police Force and the Police Commissioner.  The question will be forwarded directly to South Yorkshire Police.

28.3 A member of the press asked the following question:-

“Could you provide more explanation about why the Hillsborough costs item will be private?  Which ‘individuals” does the exempt information refer to, and why is information about them exempt when it is the subject of a public inquest, with the legal fees of senior ex-SYP officers funded by South Yorkshire tax payers and previously revealed in published spending records?”

28.4  Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser, reported that, following the previous Police and Crime Panel meeting, the Coroner’s Office had contacted Rotherham Council in respect of the Hillsborough inquest in relation to possible Contempt of Court issues.  As a result the papers that had been before the Panel had been removed from the website immediately and it was felt, going forward, that any issues relating to Hillsborough in the future should be dealt with in the confidential section of the meeting.

28.5  A member of the public asking the following questions:-

“At your meeting on 29^th June, it was reported that Professor John Drew had been commissioned to review CSE in parts of South Yorkshire not covered by the Jay and Casey reports on Rotherham.

(a)  When do you expect this review to be complete and the results publicised?

The comprehensive Engagement Strategy presented at the 16^th October is welcome but may take time to implement e.g. PACT meetings, soon to be Community Safety meetings, which would require involvement from other partners e.g. Council, Fire and Rescue, NHS, Local Police Teams etc. which is not obvious in some areas.

(b)  Can we suggest that satisfactory progress is monitored by a Scrutiny Committee with feedback from ordinary community members?”

28.6 With regard to question (a), the Police and Crime Commissioner reported that the review had commenced in September.  Following a period of scoping it would conclude in late December, 2015/early January, 2016.  It would be reported to the Police and Crime Panel shortly afterwards.

28.7  With regard to question (b), the Chair reported that scrutiny of the Police and Crime Commissioner was work undertaken by the Panel and, therefore, would scrutinise the Engagement Strategy and how it was implemented.  The Police and Crime Commissioner’s own Governance and Assurance Board would scrutinise the delivery of the Engagement Strategy by the Force and Engagement Officers within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.1  Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel held on 16^th October, 2015.

Action:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16^th October, 2015, be approved for signature by the Chair.

-verbal report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

30.1  In light of the communication from the Coroner’s Court (see Minute No. 28), part of this item would be considered in the confidential part of the meeting due to possible Contempt of Court. 

30.2  Dr. Alan Billings, the Police and Crime Commissioner, reported that as yet none of the Police Officers (both serving and retired) referred to the IPCC had been interviewed as yet.  He had met representatives from the IPCC and urged them to speed up the process.  He had been assured that additional resources would be employed.  Other issues that were not directly related to the conduct of Officers but in relation to the culture of the Police Force itself had been picked up by Professor John Drew’s report.

30.3  Disappointment was expressed that the interviewing of Officers had not commenced.

Action:-  That a letter be sent to the IPCC expressing the Panel’s disappointment with regard to the lack of progress – Immediate.

-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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.1  Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser, presented a report on the handling of complaints received against the Police and Crime Commissioner.

32.2  The following complaints had been resolved:-

1.         A complaint that the Police and Crime Commissioner had used his official tax payers funded office to promote his own religious activities and his book by means of issuing a press release.

The Police and Crime Commissioner had issued a statement apologising for asking the OPCC’s communications team to release a press notice he had written to publicise a seminar he was leading on with regard to his book. 

This had been an acceptable outcome to the complainant and, therefore, the complaint was considered resolved.

2.         A complaint in relation to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s declaration of interest form in that it appeared that the Commissioner did not live anywhere in South Yorkshire or he was not declaring it.

The Commissioner, to remove any doubt, had now made it clear on the form that he owned a flat in Sheffield jointly with his wife.  He had asked for the guidance notes to be amended to ensure clarity in the future.

This was an acceptable outcome to the complainant and, therefore, the complaint was considered resolved.

3.         Councillor C. Vines, a Police and Crime Panel member, had raised an issue in respect of the previous Crime Commissioner’s security costs being paid for by the tax payer which to date had not been recovered.  Councillor Vines had requested that the matter be considered by the Panel.

The OPCC had confirmed that information relating to the home security of the previous Commissioner had been published on the PCC’s website in response to a number of Freedom of Information requests.

The OPCC had confirmed that any equipment that would not cause damage to the property if removed had been received on 22^nd October, 2014, to the value of £6,172.00.  The work had been completed at no cost to the taxpayer. 

32.3  There were three other complaints which were the subject of ongoing informal resolution the conclusion of which would be reported to future Panel meetings.

Action:  That the report be received and the contents noted.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (contains information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and information relating to the financial affairs of particular persons).

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (contains information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and information relating to the financial affairs of particular persons).

34.1  Dr. Alan Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, gave a brief verbal update in respect of those Police Officers being investigated in relation to child sexual exploitation.

Action:-  That the report be noted.

35.1  Dr. Alan Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, presented an update on the funding of legal costs relating to the Hillsborough Inquests.

35.2  This item was considered in the confidential part of the meeting in accordance with the Coroner’s Directive.

Action:  That the report be noted.

Friday,            15^th January, 2016   11.00 a.m. (subject to change)

                        4^th March

                        15^th April

                        27^th May

Action:-  That meetings be held during the remainder of the Municipal Year as follows all commencing at 11.00 a.m.:-

15^th January, 2016 (subject to change)

4^th March

15^th April

27^th May