Agenda and minutes

37.1   It was noted that a question had been submitted from a member of the public that had been asked on a number of occasions.  The member of the public concerned was not present at the meeting, however, the Chair ruled it as being out of order due to it being repetitious and the questioner having been previously told that it was a procedural matter which had been submitted to the Chief Constable.

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

“Despite recently being the victim of an armed robbery, I am not someone who wants the sight of armed police on the streets of Sheffield to become familiar or normal.

Is the PCP or PCC able to comment on any conversation they had with the Chief Constable or the PCP with the PCC in respect to the armed police on patrol in Sheffield city centre over the Christmas period?

Were they or the PCC consulted on the matter or was it handed down from the Home Office as a fait accompli?

If so, where does this leave the so called democratic control of the Police that the PCC is supposed to represent?”

37.3  The Police and Crime Commissioner replied that, as far as the Police were concerned over the Christmas period, it was a reaction to the attacks in Paris.  The judgement was taken, which was not dictated by the Home Office or the Home Secretary but were local judgements taken, not just in Sheffield, but other local centres and Chief Constables put some armed police in centres like Meadowhall and city centres in order reassure people.  The Police and Crime Commissioner had not been consulted.  There had been a reaction from the public mainly favourable but not everybody.  It was thought that the Chief Constable would reflect upon the reactions and think about that if he feels needs to do anything like that again. The Commissioner did not see it as being routine and depends upon the level of threat that is perceived by an individual Chief Constable.  The Commissioner and Chief Constable do discuss things but it was his decision at the end of the day.

37.4  As far as armed officers are concerned yes there were armed officers but the were not visible to the public; they were in cars going about South Yorkshire 24 hours a day but you did not see them because the Force needed them to respond immediately if there was an incident.

37.5  Councillor G. Jones reported that Doncaster Council had been made aware that armed police were going to patrol particularly in the Frenchgate Centre in Doncaster and told that was happening following the issues in Paris.  One complaint had been received about the armed police being on the streets, however, Councillor Jones had spoken to people subsequently who were reassured equally in that measure.  It was a one-off particularly following those fateful attacks and hopefully would never see it again but it had certainly given reassurance to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

38.1  Councillor Frost asked the following questions:-

(a)  “I would like you to look at sharing buildings with the fire and ambulance services on ‘out of town’ sites to enable valuable sites to be sold and reduce running costs.

(b)  Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour is a key priority and remaining committed to Neighbourhood policing.  Already warranted officers have been moved to LPTs and now PSCOs are being centralised so we will miss their local knowledge built up over time.  Is this the end of neighbourhood policing? 

Penistone members are concerned that at certain times they will be left with no cover as travelling to Penistone can be delayed by traffic or weather problems.  How can this be overcome?

(c)  We are already seeing difficulties getting officers to PACT meetings and Crime and Safety Sub-Groups.  How can Elected Members report problems/concerns to the Police?  How do we set PACT priorities?

There were good links between Neighbourhood teams and Berneslai Homes HMOs responsible for anti-social behaviour where information was shared and appear to be lost.  How can these links be restored?

(d)  Crime is rising and the teams getting intelligence and with links to the community are being lost.”

38.2  With regard to question (a), the Police and Crime Commissioner replied that the South Yorkshire Police and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Services were already looking at ways to share buildings and reduce costs for both services.  Maltby was a good example of a shared facility and it was envisaged this would happen more over the next few years.  They would also be looking at working with the Ambulance Service though this was more complicated because they operated on a Yorkshire-wide basis.

38.3  With regard to question (b), the Police and Crime Commissioner replied that he was committed to the concept of neighbourhood policing though the size of the Force had had to be reduced in recent years due to funding cuts.

The new Local Policing Teams had a neighbourhood focus and officers were being equipped with hand held computers that allowed them to stay in communities to write up their reports.  They did not have to keep going back and forth to police stations.

Police Community Support Officers were being retained as part of the new Local Policing Teams as a pledge had been given that the percentage of PCSOs would remain at about 6% (225 PCSOs) for the next four years to 2020.

They were a vital resource for enabling communities to feel safe and as a source of local intelligence for the Police.

The Commissioner had given reassurances to Penistone residents that, despite the cuts, their concerns would be addressed and the local Inspector understood very well that some of the smaller or more remote communities must also be kept safe and feel safe.

38.4  With regard to question (c), the Police and Crime Commissioner reported that since there were fewer officers their attendance at community meetings was being reviewed.  He would ask all local groups – TARAs,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.1  Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel held on 27^th November, 2015.

39.2  It was confirmed that a letter had been sent to the IPCC expressing the Panel’s disappointment with regard to the lack of progress (Minute No. 30 CSE Update).

39.3  The Chair stated that the revised procedure for the initial handling of complaints would be kept under review (Minute No. 31 refers).

39.4  Arising from Minute No. 28.5(a) (the report by Professor John Drew), the Police and Crime Commissioner reported that the report had taken longer than initially hoped but was now in the process of being written up.  There was some sensitivity around its release date due to the trials taking place at Sheffield Crown Court, however, all local authorities would have sight of the report before an announcement was made.

