To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Carter asked how did the spokesperson for the Police and Crime Panel propose to hold the commission to account for the discharge of their statutory functions now that these functions have been restricted to only those on the meeting agenda?
Councillor Sansome explained the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Police and Crime Panel have been provided with detailed legal advice by the Monitoring Officer/Solicitor to the Panel. The Panel would consider questions that fell within its statutory functions, but it may also consider other questions that were necessary for the Panel to carry out its functions. It was important that questions should not relate to operational issues for which the Police and Crime Commissioner was responsible in holding the Chief Constable to account.
Some Panel Members were frustrated with the weakening of power to the Panel, but it was important to note that it was not the Panel’s role to hold the Chief Constable to account only the Police and Crime Commissioner.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked about representatives on the Panel being able to ask about these issues as and when they arose, when contacted by residents, and asked if the representative agreed.
Councillor Sansome explained there may be opportunities when situations arose, but the Panel had to work within confines of its work plan, holding the Police and Crime Commissioner to account the same as any other scrutiny panel. The Panel was unable to look beyond its remit and had to act in accordance with the rules and procedures agreed at the start of every municipal year.
Unfortunately, there were some people who preferred to raise issues and challenge the Commissioner on social media when Councillor Sansome would prefer them to come to a meeting and raise the issue about what action was being taken to address child sexual exploitation, hate crime and domestic abuse.
(2) Councillor Cowles referred to a recent press article where Councillor Sansome made some disparaging comments about the 101 service. He was the first Labour Councillor he had heard express concern. Yet the public were still being asked to use this unfit service. He asked would the Spokesperson tell the Council what he proposed to do about it.
Councillor Sansome confirmed Councillor Cowles was right he had made comments about the long running saga it had taken to get the 101 system up and running. He was surprised that he was felt to be the first Councillor to raise concerns as at a recent meeting with the Chief Constable other Councillors were also present and stated their feelings regarding the 101 service.
If he was understanding the thoughts and comments raised by colleagues in that meeting Councillor Sansome felt it only right that he arrange through the Cabinet Member a meeting, involving Councillor Cowles, in order to sit with the Commissioner to look at the failings in the 101 service and how these could be rectified and when.
Councillor Cowles thanked Councillor Sansome for his response and would certainly take up the offer of the meeting.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to other Police and Crime Commissioners having more than one role, whereas the South Yorkshire had a separate Police and Crime Commissioner. However, he pointed out the 101 service was not considered fit for purpose one year ago and a year later it was still not fit for purpose. He asked how had the Police and Crime Commissioner got the audacity when he found it easy to increase the precept by 6% raising taxes. Better things were expected. He asked if Councillor Sansome would, as well as calling a meeting, write a strongly worded letter to the Police and Crime Commissioner asking him to be effective or go.
Councillor Sansome confirmed he would put a letter together and ask within it advice from the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Cabinet Member.
(3) Councillor R. Elliott referred to the high court hearing with the FBU concerning CPC and according to public record the Fire Authority spent £800K legal fees of public money and lost. A sum which could cover the cost of a second appliance in Rotherham for four years. He asked how could this be a justifiable use of public money?
Councillor Atkin confirmed it was anticipated the legal costs would be in the region of £75,000 not £800,000 as reported. He made no apologies for this court case as the Close Proximity Crewing was saving the Authority £1.6 million per year so this was well justified.
In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott having read the judgement believed the Fire Authority was not comfortable with the Close Proximity Crewing and it was in danger of acting in a critical manner. The judgement said the system was unlawful, although the service had protested this at every stage. Councillor Elliott and his opposition colleagues were alarmed that a public body was knowingly acting unlawful by fulfilling one statutory duty by not fulfilling another.
As Vice-Chair of the public body it was not acceptable that Councillor Atkin was overseeing this position. He asked could Councillors view all the related documents that have been issued as he was led to believe the Fire Authority agenda items would be discussed in the absence of the public and press.
Councillor Atkin explained there had been no discussion in the absence of the press and public about the Close Proximity Crewing. There had been a meeting on Monday and again no exempt items to do with this issue.
Councillor Elliott was saying the actions were unlawful, but the comments by the Judge with regards to the unlawfulness related to the working arrangements not being in accordance with the EU Working Directives, not that they were unsafe.
(4) Councillor Carter asked what were the total legal costs incurred by the South Yorkshire Fire Authority from the point the Close Proximity Crewing issue was first taken to court?
Councillor Atkin explained there were two elements to the costs – the costs of the Judicial Review which was given in response to Question 3 as in the region of £75,000, and the additional costs associated with the employment tribunal. Whilst final figures were still awaited, it was anticipated the total costs would be just in excess of £100,000.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked, given the services being cut throughout South Yorkshire and the removal of the second appliance in Rotherham did the Spokesperson think £100,000 was a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Councillor Atkin confirmed he did. When Close Proximity Crewing was introduced due to the budget shortfall it saved £1.6 million so it was appropriate to use £100,000 to defend £1.6 million.
(5) Councillor Carter asked what were the anticipated legal costs incurred by the SYFR Authority of enacting the High Court Close Proximity Crewing judgement?
Councillor Atkin confirmed strictly speaking there were no legal costs in terms of enacting a Judgement. Legal costs have already been provided and there would be operational costs. These were still being calculated and would be subject to a further report to the Fire and Rescue Authority.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked, given that crews had been using Close Proximity Crewing system for the some time, what were the back payments projected to be?
Councillor Atkin confirmed there was no costs at the moment until the industrial tribunal had met. At this stage it was not known what detrimental payments would be.
(6) Councillor Carter’s question had been included as part of his supplementary question above.
(7) Councillor Carter asked what were the anticipated costs of detriment payments to firefighters affected by Close Proximity Crewing judgment.
Councillor Atkin explained the Authority was not in a position to make an estimate until a further hearing has taken place in the autumn. Negotiations had been attempted with the FBU, but these remained unresolved until the hearings had taken place.
(8) Councillor Carter asked could he be assured that there would not be cuts to front line fire services in South Yorkshire as a consequence of the High Court Close Proximity Crewing judgment.
Councillor Atkin explained at a time of significant and ongoing funding cuts, this voluntary staffing system saved the fire service money whilst protecting the immediate 999 response to the public. Following the judgement, the Authority would consider how else to save the £1.6 million this system afforded annually. Inevitably, and unfortunately, this was likely to mean changes which represented a reduction in current 999 provision across South Yorkshire. Any changes would be considered, and consulted on, as part of the service’s integrated risk management planning process.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what were the implications of Regulation 6 on staffing and Close Proximity Crewing.
Councillor Atkin explained from the judgement it was his recollection that it was Directive 10 and not Directive 6 that the Fire Authority lost on and this was to do with staff not spending eleven hours away from work before coming back on shift.