Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Glyn Jones (reserve Member from Doncaster MBC).

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair indicated that there were no items for consideration on the agenda that would require the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting.

The Chair indicated that there were no items requiring the urgent consideration of the Panel.

If any member of the public wishes to ask a question at the Panel meeting they should be submitted in writing at least 24 hours before the date of the meeting and be no more than 50 words.

They should be submitted to James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager (james.mclaughlin@rotherham.gov.uk) 01709 822477

The Panel received the following question from Mr. P. Thirlwall:

“Is it true that the Police and Crime Commissioner has appointed the ex- chair of the Police and Crime Panel as his Deputy and if so does the Panel believe this is acceptable?”

The Panel provided the following response to the question:

The PCC has announced the appointment of an Assistant PCC this week who is Sioned Mair-Richards, the former Chair of the Police and Crime Panel. This appointment is not subject to the statutory provision for a confirmation hearing by the Police and Crime Panel and it is therefore a matter for the Police and Crime Commissioner to make any appointment he sees fit. The Panel would however have welcomed the opportunity to engage the PCC prior to this recruitment process to understand the background to the establishment of the position.

As a supplementary question, Mr Thirlwall queried whether the Panel considered the appointment of the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner to be acceptable.

In response, it was explained that another item on the agenda in respect of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s ‘State of the Nation’ report may provide an opportunity for Panel Members to indicate their views in respect of the appointment.

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:

Councillor Joe Otten put the following question:

“What costs have been incurred as a result of the decisions to suspend and then remove the chief constable: a) salaries of replacement/interim/acting chief constables, b) recruitment costs c) legal, d) other?”

The Police and Crime Commissioner responded to indicate that the following costs had been incurred:

·         Salaries of Interim Chief Constables:  The costs amount to £78k.

·         Recruitment costs of Interim Chief:  These are nil.

·         Legal costs:  The costs incurred by the PCC amount to £43k although the final position is still to be determined.

·         Other costs:  Nil

As a supplementary question, Councillor Otten queried whether the Commissioner considered the costs to be proportionate given the imminent retirement of the Chief Constable.

In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner indicated that the process in respect of the Chief Constable had been long and drawn out, which went some way to explain the costs incurred, but considered them to be totally proportionate. He added that it would appropriate to make representations to government in respect of the process following the conclusion of proceedings.

Councillor Otten asked another question:

“Did you approve the reported £144,000 spend on an IMSI catcher - i.e. a spoof cellphone mast which enables mass surveillance of cellphones within the geographic reach of the device?”

In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner explained thatthis was a matter that concerned operational policing. The guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) was to neither confirm or deny any use of any covert activity as it would serve to undermine its operational use. In respect of operational necessity and NPCC guidance, the Commissioner was therefore unable to confirm or deny the approval or purchase of such technology.

Councillor Otten asked a further question:

“Are you satisfied that there is sufficient judicial oversight of the use of an IMSI catcher to ensure that the reasonable expectation of privacy of innocent citizens is not infringed?”

In response, the Commissioner indicated that he was satisfied that the relevant judicial oversight, provided by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners (OSC), was sufficiently intrusive and robust to ensure the conduct of any relevant police operations is fully in compliance with all legal requirements, including Human Rights Act 1998, and was conducted with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. He explained that the OSC was led by the ‘Chief Surveillance Commissioner’ Lord Judge with the assistance of 8 Surveillance Commissioners, who were appointed by the Prime Minister, report their independent inspection of all authorising public bodies annually. The Commissioner took satisfaction that over the last three years South Yorkshire Police had received an outstanding grading in the inspection of this area of policing. 

Councillor Otten asked a further question:

“What operational safeguards are in place to ensure that the calls, data  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Resolved:-

That, subject to the inclusion of the supplementary questions raised by Councillor Otten at the meeting on 9 June 2016, the minutes of the previous meetings held on 9 June and 8 July 2016 be approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.

