Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair reported that Councillor Brian Cutts (Rotherham MBC) had written to indicate that he did not consider the minutes to be accurate in respect of his statement under Minute F27 and wished for the minutes to be amended to record that he had observed every protest march in Rotherham, rather than attended. The Chair indicated that he had watched the webcast of the previous meeting, where Councillor Cutts had indicated that he had attended every protest march in Rotherham, and could not recommend that the proposed amendment be incorporated within the minutes.

Resolved:-

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Police and Crime Panel held on 28 October 2016 be approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.

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 of the Panel at its meeting, they should be submitted in writing at least 24 hours before the date and of the meeting and be no more than 50 words in length.

Questions should be submitted to James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager at Rotherham MBC (Host Authority for the Police and Crime Panel) by email – james.mclaughlin@rotherham.gov.uk

There is no provision for the public to ask questions of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Any questions for the Commissioner should be forwarded to the Commissioner’s office – info@southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk – for response.

It was reported that no public questions had been received.

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 put the following question:

“Is the PCC sufficiently concerned about the issue of human trafficking and modern day slavery to use his influence to ensure that access to adequate funding may be prioritised to ensure that there are resources sufficient to enable the South Yorkshire Police and their various partners to be able to comprehensively address this apparently growing problem in our communities?”

In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner stated:

“Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery is a growing area of concern and all forces in the UK recognise that. I am meeting with the non-governmental organisation (NGO) and Force lead on the 16 December to discuss a multi-agency partnership.  At that meeting I want to discuss the deliverables one might reasonably expect from such a partnership including, but not limited to, the development of a Countywide Partnership Strategy.

In addition to which I have provided some funding to a NGO to provide training to partner agencies first responders - for example housing officers or similar.  The training will be free to access and will in the first instance address some of the knowledge gaps we are aware exist in terms of spotting the signs, understanding responsibilities around and reporting mechanisms for victims of modern slavery.

You are right to say that this is a multi-agency issue and responsibility and I welcome this opportunity to further raise the profile of this heinous crime.”

Mr Alan Carter had also given notice of a second question:

“As Police and Crime Commissioner, would you please advise the Police and Crime Panel on your personal involvement in and influence to date upon the releasing and directing for community benefit of assets seized or recovered from criminals’ ill-gotten gains, pursuant to the provisions of The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? In particular, could you report upon the extent to which money returned to the public purse from this source assists in aiding good community causes and engaging ex-offenders in activities to benefit the wider community in South Yorkshire?”

In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner stated:

“The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) sets out the legislative scheme for the recovery of criminal assets with criminal confiscation being the most commonly used power.  Confiscation occurs after a conviction has taken place. Other means of recovering the proceeds of crime which do not require a conviction are provided for in the Act, namely civil recovery, cash seizure and taxation powers.

If associated with a criminal investigation / prosecution and conviction this is regarded as an asset in the confiscation process for which the police receive only 18.5% back from the incentivisation fund.  In cases of cash seizure, detention or forfeiture the police receive 50% of the amount back through the incentivisation fund.

It is complex and difficult to obtain funds through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Consideration was given to a report detailing the interim governance arrangements of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The report set out the number and role of independent assurance panels that the Police and Crime Commissioner had established, as well as providing information on the role of the Public Accountability Board.

It was noted that the following bodies had been established:-

·         Joint Independent Audit Committee – shared between South Yorkshire Police and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

·         Independent Ethics Panel

·         Independent Advisory Panel for Minority Communities

·         Independent Policing Protests Advisory Panel

·         Independent Custody Visitors

The Panel thanked the Police and Crime Commissioner for sharing the detail of his governance structure. Members raised concerns in respect of the role of a number of the independent panels which they considered to be performing functions that should fall within the remit of the Police and Crime Panel. Having recently attended a national conference for Police and Crime Panels, Members referred to practice in other police force areas whereby Police and Crime Panels performed a more proactive and supportive role in the development of policy in respect of policing and community safety issues. Concern was expressed that the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel had not been given the opportunity to undertake a similar role.

In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner reiterated the statutory provisions in respect of his role in holding the Chief Constable and South Yorkshire Police to account, which he discharged through Public Accountability Board meetings. He also set out the statutory provisions in respect of the role of the Police and Crime Panel in holding him to account.

Discussions focused on the relationship between the Police and Crime Commissioner’s governance structure and the role of the Police and Crime Panel. Members made clear their willingness to take on more work to support the work of the Police and Crime Commissioner as a “critical friend”.

