Agenda and minutes

Resolved:-

            That Councillor Talib Hussain be appointed as Chair of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel for the 2016/17 Municipal Year.

Resolved:-

            That Councillor Stuart Sansome be appointed Vice-Chair of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel for the 2016/17 municipal year.

The Chair confirmed that there were no items of business on the agenda which would require the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting.

The Chair reported that there were no urgent items of business requiring consideration by the Panel.

There were no declarations of interest.

Resolved:-

            That the minutes of the meeting of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel held on 4 March 2016 be agreed as a true and correct record of the proceedings.

It was reported that Procedure Rule 10 (General Questions by Members of the Public at Panel Meetings) enabled members of the public to submit questions to the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel. The Clerk to the Panel reported that Mr Peter Thirlwall had submitted the following question:-

“Is it true that the Crime Commissioner’s Election Agent is the Partner/Husband of the previous Police and Crime Panel Chair and if so, was it detailed in his declaration of interests and it is appropriate?”

The Chair invited the Police and Crime Commissioner to comment on the question. The Commissioner indicated that the South Yorkshire Elected Local Policing Body Code of Conduct required him to notify disclosable interests in the following areas:

·         Employment

·         Sponsorship

·         Contracts

·         Land

·         Licenses

·         Corporate Tenancies

·         Securities

·         Other Interests: Membership of other organisations

He indicated that he had met that required and published his disclosable interests on the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner website. He further explained that, as the selected Labour candidate, not in his capacity as Police and Crime Commissioner, he had formally appointed Howard Knight (husband of the former Chair of the Police and Crime Panel) as his election agent on 4 April 2016, although he asked him informally on 15 March 2016.

The Commissioner indicated that in the interests of openness and transparency, had a meeting of the Police and Crime Panel taken place after that date, he would have drawn attention to this relationship with the Police and Crime Panel’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting, notwithstanding that he was not required to declare it.

In response to Mr Thirlwall’s question, the Chair indicated that the former Chair of the Police and Crime Panel was no longer a Panel Member or an Elected Councillor in Sheffield and he could not comment further.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11 (General Questions from Members of the Panel), the following questions were put with responses from the Police and Crime Commissioner:

Mr. Alan Carter, a Co-opted Independent Member of the Panel, had submitted the following question:

“My  question arises from some information that I have which relates to the Government having opened bidding to a £15m fund with the intention of providing health based places of safety to stop the practice of those in mental health crisis being held in police cells. I am anxious to know if the Commissioner is concerned about current practice and is aware of this initiative. I would ask if, in the interests of the people of South Yorkshire generally, he will be actively encouraging the South Yorkshire Police to support a bid for a proportion of this funding for allocation to South Yorkshire, thereby significantly reducing the need in South Yorkshire for the use of police cells and vehicles for this purpose.”

The Police and Crime Commissioner responded:

“I am aware of the £15 million fund available to provide health and community based places of safety, in order to prevent vulnerable people being held in police cells. However this funding has not come directly to Police and Crime Commissioners.

South Yorkshire Police and I fully support this initiative. A number of bids are currently being developed and discussed at the Countywide Strategic Mental Health Partnership Board and such bids have already received my full support.”

Mr Alan Carter submitted a further question for the Police and Crime Commissioner:

“Does the Commissioner see any relevance in this arrangement in the NHS to addressing the not entirely dissimilar situations (of unacceptable levels of care and a culture which deters staff from raising genuine concerns) which can and do arise in the Police Service? And could he envisage the similar appointment of a National Guardian, to promote and reinforce best practice in supporting police staff (uniformed and civilian) to speak up safely through a network of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians (which, at a local Force level, conceivably might be Police and Crime Commissioners and/or their Deputies)?”

The Police and Crime Commissioner provided the following response:

“I do see the relevance of work undertaken by the NHS in relation to staff being deterred from raising genuine concerns about poor care and dangerous practices.

In January this year, the draft National Policy and Guidance about Reporting Concerns (Whistleblowing) released by the College of Policing was presented to my Independent Ethics Panel for comment prior to being rolled out in the Force. The Independent Ethics Panel has a role and there is a protocol which sets out the process Panel members should follow if they are approached by a member of South Yorkshire Police wishing to challenge or report improper behaviour.

Officers and members of police staff also report concerns directly and confidentially to my office and these are treated sensitively and seriously, usually by my Chief Executive and/or the Chair of my Independent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Police and Crime Commissioner detailing the findings of the independent review by Professor John Drew in respect of South Yorkshire Police’s response to child sexual exploitation (CSE). The Commissioner also set out his response to the review findings.

