Two
nominations had been received in advance of the meeting:
Councillor
Satvinder Buttar was proposed by
Councillor John Furey and seconded by
Councillor Victor Lewanski.
Councillor John
Robini was proposed by Councillor Paul
Kennedy and seconded by Councillor Mick Gillman.
As
there was more than one nomination a vote was taken by show of
hands, with seven votes for Councillor John Robini and three votes for Councillor Satvinder Buttar.
RESOLVED:
The
Panel agreed the appointment of Councillor John Robini as the Surrey Police and Crime Panel
Chairman for the Council Year 2022/23.
32/22
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Share this item
The Panel is asked to elect a
Vice-Chairman for year 2022/23.
Two
nominations had been received in advance of the meeting:
Councillor John
Furey was proposed by Councillor
Satvinder Buttar and seconded by
Councillor Victor Lewanski.
Councillor Mick
Gillman was proposed by Councillor John Robini and seconded by Mr Martin Stillwell at the
meeting.
As
there was more than one nomination a vote was taken by show of
hands, with seven votes for Councillor Mick Gillman and three votes
for Councillor John Furey.
RESOLVED:
The
Panel agreed the appointment of Councillor Mick Gillman as the
Surrey Police and Crime Panel Vice-Chairman for the Council Year
2022/23.
1.A Member noted that it was agreed that future
reports on recruitment were to include police staff and this had
not been recorded as an action. This was noted by the support
officers.
2.The minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2022
were agreed as a true record of the meeting.
35/22
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter
(i)Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or
(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
The
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011) places a duty on
Police and Crime Commissioners to produce an Annual Report.The report should cover the exercise of the
PCC’s functions in thefinancial year
and the progress made in meeting the Police and Crime Plan. The
report should be presented to the Police and Crime Panel for
comment and recommendations, and then a published version with
pictures will be produced.
The
attached Annual Report covers the period April 2021 to March 2022
and is submitted to the Police and Crime Panel for
comment.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance
(OPCC)
Lisa Herrington, Head of Policy and Commissioning
(OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member noted
that the previous Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC)
annual report included performance measures and queried whether
there had been any progress in developing performance measures. The
PCC explained that it was the PCC’s report, rather than a
report by the Force, therefore it focused on the work of the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC). The PCC added that
isolated metrics did not provide a complete picture. The Head of
Performance and Governance shared that the OPCC were doing a lot of
work consulting with stakeholders on increasing the availability of
Force performance data. Currently, a lot of the data was provided
in the performance meetings with the Chief Constable, however, this
needed to be opened up to a wider audience. The OPCC had plans to
launch a performance portal, and by the next meeting, it was hoped
that a more substantive update could be provided on this. The Head
of Performance and Governance explained that performance measures
required context to ensure that the data was not misleading. The
Panel Member questioned whether it was just the PCC’s report,
as it should address the Police and Crime Plan which involved the
work of the Force. The Head of Performance and Governance confirmed
that the report did address the priorities and progress of the
plan, just not in a quantitative sense. The PCC added that this was
one part of the PCC’s role and encouraged Panel Members to
look at the wider work of the OPCC, beyond the reports brought to
the Panel. `
A Panel Member
suggested that the Force should be more explanatory regarding the
outcomes of crimes. The PCC responded that they would pass on the
comment and suggested for the Panel Member to raise it with the
Chief Constable at the Panel meeting in October.
A Panel Member
queried the small proportion of the commissioning budget spent on
fraud and cybercrime, considering how prevalent this form of crime
was. The PCC explained that a significant amount of the
Force’s budget was spent on fraud, as 43% of crime in Surrey
was fraud. It was, however, still important for the OPCC to support
victims of fraud. Fraud victims could also access the universal
support offer made available to all victims of crime in Surrey. A
large amount of the budget was spent on supporting victims of
domestic abuse and children and young people who had sexually
assaulted, as there was a key role for the OPCC in this area. The
Head of Policy and Commissioning added that the OPCC had
commissioned specialist case workers to support victims of crime.
Certain crimes were more likely to require emotional support, such
as rape which was traumatic for victims.
The
purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of
the Surrey Police Group (i.e. OPCC and Chief Constable combined)
unaudited financial position as at the year-end 31 March 2022. The
report compares the Group financial results with the budgets
approved by the previous PCC Mr David Munro in February 2021 for
the financial year 2021/22.
The Chief Finance
Officer confirmed that the report covered up to the year end of
March 2022.
A Panel Member asked
whether the numbers of temporary and agency staff affected the
restructuring and training, or vice versa. The Chief Finance
Officer explained that there were a number of vacancies due to
issues with recruitment, therefore, temporary staff were employed
to cover the gaps. The training was deferred due to the pandemic
and staffing issues.
A Panel Member
queried the partially unused IT budget. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that most of the money had been spent on keeping existing
systems running which was charged as revenue. It had been
increasingly difficult to recruit IT staff with the right skills at
rates the Force could afford. As a result, IT schemes in the
capital programme had not been advanced as quickly as possible. The
newly hired Chief Digital and Information Officer had plans to
improve the IT schemes. There had been issues with laptops due to
supplies and issues with the hardware refresh due to
servers.