The Police and Crime Commissioner indicated that Panel Members would be welcome to attend meetings of the Public Accountability Board and he would be happy for officers to make arrangements for Panel Members to observe other panel meetings.

Resolved:-

That the report be noted.

Consideration was given to a report from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner which detailed Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) PEEL (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy) inspection regime.

It was reported that it was the role of HMIC to independently assess police forces and policing across a wide range of policing activity. HMIC decides on the depth, frequency and areas to inspect based upon their judgement about what is in the public interest.

Section 55(5) of the 1996 Police Act requires Police and Crime Commissioners to prepare comments on any of HMIC’s published reports that relate to their Force, and then publish these in the manner they see fit. Section 55(6) required Police and Crime Commissioners to send a copy of these comments to the Home Secretary.

Members noted that the Police Efficiency 2016 report was published on 3 November 2016. The inspection considered the extent to which the Force is efficient at keeping people safe and reducing crime. The three questions considered by HMIC were:

1.    How well does the Force understand the current and likely future demand?

2.    How well does the Force use its resources to manage current demand?

3.    How well is the Force planning for demand in the future?

South Yorkshire Police had been assessed as requiring improvement in respect of the efficiency with which it keeps people safe and reduces crime. The Panel noted the Chief Constable’s response to the report.

The Effectiveness Inspection took place in South Yorkshire on 17 October 2016. This would seek to give a rating on how effective South Yorkshire Police are at keeping people safe and reducing crime, previously the Force were rated as requiring improvement. The Police Effectiveness Report will be published in Spring 2017.

It was noted that HMIC had published its rating for Leadership for South Yorkshire Police on 8 December 2016 which had indicated that improvement was required.

Panel Members reflected on the Peer Review undertaken earlier in the year following the suspension of the former Chief Constable. The Police and Crime Commissioner indicated that he considered the peer review process to have been more agile and insightful than the approach of HMIC and many of the issues identified by HMIC had long been identified by the Force and plans had been developed and were being implemented to address those issues.

Panel Members identified that reviewing performance was an area where they could add value and support the work of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Whilst Members did not wish to duplicate any existing performance monitoring activity, the Panel should seek assurances in respect of areas where issues had been identified and that measures were implemented to address underperformance.

The Panel reiterated its wish to see the proposals being developed by the Chief Constable in respect of reforming neighbourhood policing in South Yorkshire. The Police and Crime Commissioner acknowledged the significant contribution that local Councillors would have to make to support a new neighbourhood policing model, as part of the drive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner detailing the budgetary position for 2016-17.

It was reported that there was a reduction in funding for the 2016-17 financial year from Government amounting to approximately £1m compared to 2015/16. As part of the Finance Settlement for 2016/17, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) was given the flexibility to increase the council tax by 3.3%: this generated additional council tax income of £2.4m largely as a result of an increase in the council tax base.

The total level of revenue funding - including Government grant and council tax income - amounted to approximately £242m. The majority of that was allocated to the Chief Constable to finance Force running costs, including employee costs. In order to keep within the amount allocated and to meet the costs of demand and cost pressures, reductions of at least £6m were agreed as part of the budget process.

It was forecast that there would be an overall underspending of £4.2m in the current financial year. It was noted that a projected underspend of £2.7m sat within the Chief Constable’s operating budget. It was reported that the Chief Constable had taken steps to reduce expenditure in the current financial year in order to have resources to carry forward for use in meeting expenditure in 2017/18. One of the largest single variations related to Police Staff costs where there was a projected £2m underspend due to vacancies and staff turnover.

The overall position included a spending variation in respect of the costs of Operation Stovewood: this would be conducted by the National Crime Agency into historic allegations of child sexual exploitation. When the budget was agreed it had been assumed that Special Grant funding would be received from Government and that this would involve the application of a “1% rule”: the Home Office have in the past expected the Force to meet an amount equivalent to 1% of the budget with the Government providing the balance. The actual Special Grant award for 2016/17 had put a ceiling of £1m on the costs met by the Force.

It was further reported that one of the assumptions underpinning the 2016/17 budget was that any further costs that may potentially arise from legacy issues would be largely met from special grant allocations from Government. The nature and extent of any liability that may arise and the degree to which it should be set against the 2016/17 budget, had yet to be finalised.

Panel Members sought assurance in respect of the reserves strategy for the Force and noted that the forecast underspend would be used to supplement reserves. General reserves were recommended to be set around a minimum of £12m.

Recognising the difficult decisions that lay ahead, the Panel indicated that it would be willing to informally engage with the Police and Crime Commissioner to discuss the detail behind proposals for setting the budget. Panel Members indicated that they would welcome the opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Further to the previous report in respect of the financial position of South Yorkshire Police, consideration was given to the Home Office’s guidance in respect of the Panel’s role in scrutinising the precept proposal from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

It was noted that the Panel would be required to hold a meeting on a date between 1 February and 8 February 2017, having received notification of the Police and Commissioner’s proposal.

Clarification was sought in respect of the provisions for the Panel to exercise a veto and recommend a higher increase in council tax, which would necessitate a local referendum on a proposed increase. As the guidance was not sufficiently clear, it was agreed that a response would be provided outside of the meeting.

It was suggested that it would be helpful for Panel Members to meet in advance of the formal precept proposal discussion and the Police and Crime Commissioner committed to do whatever possible to accommodate the Panel’s wishes.

Resolved:-

1.    That the guidance be noted.

2.    That clarification be provided in respect of the veto process and any potential referendum requirement arising from a veto.

3.    That an informal meeting between Panel Members and the Police and Crime Commissioner be arranged to informally discuss the budget and precept proposals ahead of a meeting in the first week of February 2017.

Consideration was given to an update report in respect of complaints submitted by the host authority for the Police and Crime Panel.

The Panel recalled that it was reported to the last meeting of the Panel that the two complaints which had been received in respect of the previous Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) had been referred to the Clerk to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Panel were informed that the matters have now been referred to the Metropolitan Police, by the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). After taking legal advice, the HASC concluded that the allegations referred to (deliberately misleading the Committee) would if proved constitute a criminal offence, which is contrary to the conclusion of the IPCC. The progress of the matter will be reported back to a future meeting of the Panel.

It was reported that a complaint had been received whereby the complainant was dissatisfied with how South Yorkshire Police (SYP) had dealt with his complaint. He appealed their decision to the IPCC who upheld SYP’s decision. The complainant then wrote to the PCC. The initial complaint related to how a crime is recorded.

It was noted that the PCC was not responsible for complaints against officers and staff of SYP or for operational matters, these were the responsibility of the Chief Constable. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner initially wrote to the complainant explaining that there was nothing further that the PCC could do to assist him in the matter, but the complainant was dissatisfied with that response, and as such submitted a complaint. It was noted that a review was carried out by the OPCC as to whether the correct policies and procedures had been followed. The outcome of this review and further information as to the recording of criminal offences had been provided to the complainant. It was reported that confirmation from the complainant was awaited that this had satisfactorily concluded the matter.

Panel Members sought assurances that the Complaints Procedure that had been agreed earlier in the year had been implemented. It was reported that the new procedure, which involved the initial screening of complaints by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner with the two independent co-opted members of the Panel, had been implemented on 1 December 2016.

Panel Members indicated that they would wish to review the effectiveness of the procedure in the new municipal year.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That the Complaints Procedure be reviewed at the first meeting of the 2017-18 municipal year.

Consideration was given to a report detailing the emerging work programme for the Police and Crime Panel and outlining prospective dates of meetings for the 2017-18 municipal year.

It was reported that Panel Members had held an informal work planning session on 18 November 2016 where the following had been identified:

·         the Governance Arrangements of the Police and Crime Commissioner

·         the financial position of South Yorkshire Police and the Office of the PCC

·         the implementation of the recommendations arising from the Peer Review of South Yorkshire Police

·         Scrutiny of the Police and Crime Plan

Other items on the agenda for the meeting had dealt with the first three items identified and it was noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner had sought the views of Panel Members and other partners and the public in developing themes for the new Police and Crime Plan. It was noted that this would be brought to the Panel Meeting schedule for 24 February 2017.

The report set out a number of dates for meetings to take place in the 2017-18 municipal year and authority was sought to consult on those dates with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

It was noted that work in preparing a Memorandum of Understanding was underway with a view to submitting a draft to the meeting on 24 February 2017, following consultation with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Further to this, it was suggested that regular meetings be arranged between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That Panel Members confirm with the host authority their availability for the proposed meeting dates in the 2017-18 municipal year.

3.    That the host authority liaise with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to arrange dates for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel to meet with the PCC on a regular basis.