Minutes:
37.1 It was noted that a question had been submitted from a member of the public that had been asked on a number of occasions. The member of the public concerned was not present at the meeting, however, the Chair ruled it as being out of order due to it being repetitious and the questioner having been previously told that it was a procedural matter which had been submitted to the Chief Constable.
37.2 A member of the public asked the following question:-
“Despite recently being the victim of an armed robbery, I am not someone who wants the sight of armed police on the streets of Sheffield to become familiar or normal.
Is the PCP or PCC able to comment on any conversation they had with the Chief Constable or the PCP with the PCC in respect to the armed police on patrol in Sheffield city centre over the Christmas period?
Were they or the PCC consulted on the matter or was it handed down from the Home Office as a fait accompli?
If so, where does this leave the so called democratic control of the Police that the PCC is supposed to represent?”
37.3 The Police and Crime Commissioner replied that, as far as the Police were concerned over the Christmas period, it was a reaction to the attacks in Paris. The judgement was taken, which was not dictated by the Home Office or the Home Secretary but were local judgements taken, not just in Sheffield, but other local centres and Chief Constables put some armed police in centres like Meadowhall and city centres in order reassure people. The Police and Crime Commissioner had not been consulted. There had been a reaction from the public mainly favourable but not everybody. It was thought that the Chief Constable would reflect upon the reactions and think about that if he feels needs to do anything like that again. The Commissioner did not see it as being routine and depends upon the level of threat that is perceived by an individual Chief Constable. The Commissioner and Chief Constable do discuss things but it was his decision at the end of the day.
37.4 As far as armed officers are concerned yes there were armed officers but the were not visible to the public; they were in cars going about South Yorkshire 24 hours a day but you did not see them because the Force needed them to respond immediately if there was an incident.
37.5 Councillor G. Jones reported that Doncaster Council had been made aware that armed police were going to patrol particularly in the Frenchgate Centre in Doncaster and told that was happening following the issues in Paris. One complaint had been received about the armed police being on the streets, however, Councillor Jones had spoken to people subsequently who were reassured equally in that measure. It was a one-off particularly following those fateful attacks and hopefully would never see it again but it had certainly given reassurance to most people.
37.6 A member of the public asked the following questions:-
(a) “How does the Police and Crime Commissioner feel about moving the Fire Service and Police Force together. As the Police Force seem to suffer changes about every two years could they not be left to settle down to the local Police team working before more changes take place. These changes always have a grave impact on partnership working which then impacts on the public.
(b) How valuable does the Police and Crime Commissioner see the Confirmer system set up by South Yorkshire Police and used in partnership with Neighbourhood Watch and if he approves of it could he ensure that the Force use it for crime information. Instead of ignoring it because they have not time. Is this not a waste of money?”
37.7 With regard to question (a), the Police and Crime Commissioner agreed that there had been turbulence happening within the Police Force and it did need to settle down and embed and the local Police teams needed a period of stability to settle. As far as collaboration and partnership possibly with the Fire Service concerned, there was an agenda now which was not being driven by the Force locally, South Yorkshire had its own ideas about collaboration with the Fire Service, but it was very much from the Home Office and Home Secretary. This appeared to be the direction of travel from the Government and it seemed to be fairly clear at some point there would have to be discussion with the Fire and Rescue Services. That is not to say South Yorkshire did not not value a partnership with the Fire Services as there were a number of things that could and were done together such as shared buildings for example the building at Maltby. That was the level at which the Force was taking things in that partnering/sharing way but recognises there were pressures coming from the Home Secretary.
37.8 With regard to question (b), the Police and Crime Commissioner felt it was a valuable service. It was maintained by South Yorkshire Police and performed a valuable service. It was the Commissioner’s understanding that the Police were now so stretched in terms of officers and officer time that the ideal of them operating the system and sending down messages on a pretty regular basis will probably not happen because the personnel were not available. His advice would be for Neighbourhood Watch ought to meet with the District Commanders or with local Inspector to see what it could do to make it a better system.