A Member noted the
fall in the reserve for ill-health and questioned whether the
amount was adequate. The Chief Finance Officer explained that part
of the reserve was used to cover pension costs for those who
retried early due to ill health and this figure was hard to
predict. The Chief Finance Officer had been assured by the Force
that they believed the reserve was adequate at the
moment.
Lisa Herrington, Head of Policy and Commissioning
(OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Head of Policy
and Commissioning explained that the Strategy was a public facing
document and was made to be easy to understand. The cover report
provided detail around the legislation and a summary of the
approach. The Strategy could be revisited over time. It was noted
that not every OPCC had a Commissioning Strategy and there was not
a standard template. The Head of Policy and Commissioning presented
slides to the Panel (Annex 1). Due to the commissioning work of the
OPCC, those affected by crime and anti-social behaviour had a more
positive future. The OPCC used a mixed model of both small (under
£5,000) and larger (over £5,000) grants. Funding was
prioritised based on the degree of harm of the type(s) of crime.
The OPCC’s work on supporting victims of domestic abuse was
considered best practice and was included in the government
toolkit.
A Panel Member asked
how the Strategy was being communicated to residents who could not
access it online. The Head of Policy and Commissioning responded
that they would take this away and think about how to do it
effectively.
A Panel Member
requested whether information on the value for money of the grants
and the results of commissioning work could be provided. The Head
of Policy and Commissioning explained that outcome data could be
provided, but it would be useful if an area could be defined so
that specific information could be provided. The Panel Member
suggested providing one or two examples.
A Panel Member
queried how the process of receiving grants was fair, for example,
geographically and noted the lack of feedback included in the
Strategy. The Head of Policy and Commissioning confirmed that the
process was open, and anyone was able to apply. Panel Members were
encouraged to promote the grants across their communities. The Head
of Policy and Commissioning explained that there would be a
separate document demonstrating the value of the grants. Contracts
were monitored on a six- and 12-month basis and some were monitored
on a quarterly basis as well.
Actions/requests for further information:
R18/22– The Head of Policy and Commissioning to
provide outcome data for one of two commissioning
grants.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The PCC noted that
they were working closely with the Head of Estates team and that
staying at Mount Browne was the right decision. The PCC noted that
the site visit for Panel Members was now in the diary.
A Panel Member
enquired as to whether District and Borough Councils would have the
opportunity to acquire properties that the Force were disposing and
noted the importance of the Housing Strategy, with the cost of
housing in Surrey. The PCC explained that some of the properties
were not fit for purpose and would not be suitable to be acquired.
An important part of wider Estates Strategy was about building
affordable housing for police officers to enable them to live in
Surrey. This was important to both the Chief Constable and the
PCC.
A Panel Member asked
whether the new Estates Strategy had been published. The PCC
confirmed that it had not been published yet. The Panel Member
noted that it would be helpful for the non-commercially sensitive
part of the Strategy to be published. The PCC explained that the
intention was to publish it. The Panel Member queried whether there
was independent oversight of the Strategy. The PCC responded that
the Joint Audit Committees looked at both the work of the PCC and
the Force more widely. There was a new Oversight Board chaired by
the PCC. Governance changes had been done to address concerns over
estates planning.
In response to a
question on the budgeting of the project, the PCC responded that
the OPCC had been as transparent as possible with the Panel over
the last year. The PCC reminded Panel Members that her role was
independent of the Force. The Chief Finance Officer explained that
costs were currently being finalised and planning permission was
still being applied for.
This report sets out
details of the Home Office’s recent review of Police and
Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the consultationon granting them a general power of competenceand the published findings.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member asked
whether the Panel needed to respond to the Fire Reform White Paper
and raise any particular issues. The PCC explained that the OPCC
was in the process of writing a response to government and there
was nothing that the Panel needed to respond to.
This report provides an update on the
performance meetings between the PCC and the Chief Constable that
have been held and what has been discussed in order to demonstrate
that arrangements for good governance and scrutiny are in
place.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The PCC encouraged
the Panel Members to watch the meetings online. In the PEEL report,
Surrey was rated as outstanding at preventing crime. The Chief
Constable championed neighbourhood policing. There were areas that
required further work, however, there was no area that was rated
inadequate. There had been a number of months to discuss the
inspection with the Chief Constable and work was already underway
to address the areas that required further work.
This report provides information on the key
decisions taken by the PCC from April 2022 to present and sets out
details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2022/23.
Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive (OPCC)
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member asked
about the resources and efficiency meeting. The Deputy Police and
Crime Commissioner (DPCC) explained that there was a discussion
around recruitment and staffing, and the Force were likely to meet
the government’s recruitment target. They also discussed the
101 service. It was noted that the Force were performing well for
999 calls which was the most important aspect. The digital 101
service was doing well. There were staffing challenges around the
contact centre. There were plans to recruit staff to cover peak
times and to introduce flexible working arrangements. 101 was a
non-emergency number and the average wait time was three minutes,
which they hoped to improve. The DPCC encouraged Panel Members to
promote the digital 101 service, as it was quicker, and it allowed
you to send photos.
