Agenda and minutes

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

“Can the area assemblies have all crimes reported not just a selected few.  2/3rds of the crimes are not reported to the area assembly i.e. assaults, domestic violence, fraud, drug possession etc.”

44.2  The Police and Crime Commissioner responded in writing indicating Area Assemblies were Council meetings.  He understood that each Area Assembly was responsible for setting its own agenda and requesting the information required.

44.3  South Yorkshire Police provided detailed crime information at its “Partners and Communities Together” (PACT) meetings.  To find your local PACT meeting contact the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner at info@southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk and they would provide details of the next PACT meeting.

44.4   The Chairman reported that this was a matter for Rotherham and would be referring the content to Councillors Sims and Yasseen, relevant Cabinet Members with responsibility, to discuss with the various Chairs of Area Assemblies.

45.1  Mr. Alan Carter, Co-opted Member, had submitted the following question:-

“The Sheffield First Safer and Sustainable Communities Partnership Board meeting on 20^th November, 2015, was informed that the community trigger was a new power contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 and was advised of the criteria for applying its provisions.

My recollection of the meeting was that it was specifically agreed to raise awareness with Elected Members (of the Sheffield City Council) and inform them when a Community Trigger had been initiated in their area and also to broaden the publication of Community Triggers to include leaflets in libraries, give them to registered social landlords to distribute and to speak with Voluntary Action Sheffield and also with GP surgeries.

(Note I am given to believe that these actions subsequently may already have been followed up in Sheffield but only members who sit on the appropriate Partnership Boards (or their equivalent) in each of the four Districts may be privy to this information.)

I did wonder at the time of learning about this relatively new provision if the system might provide to be somewhat bureaucratic, costly and not necessarily sustainable in the longer term.  However, I also wondered if similar publicity arrangements to those commenced in Sheffield had indeed been made across South Yorkshire and also, if the matter was considered to be of sufficient importance, if it might also be possible for a report about Community Triggers to be brought to our attention in order to raise Panel Members’ general awareness as community representatives of the availability of the statutory provision?

Furthermore, I contemplated whether the two Independent Members of this Panel (along with our Elected Member colleagues) might also benefit from a more detailed knowledge about the prevalence across South Yorkshire to date of Community Triggers since their implementation.  Might it be possible, therefore, for this information and some up-to-date statistics and an assessment of their value (or otherwise) to you on a County-wide basis to be made available to all members of this Panel in assisting with the determination of your priorities as our Police and Crime Commissioner?”

45.2  In response to the question, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had produced a report giving an update on the introduction of the Community Trigger (CT) within the South Yorkshire Partnership.  The report was distributed to those present.

45.3  Mr. Carter expressed his surprise that no cost had been incurred operating this system and believed some form of cost element must have been borne, but thanked the Police and Crime Commissioner for his answer.

45.3  Councillor Otten asked the following questions:-

(a)  “Do you accept the conclusions of the HMIC report published on 18^th February, 2016 into the effectiveness of South Yorkshire Police and what steps are you taking to ensure its recommendations are implemented?”

(b)  “Do you recognise the concerns expressed on page 8 of the PEEL: Police effectiveness 2015 A national overview report regarding the degradation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.1  Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel held on 27^th January, 2016.

Action:-  (1)  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27^th January, 2016, be approved for signature by the Chair subject to the following amendments:-

“(2)  That the contents of the documents detailing the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals for “Securing the Future of Neighbourhood Policing” be noted and the words “distributed to the Panel Members at this meeting” be deleted.

(3)  That the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel supports the proposal, now submitted by the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, increase in Council Tax for 2016/17 is £5 for a Band D property (a 3.3% increase) to £153.16. This is equivalent to an increase of 10p per week.”

47.1  Consideration was given to the refreshed version of the Plan previously submitted in March, 2015 (Minute No. 37 refers). 

47.2  The Plan was a key document that set out, on behalf of the public, the priorities for the Police for the year ahead.  Having listed to the views of a wide range of stakeholders including community groups, local authorities and the voluntary sector, the Police and Crime Commissioner had identified all shared a similar view with respect of being safe and feeling safe.

47.3  There was a consensus to retain the existing priorities for South Yorkshire of Protecting Vulnerable People, Tackling Crime and ASB and Enabling Fair Treatment.  However, there was recognition of the need to change emphasis in some of the outcomes in order to reflect new and evolving policing and crime demands identified through consultation with the public and partners as well as results from needs/threats assessments.

47.4  After the Police and Crime Commissioner had completed summary of the report, Members of the Police and Crime Panel asked the following questions:-

·             When would the report from Professor Drew be published and could this be shared with Panel Members.

·             Publication of the strategic priorities and the shifting of resources by other public organisations following comments previously made.

·             Giving fair treatment for all, meeting service delivery and ensuring a visible Police presence, which was an older person’s perception that visibility was reducing.

·             Concerns that the Police Protection Unit was being disbanded.

·             Managing the issues given that 80% of Police activity was not related to crime.

·             Positive outcome of Operation Clover and paying tribute to bringing some of the perpetrators to justice.

·             Increased reliance on technology and the proposed training on twitter and whether consideration should be given to including other Police Officers.

·             Confidence levels in the Police and the decreased levels of confidence in Rotherham and how this could be restored.

·             Advice provided by the Independent Advisory Panels and how participation in the Police Cadets could be encouraged from the minority ethnic communities

·             Staff acting according to their respective codes of ethics and professional practice which was welcomed.

·             Increasing staff confidence and dedication from officers.

·             Funding to acquire the capital assets, equipment and infrastructure that were needed to deliver policing services in South Yorkshire and added concerns about the insufficiency of mental health placements with the burden falling on the Police.

·             Force collaboration whether this be locally, regionally or nationally and the need to respond to challenges and ensure any devolution was efficient, effective and sustainable.

·             Devolution of power to the Sheffield City Region and the continual monitoring of how this would be policed in the future.

·             Collaboration across the public sector and partnership working and the need for a flexible approach.

47.5  The Police and Crime Commissioner gave an undertaking that he would continue to listen to the views of all those involved in the design and delivery of policing and crime services to inform priorities and assist in commissioning services that contributed to the delivery of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.1  In accordance with Minute No. 22 of the meeting held on 16^th October, 2015, the Police and Crime Commissioner presented a report on the engagement activity he had undertaken over the last twelve months as well as the engagements he would be focusing on over the coming months.

48.2  The focus of consultation over the Summer months and early Autumn had focussed on priorities for the Police and Crime Plan 2016/17.  This was in the form of attendance at events and meetings.

48.3  In December, 2015 and January, 2016, a consultation exercise had taken place seeking the views of South Yorkshire residents to an increase in the Council Tax precept by 10p per week or £5 per year for Council Tax payers (3.7%).  The consultation took the form of an on-line survey which was promoted via the media, social media, the Federation of Small Businesses and the engagement data base of around 5,000 contacts.

48.4  The Chair sought clarification on the 63% of respondents and as advised that this was from a total figure of 117, amounting to 66/67 respondents being in favour.

48.6   The Panel were in agreement with the improvement proposals for the  Partners & Communities Together (‘PACT’) meetings by re-branding them as Community Engagement Meetings and forging closer links and it was also suggested that the member of the public that had submitted a question earlier today also be informed of the progress.

Action:-  That the report and the Commissioner’s commitment to engagement activity be noted.

(a)        Report of the Legal Adviser – Update on the Operation the Complaints Procedure (herewith)

(b)        Revised Complaints Procedure (herewith)

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

49.2  The following complaints had been resolved:-

1.   A compliant about the nature 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 had happened.

2.   The IPCC had now returned to the Panel stating that they did not intend to investigate the two complaints regarding the former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

49.3  It was noted that should the Panel feel strongly enough that the two complaints about the former Police and Crime Commissioner should be investigated, this could be initiated by way of a Sub-Committee, but there was no evidence to suggest criminal offences had been committed.

49.4  The Chair suggested that a report be submitted to the next meeting to give greater clarity to the Panel on what it could and could not do with regards to complaints.  The new Police and Crime Bill could well address the issues in relation to Police and Crime Commissioners and Deputy Police and Crime Commissioners and this detail should be included as part of the report.

49.5  Mr. Carter made a helpful suggestion in whether or not the Panel should be consulted or offer any advice on complaints coming forward.  This was to be considered in more detail.

49.6  Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser to the Panel, also submitted proposed revisions to the current Complaints Procedure. 

49.7  As previously discussed, it was proposed that the initial handling of complaints be delegated to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.  The remainder of the Complaints Procedure was unchanged.

49.8  Some Panel Members shared views about the handling of complaints, but were advised this would be revisited if it was found to be unsustainable.

Action:-  (1)  That the report be received and the contents noted.

(2)  That the proposed revision of the Complaints Procedure be approved – immediate.

(3)  That a further report be submitted to the next meeting on what the Panel could and could not do with regards to complaints.

Friday,            15^th March, 2016      11.00 a.m.

                        27^th May

Action:-  That the next meeting take place on 15^th April, 2016, and commence at 11.00 a.m. in Rotherham Town Hall.