Consideration was given to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s ‘State of the Nation’ Briefing, which was circulated at the meeting and set out a number of key areas of activity and development for South Yorkshire Police.

The Commissioner reported that public concerns around the performance of South Yorkshire Police’s call handling service were raised at most public engagement events and feature in much of the correspondence that he received. It was noted that South Yorkshire Police, in collaboration with Humberside Police, were implementing a new contact management information system, which would replace outdated technology by the summer of 2017 and bring about improvements in the call handling service. It was reported that the force would engage with the public and stakeholders to help design the new contact management service.

With regard to neighbourhood policing, the Commissioner reported that the Interim Chief Constable had made it clear that the re-introduction of the model would be at the centre of the future policing offer. This would not involve reinstating the old safer neighbourhood model, but would be a model which considered the police role in neighbourhood delivery and built upon partnerships, was affordable and fit for the future. Again, it was noted that consultation and communication with the public would at the heart of the approach, along with the views of staff across the force.

It was noted that the Home Secretary had not made a decision in respect of calls for a public inquiry into the ‘Battle of Orgreave’, but a decision was expected by the end of October 2016.

The Commissioner further reported that the College of Policing was conducting a review of South Yorkshire Police against the recommendations made in the Jay, Casey and Drew reviews. It was noted that Professor Drew had also been asked to work with the College of Policing to quality assure the process and ensure engagement with partners was taking place.

Two updates were provided by the Commissioner in respect of Operation Clover. It was reported that four men and one woman had been jailed for over 102 years on 26 February for the child sexual exploitation (CSE) of 15 girls in Rotherham, whilst another woman received an 18 month sentence, suspended for two years. It was further reported that eight men had been found guilty of CSE offences committed in Rotherham.

Reference was made to the appointment of an Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner on a fixed-term contract, which will end two months after the existing Police and Crime Commissioner’s term of office comes to an end. It was noted that the preferred candidate had been appointed on a part time contract following a full recruitment and selection process. It was reported that the main focus of the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner would be to:

·         Develop and lead a project to attain a baseline of public trust and confidence in South Yorkshire Police, which will involve the commissioning of an independent organisation to carry out the work and project manage the process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Consideration was given to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Annual Report, summarising the work of the Commissioner from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. It was noted that the report was submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which requires a Police and Crime Commissioner to produce a report on the exercise of his functions in each financial year and the progress which has been made during that year in meeting the police and crime objectives in the Police and Crime Plan.

In presenting his annual report, the Commissioner indicated that a significant amount of time had to be devoted to the legacy issues of child sexual exploitation and the Hillsborough Inquests. The Commissioner also referenced the Peer Review of the force, which took place just after the end of the year summarised within the report, and whilst the outcome of the review was a frank and hard-hitting report, it did provide the incoming Chief Constable with a clear understanding of the issues requiring attention within South Yorkshire Police.

The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review the Commissioner’s annual report and began their review by querying the governance arrangements established by the Police and Crime Commissioner and whether there was any cross over between the various panels and the Police and Crime Panel. The Commissioner agreed to bring a report to a future meeting setting out his governance arrangements and membership of various panels.

Reference was also made to cultural issues and the morale of the workforce of South Yorkshire Police and sought to understand how the Commissioner would work with the Chief Constable to establish improvements. In response, the Commissioner referred to the Peer Review’s finding of a lack of strategic leadership being a critical issue and that the review process had sought the views of individuals across the force.

The Panel queried whether the Commissioner intended to retain the same priorities as part of the refresh of the Police and Crime Plan. In response, the Commissioner indicated that the existing priorities would likely remain, but the actions underpinning those priorities would change to accord with circumstances on the ground.

Looking ahead to the future, the Panel sought clarification in respect of funding for legacy issues and whether the Commissioner anticipated continued government funding to deal with such matters. In response, the Commissioner explained that those issues that were specific to South Yorkshire Police, such as child sexual exploitation, would likely need to be funded directly from South Yorkshire, but those legacy issues which were connected to wider national issues, such as Hillsborough or if there were to be an inquiry in the events of the ‘Battle of Orgreave’, may receive government funding.