A Panel Member
enquired as to why recruitment to the Joint Audit Committee was
restricted to existing members and whether the role was politically
restricted. The Panel Member noted that the internal auditors found
only limited assurance over the systems for uniformed stocks and
firearms licensing and provided a large number of recommendations
and asked about concerns regarding this. The Chief Executive
explained that in the past the Joint Audit Committee had recruited
someone to serve as Chair, however, the current Chair felt it was
sensible to elect someone from the Committee as they could provide
experience and knowledge. The Chief Finance explained that there
were two audit reports. The report on uniforms produced 18
recommendations which had been implemented, largely around stock
control. The report on firearms produced nine recommendations,
eight had been implemented and the ninth was being worked on now.
They were largely due to it being a paper-based system and
therefore, there was a backlog of processing licenses.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive (OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member noted
that the College of Policing were taken to the High Court over
non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) and lost the case. The Panel
Member asked whether they were going to continue to do something
deemed illegal and asked about the manhours wasted on this issue.
The PCC informed the Panel that it was not illegal, as it a civic
case. It was a ruling in respect of the College of Policing’s
guidance on NCHIs and it was an operational issue. The Chief
Constable was aware of the PCC’s views on this. The Panel
Member suggested that the PCC should be concerned in her role. The
PCC explained that it was a national issue and out of her remit.
The PCC suggested that the Panel Member wrote to the College of
Policing.
A Panel Member noted
that the Judicial System was failing both the Force and the public,
by releasing criminals. The Panel Member asked whether the PCC
raised this issue with the Chief Constable. The PCC explained that
although the Judicial System was outside of her remit, she had been
having discussions around this with the Justice Secretary and the
Courts Minister. This was a shared frustration across policing and
many PCCs. The PCC was meeting in September (2022) to discuss the
Justice Strategy; however, the PCC did not hold the Crown
Prosecution Service or the Judicial System to account. There had
been discussions about giving PCCs more power in this area. The
Chief Executive added that Surrey led the work on out of court
disposals which worked to try and tackle reoffends. The scheme was
successful.
The PCC requested for
questions to be submitted in advance of the meeting to enable more
detailed responses to be provided. The Chairman agreed that Panel
Members would try to do this in future meetings.
A Panel Member asked
the PCC to comment on their questions regarding the comments from
the previous set of minutes on the 101 service and unauthorised
encampments. The PCC responded that there was no obvious reason for
the OPCC to be working with District and Borough Councils on the
101 service. Regarding unauthorised encampments, the guidance
following the Act had not been published yet, but Chief Constables
had sight of the draft. The Lead PCC in this area had been dealing
closely with the Policing Minister and the Home Office on the
guidance more widely. The PCC would bring the guidance to the Panel
to hear their comments when published.
Actions/requests for further information:
R19/22– The Police and Crime Commissioner to bring
the guidance on unauthorised encampments to the Panel when
published.
The Panel
meeting was paused at 12:15pm and reconvened at 12:21pm.
In accordance with best practice for scrutiny and
transparency as noted in Schedule 3 – In-Year Monitoring
Information Requirements of the Home Office Grant Agreement, an
annual report by Police and Crime Panels is an important Key
Performance Indicator (KPI) to be monitored and reported
on.
This report provides a summary of the activity of
the Surrey Police and Crime Panel from June 2021 to May 2022 (up to
the local elections).
To note complaints against the Police and
Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
received since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.
The process of
complaints handling would be resumed following the meeting once the
Complaints Sub-Committee had been reconstituted.
A Panel Member
suggested to include a section on complaints made against the DPCC
in future reports. The Scrutiny Business Manager confirmed they
could be recorded in future reports.
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance
(OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Scrutiny Business
Manager noted that two items needed to be added to the forward work
programme following the meeting: the performance portal and a
deeper dive into the work of the Commissioning
Strategy.
A Panel Member asked
for RAG (red, amber, and green) ratings to be added to the
recommendations tracker. The Scrutiny Business Manager confirmed
that there was a template in this style which could be
used.
A Panel Member
queried when the drafted complaints protocol would be shared with
the Panel Members. The Scrutiny Business Manager explained that it
was awaiting legal comment internally, it had since received this,
and could be shared with the Complaints Sub-Committee Members and
agreed by the Panel.
A Panel Member asked
whether the statistics for the 101 service had been collated yet
(R46/21). The Head of Performance and Governance responded that
they would chase this up, as there had been recent data from a
performance meeting. The Panel Member added that they would like
the data on how many of the calls were relevant and for the
Force.
A Panel Member
suggested that the action on the Force’s use of the CCTV
(R4/22) needed to revisited in some detail.