Issue - meetings

This report sets out the progress made towards achieving the 2021-2025 Police and Crime Plan, published in December last year. The report outlines key areas of progress and sets out proposals to ensure the public have greater access to key performance data concerning both the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and Surrey Police.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Head of Performance and Governance shared the performance hub to the Panel, noting that it was due to be launched in early December 2022. An early access version could be circulated to the Panel.

2.    A Panel Member asked about the recruitment of a Violence

Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Policy and Commissioning Officer and how this would differ from the DPCC’s role. The Chief Executive explained that the PCC and DPCC were supported by a team of staff in the Office to deliver against their statutory responsibilities. The Office has brought in over £1 million of funding for VAWG and consequently, this produced more work, including implementation of services, contract management and reviewing delivery. This post would complete that work. 

3.    A Panel Member asked whether the average speed camera scheme in Pirbright Bends had succeeded in reducing drivers’ speed. The Panel Member representative for Surrey County Council explained that the average speed cameras were not yet operational. Surrey Highways first needed to make a legal order and there were some technical issues to navigate. 

4.    In response to a question on 101 waiting times, the PCC stated she was applying pressure for these to improve. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that the Home Office data demonstrated that the Force’s 999 response times were among the best in the country and as a result, the focus on emergency calls came at the expense of 101 response times. The Force were attempting to channel shift callers to digital contact methods which led to an increase in abandonment rates. The OPCC was working closely with the Force to gauge public perception and understanding of the 101 service. The Panel Member raised that some residents view the live chat as a less legitimate contact method. The Head of Performance and Governance recognised that it was important to change the mindset around live chat and digital contact methods.

5.    A Panel Member asked whether the performance hub measured against the same objectives as included the Police and Crime Plan. The Head of Performance and Governance explained there was qualitative information as well as quantitative and that data was based around the Plan’s priorities, with a selection of policing measures used to demonstrate progress. There was still scope for refinement and feedback was welcomed.

RESOLVED:

1. In the Commissioner’s progress reports on the Police and Crime Plan, the Panel recommends that for each objective, relevant KPIs are included to evidence what progress has been delivered.

Each year the OPCC produces an annual report setting out the work of the ICV scheme, and this is being presented to the Police and Crime Panel for information.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Erika Dallinger, Independent Custody Visitor Scheme Manager

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The ICV Scheme Manager provided an overview of this statutory scheme, explaining that its purpose was to provide reassurance to the community around the welfare of detainees in police custody. The ICV Scheme Manager explained that Surrey had three custody suites which were each visited around five times a month, and the scheme had an average of 41 volunteers. The visits were unannounced, and the visitors’ entry could not be delayed by the Force. The ICV Scheme Manager hoped that the scheme in Surrey would be awarded Platinum status by the Independent Custody Visiting Association this year.

2. A Panel Member queried whether the four outstanding recommendations from the 2015 His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) inspection were still relevant and how the PCC had checked on the progress of these recommendations. The ICV Scheme Manager explained that the OPCC was involved in action tracking meetings and proactively addressing the recommendations from HMICFRS. The outstanding recommendations had since been addressed, were in progress, or were no longer relevant.

3. A Panel Member asked about plans to encourage greater diversity among volunteers and any barriers to those from the Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) community becoming a volunteer. The ICV Scheme Manager informed the Panel that there was a limit on the number of volunteers required in the scheme. The current demographic of volunteers did broadly represent the demographic within Surrey, but it did not represent the demographic of the custody population. The ICV Scheme Manager would like there to be greater diversity and was working with the Force’s Diversity Lead to try to raise the profile of the scheme.

4. A Panel Member questioned why issues such as a lack of curtains or screens in the medical room were not picked up by the volunteers. The ICV Scheme Manager explained that these were removed during the pandemic due to a risk of infection. ICVs were not permitted in the medical rooms, to preserve privacy for detainees. The criteria of the visits for ICVs compared to HMICFRS was different, however, this would be picked up in future. The Panel Member noted that disposable curtains were available. The ICV Scheme Manager took the suggestion on board.

5. A Panel Member asked about the process of achieving Platinum status and the tangible benefits. The ICV Scheme Manager was confident that the Scheme in Surrey could achieve Platinum status; it was just about evidencing the work already occurring. It would create a morale boost for the volunteers and show nationally that Surrey was running a strong scheme.

6. A Panel Member asked about the involvement of volunteers in the production of the report. The ICV Scheme Manager shared that the volunteers would be asked for any feedback that they would like to be included in the report. The Panel Member also enquired about the concerns around a breach of Section 40 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2022/23. The purpose of this item is to allow the Commissioner to outline his proposals in more detail and To answer any questions that Panel Members might have.

Following consideration of the Commissioner’s proposed precept, the Panel must either:

a) agree the precept without qualification or comment;

b) support the precept and make comments or recommendations

concerning the application of the revenues generated; or

c) veto the proposed precept.

Note:

In accordance with the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012:

(a) The Commissioner must notify the Panel of her proposed precept by 1 February 2022;

(b) The Panel must review and make a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept (whether it vetoes the precept or not) by 8 February 2022;

(c) If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish her response, including the revised precept, by 15 February 2022;

(d) The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying it of her revised precept, must review the revised precept and make a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2022 (there is no second right of veto);

(e) The Commissioner must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s second report and publish her response by 1 March 2022.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The PCC explained that since being elected she had spent a significant amount of time talking to police officers and staff to understand the pressures they were under, as well as speaking to residents to understand their priorities. The police officer uplift had been an enormous success and Surrey were to recruit 249 of the 2,000 police offers under the government initiative. The PCC noted that government funding for policing had been increased for 2022/23; however, it did not cover the total cost of increases in National Insurance contributions and pay. Surrey Police received the lowest amount of funding per head from government and as a result, funding from council tax was extremely important. The government had also assumed in its funding announcements that all PCCs would utilise the maximum £10 increase in precept. The Chief Constable supported an increase of £10 which was needed to sustain current Police services, improve performance and deliver the Police and Crime Plan. The impact on the Force of a lower precept was discussed at the most recent performance and accountability meeting. The PCC noted that there was a clear majority of responses to the public consultation in support of increasing the precept by at least £10. After consideration of the Chief Constable’s comments, the result of the consultation, the government funding assumption, and the need to sustain Police services, the PCC believed there was no alternative but to increase the precept by £10.

2. A Panel Member queried why the line on the OPCC’s reserves remained unchanged in the proposal for 2022/23, despite stating that £250,000 would be taken out of the reserves to fund the budget increase. The CFO replied that it should have come out of that line of the budget and that was the intention.

3. A Panel Member stated that he would support the full £10 increase of the precept in order to sustain Police services that Surrey residents deserved. The Panel Member noted the intention for transformational savings in the medium and long term and hoped this would continue. The PCC explained to the Panel that despite a government assumption that the precept would be increased to £10 for the next three years, she had made clear to the Force that it should not rely on that assumption and that she expected to see significant transformational savings. The Panel Member stated that he expected to see more regular reporting on the Building the Future project, as a significant amount of money was lost on the Leatherhead site. The PCC agreed with the Panel Member and requested for an item on the next agenda to include an update on estates.

4. A Panel Member noted that any local authority that was required to precept against the council tax had difficult conversations regarding any increase, whilst acknowledging that it was a fundamental source of income. The Panel Member expressed that he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13