It was noted that the review had been announced in March 2015 and the following areas for review were identified:

1)    Has the police response to safeguarding children and young people from child sexual exploitation been adequate in the past?

2)    Has South Yorkshire Police (SYP) understood and acted on the findings of and recommendations in previous reports and inspections, in the media and during parliamentary questioning?

3)    Is the police response to safeguarding children and young people from child sexual exploitation adequate now?

It was reported that Professor Drew’s overall judgement was that the police response to safeguarding children and young people from child sexual exploitation in the past was inadequate, especially in Rotherham where he simply repeated the criticisms already made in the Jay and Casey reports. Professor Drew was satisfied that South Yorkshire Police had understood and acted both on the general direction of previous criticism and also on most of the specific recommendations of previous scrutiny activity of its performance. Furthermore, Professor Drew believed that the police response to safeguarding children and young people from child sexual exploitation was now adequate. Indeed, it was noted that some recent work undertaken by South Yorkshire Police appeared to be of high quality. 

Panel Members noted the eleven recommendations from Professor Drew and the response of both the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable to the review. The Panel welcomed the Commissioner’s commitment to continuously hold South Yorkshire Police to account in delivering on the review’s recommendations.

Discussions range from the need to continue rigorous scrutiny of South Yorkshire Police and local authorities to how the nature of CSE was moving from the streets to an online problem. Reference was made to the review of licensing policies in the authorities across South Yorkshire and the introduction of mandatory training on identifying CSE.

In view of the recent changes in personnel at the top of South Yorkshire Police, the Panel sought assurances that recommendation 9, in respect of a standard operating procedure for the investigation of CSE, had been progressed. The Police and Crime Commissioner indicated that the Interim Chief Constable had been tasked with reviewing this, as part of a thorough review of practices and operations at South Yorkshire Police.

In response to further questioning, the Police and Crime Commissioner explained that a lot of work was ongoing within South Yorkshire Police to raise consciousness of CSE and to improve the sharing of intelligence with other public bodies, such as local authorities.

The Panel recommended that the Police and Crime Commissioner submit reports providing updates on progress on a regular basis in respect of the implementation of the recommendations from the Drew Report.

Resolved:-

1.    That the Drew Report and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of this item until after Members had completed their induction.

Resolved:-

            That the item be deferred to a future meeting.

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of this item until after Members had completed their induction.

Resolved:-

            That the item be deferred to a future meeting.

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of this item until after Members had completed their induction.

Resolved:-

            That the item be deferred to a future meeting.

Consideration was given to a report which informed the Panel of its options in relation to the complaints received in respect of the conduct of the former Police and Crime Commissioner, in accordance with the Panel’s decision at its previous meeting.

It was reported that two complaints were received in October 2015 to the effect that the previous PCC had mislead in his evidence to the Home Select Committee. As it appeared that the complaint may have referred to the commission of a criminal offence, in accordance with the Panel’s complaints procedure, the complaints were referred to the Independent Police and Crime Commission (IPCC). In March 2016, the IPCC referred the complaints back to the Panel on the basis that the IPCC had obtained legal advice to the effect that deliberately misleading a Select Committee was not in fact a criminal offence, but if proved would be a contempt of Parliament. As such the IPCC stated that it was not necessary for them to investigate the complaint.

The Panel’s complaints procedure provided for complaints received by the Panel to be resolved through the mechanism referred to as "Informal Resolution", which is a way of dealing with a complaint by solving, explaining, clearing up or settling the matter directly with the complainant, without an investigation or formal proceedings. The method of informal resolution is left up to the individual PCP, provided that it is in accordance with the Regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

It was reported that there was little prospect of an informal resolution being successful and there was no requirement for the former PCC to engage with with a sub-committee and there would be no sanctions which the Panel could impose. It was reported that an alternative option for the Panel would be to refer the complaint to Parliament, although it was noted that Parliament's powers in respect of contempt tended to be used very sparingly.

The Panel discussed the importance of responding to the issues raised by the complainants, but noted the lack of options available in providing redress. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the complaints should be referred to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That, in principle, the complaints in respect of the former Police and Crime Commissioner of South Yorkshire be referred to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Commission, subject to a further check with the Monitoring Officer at the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

It was reported that a work programme planning session involving all Panel Members would be convened in due course. Panel Members requested that the work programme from the previous municipal year be circulated for information.

Resolved:-

            That the position in respect of the work programme be noted.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel would be held on Tuesday 28 June 2016 for the purposes of considering the recommendation from the Police and Crime Commissioner in respect of the appointment of a new Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Members were advised that the time of the meeting would be confirmed in writing at a later date.