39.5  Mr. Carter asked if Panel members in future could receive the draft minutes of meeting in advance of the next meeting’s agenda to allow submission of any possible questions to the Commissioner.

Action:-  (1)  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27^th November, 2015, be approved for signature by the Chair.

(2)  That Panel members receive the draft minutes as soon as possible after the meeting – Immediate.

40.1  Consideration was given to a report, submitted by the Chief Finance Officer to the Office of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, containing information about the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed Council Tax precept for the 2016/17 financial year.

40.2  Attached to the report was a draft of the Police and Crime Plan setting out the strategic direction for policing in South Yorkshire and providing the information necessary for the determination of the revenue budget and Council Tax precept. 

40.3  The Chancellor had announced the outcome of the Spending Review on 25^th November, 2015, stating that the Government would protect overall Police spending in real terms over the spending review period, an increase of £900M in cash terms by 2019/20 which would provide funding to maintain overall Police force budgets at current cash levels.

40.4  The Spending Review also provided some Police and Crime Commissioners greater flexibility in their local funding decisions by allowing those areas that had historically kept Council Tax levels low to increase the Band D Council Tax by £5.  The 2015/16 Council Tax for policing in South Yorkshire was the eighth lowest policing Council Tax in England and therefore the “greater flexibility” was available to the Commissioner.

40.5  The Police Minister announced details of the Police Grant for 2016/17 on 17^th December which stated that for 2016/17 direct resource funding for each Police and Crime Commissioner, including precept, would be protected at flat cash levels assuming that precept income was increased to the maximum amount available.  This meant that no PCC would face a reduction in cash funding next year compared to this year and the majority would see marginal increases in their spending power.

40.6  An analysis of the grant funding position for Policing in South Yorkshire showed that funding from the Government, in respect of Police Grant and Formula Grant, would fall by approximately £1M in 2016/17.  However, the Police Minister was able to suggest that funding for South Yorkshire would actually increase by £0.9M by assuming that Council Tax income would increase by £5 on a Band D property and that additional income would be generated by a small rise in the tax base.

40.7  The Police Funding Settlement was only for one year which made it difficult to undertake medium term financial planning.  It also meant that assumptions had to be made as to the potential levels of funding for years beyond 2017 linked to the overall Home Office totals shown in the Spending Review document.

40.8  The net revenue budget for 2015/16 was £240.128M.  On the basis of the funding settlement and assuming a Council Tax increase of £5 for a Band D property, the overall net revenue budget for 2016/17 would be, based on the current tax base and with no inclusion of the Collection Fund position, no more than £239.724M an overall reduction in resources of approximately £0.4M.

40.9  The overall forecast budget gap amounting to £10.5M.  There was the potential for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

41.1  Stuart Fletcher, Legal Advise to the Panel, presented a report proposing changes to the Rules of Procedure to introduce the opportunity for members of the Panel to ask general questions of the Commissioner.

41.2  It was proposed that, in relation to Point 9 of the Procedure, in the absence of the Member who had given notice of a question, that the Member be supplied with a written answer.

41.3  Discussion ensued on point 7(2)(b) of Appendix 1 “most not repeat or substantially repeat any question that has been asked and answered at a meeting of the Panel in the six months preceding the date of the meeting”.  It was established that it would be for the Chair to make a judgement call as to whether the question had been answered previously.

Agreed:-  That the Panel’s Rules of Procedure for meetings be amended to include the procedure in relation to questions from members of the Panel to the Commissioner on general matters, as set out in Appendix 1 including the further revision to Point 9.

Report of the Legal Adviser

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

42.2  The following complaints had been resolved:-

1.         A complaint about the timeliness of South Yorkshire Police’s response to a robbery.

As this complaint was an operational matter it had been referred to South Yorkshire Police.  The complainant had been informed that this had happened.

2.         An anonymous complaint had been received that on two occasions the complainants had been unable to speak to someone when using the 101 number to try to contact the Police.

As this was an operational matter it had been referred to South Yorkshire Police.  However, as the complaint had been made anonymously it had not been possible to inform the complainant of the action taken.

3.      A complaint had been received in respect of the former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

          This had been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission who would decide as to whether the issue would be investigated further and at that stage a further report would be provided to the Panel.

42.3  Mr. Carter expressed concern that neither himself or Steve Chufungleung had been consulted in the above complaints as per the revised complaints procedure.

42.4  The Legal Adviser advised that the proposed changes had not been implemented as yet.  They required specific changes to the complaints procedure which would hopefully be submitted to the next meeting, therefore, the complaints had been dealt with under the existing procedure of the host authority dealing with the initial handling.

42.5  Michelle Buttery, OPCC, reiterated the assurance given at the previous meeting that, when the process did change, the Office would seek to involve the two independent members in the vetting process so they could witness and quality assure the process. 

42.6  Disappointment was expressed that the complaints procedure was still under review and not implemented as yet.

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

Friday,            4^th March, 2016        11.00 a.m.

                        15^th April

                        27^th May

Action:-  That meetings be held on 4^th March, 15^th April and 27^th May, 2016, all commencing at 11.00 a.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall.