Minutes:
28.1 A member of the public asked the following question:-
“As a layman and member of the public I have been led to believe and had the understanding that the Police Force as a whole was free from external influences with the mandate to keep the peace and maintain the law within society, therefore, free of external influences. If you accept the above in principle, can you explain why advertising on Police cars in South Yorkshire?”
28.2 Due to this question being of an operational nature, it was a matter for the Police Force and the Police Commissioner. The question will be forwarded directly to South Yorkshire Police.
28.3 A member of the press asked the following question:-
“Could you provide more explanation about why the Hillsborough costs item will be private? Which ‘individuals” does the exempt information refer to, and why is information about them exempt when it is the subject of a public inquest, with the legal fees of senior ex-SYP officers funded by South Yorkshire tax payers and previously revealed in published spending records?”
28.4 Stuart Fletcher, Legal Adviser, reported that, following the previous Police and Crime Panel meeting, the Coroner’s Office had contacted Rotherham Council in respect of the Hillsborough inquest in relation to possible Contempt of Court issues. As a result the papers that had been before the Panel had been removed from the website immediately and it was felt, going forward, that any issues relating to Hillsborough in the future should be dealt with in the confidential section of the meeting.
28.5 A member of the public asking the following questions:-
“At your meeting on 29th June, it was reported that Professor John Drew had been commissioned to review CSE in parts of South Yorkshire not covered by the Jay and Casey reports on Rotherham.
(a) When do you expect this review to be complete and the results publicised?
The comprehensive Engagement Strategy presented at the 16th October is welcome but may take time to implement e.g. PACT meetings, soon to be Community Safety meetings, which would require involvement from other partners e.g. Council, Fire and Rescue, NHS, Local Police Teams etc. which is not obvious in some areas.
(b) Can we suggest that satisfactory progress is monitored by a Scrutiny Committee with feedback from ordinary community members?”
28.6 With regard to question (a), the Police and Crime Commissioner reported that the review had commenced in September. Following a period of scoping it would conclude in late December, 2015/early January, 2016. It would be reported to the Police and Crime Panel shortly afterwards.
28.7 With regard to question (b), the Chair reported that scrutiny of the Police and Crime Commissioner was work undertaken by the Panel and, therefore, would scrutinise the Engagement Strategy and how it was implemented. The Police and Crime Commissioner’s own Governance and Assurance Board would scrutinise the delivery of the Engagement Strategy by the Force and Engagement Officers within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Legislation prescribed that the Police and Crime Panels were in place to scrutinise Commissioners in exercise of their statutory functions. It was, therefore, for this Police and Crime Panel to determine how it wished to perform that duty generally and specifically in relation to the progress being made to deliver the Strategy. The Commissioner was happy to provide regular updates to this Panel if it required such.
Members of the public were welcome to attend Panel meetings and ask questions. There were independent members on the Panel that reflected the community and organisations as well as Members who were Elected Members of the community.
Action: That the panel receives 6 monthly reports on the delivery of the Engagement Strategy - OPCC