In addition, questions were asked in respect of the funding of legal costs and a drive towards a collaborative approach to the delivery of emergency services or sharing of services with other force areas. In response, the Commissioner indicated that it was his role to have oversight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided a progress update in respect of actions arising from the Peer Review of South Yorkshire Police.

It was reported that the review had found that there had been “inconsistent strategic direction from the Chief Officer Team” and decision making had been isolated, staff had not been listened and action had not always been taken on agreed plans. It was further reported that financial and operational planning had not been linked and there had been an underinvestment in key areas and there had been a disturbing move away from an effective neighbourhood policing model. The review made a number of recommendations in respect of initially stabilising the force and the transforming it over a three-year period.

The report detailed the progress that had been made since May 2016:

·         Support was being provided by Kent and Lancashire police around demand management and analysis

·         Work was ongoing to develop a new Strategic Delivery Plan involving key senior managers in the force and wider consultation with the workforce, the public and partners

·         A review of HR Shared Services was imminent

·         Recruitment of an Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner to co-lead, with the Force, a project aimed at rebuilding public trust and confidence

·         The Durham staff survey had been launched to canvas the views of the workforce to underpin the fundamental change required.

The Panel sought assurances that the processes and learning from the support provided by the College of Policing would become embedded within the culture of the force to enable continuous improvement. In response, the Commissioner indicated that he expected the Peer Review approach to become standardised nationally and referred to the benefits of the approach when compared to the focused inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.

The Commissioner committed to provide Councillor Cutts with copies of the reports in respect of protests in Rotherham following a further question on the subject.

The Panel welcomed the high level overview of the progress that had been made since May 2016, but requested that the Commissioner present a more detailed action plan, setting out timescales for completing specific activities and indicating who would be responsible and accountable for ensuring actions were delivered. The Panel also requested sight of the project scope in respect of the public engagement work to be co-lead by the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That a future report be submitted to the Panel by the Police and Crime Commissioner detailing the action plan for the implementation of the recommendations arising from the Peer Review of South Yorkshire Police.

3.    That a future report be submitted to the Panel detailing the project scope for the work to be co-lead by the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner in respect of rebuilding public trust and confidence.  

Consideration was given to a report which provided an update in respect of the number of complaints received and the handling of complaints in accordance with the Panel’s rules of procedure.

It was reported that the two complaints in respect of the former Police and Crime Commissioner had been referred by the Panel to the Clerk to the Home Affairs Select Committee had been received and assurances had been received that the Select Committee would give extremely serious consideration to the complaints. It was noted that the outcome of the Committee’s consideration would be reported back to a future meeting of the Panel.

It was also reported that a complainant had written to the Police and Crime Commissioner after being dissatisfied with how South Yorkshire Police had handled his complaint. The Independent Police Complaints Commission had upheld the decision of the force, but the complainant wrote to the Commissioner to further complain. Whilst not having responsibility for staff or the operational matters of the force, the Commissioner wrote to the complainant to indicate that there was nothing he could do to assist in the matter. The complainant was dissatisfied with this response and submitted a complaint. The Panel noted that a review was to be carried out by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner as to whether the correct policies and procedures had been followed.

Resolved:-

That the action taken in respect of the complaints be noted.  

The Panel received a verbal update from the Legal Advisor in respect of the judicial review proceedings arising from the Section 38 process instigated by the Police and Crime Commissioner in respect of the former Chief Constable.

Resolved:-

That the update be noted.

The Panel gave consideration to an update in respect of the development of a work programme for the remainder of the 2016/17 municipal year. Those members who had attended the National Conference for Police and Crime Panels earlier in October 2016 referred to the approaches of other areas which could be incorporated into the practice of the Panel. It was noted that a separate session for work planning would be arranged to take place during November 2016 to inform future activity.

Resolved:-

That the update be noted.