The minutes from the previous meeting held on
Thursday 1 December 2016 were agreed by the Panel as a true record
of the meeting.
3/17
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.
Written questions from
the public can be submitted no later than seven days prior to the
published date of the annual or any ordinary public meeting, for
which the Commissioner will be invited to provide a written
response by noon on the day before the meeting, which will be
circulated to Panel Members and the questioner.
The Police and Crime Panel is
required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime
Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2017/18.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 his proposed precept by 1
February 2017;
(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 2017;
(c)
If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner must have regard
to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish his
response, including the revised precept, by 15 February
2017;
(d)
The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying
it of his revised precept, must review the revised precept and make
a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2017 (there is
no second right of veto);
(e) The Commissioner must
have regard to and respond to the Panel’s second report and
publish his response by 1 March 2017.
The Police
and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report by informing the
Panel that for this year at least, the proposed precept increase of
1.99% was a carefully considered decision on his part. It would have been an easy and simple decision to
recommend this increase for the financial year 2017/18 if there had
been no projected underspend against the current year’s
budget. As current projections indicated a year end underspend of
more than £3 million the Commissioner said that he had
considered very carefully if a rise in the precept could be
justified.
On balance
the PCC said he had come to the conclusion that a 1.99% was the
correct amount by which to increase the precept, as the Force
needed to find £5.5 million of savings to balance the budget
next year. The proposed increased was in line with the guidance
given by the Minister of State for Policing which stated
PCC’s who increased the precept by the maximum allowed
without triggering a referendum would not suffer an financial
reduction to their central government funding.
It was
noted that a crucial factor in the PCC’s decision making was
the under spend in Surrey Police’s budget and whether in
these circumstances it was appropriate to increase the tax burden
on local residents. The PCC explained
that the primary reason for this underspend was the difficulty in
retaining Police Officers. The PCC shared the view that although
this had a positive financial impact, this had a negative impact on
operational policing.
The PCC
highlighted that there were good plans in place to manage the
retention issue and that the magnitude of the under spend would be
a temporary matter going forward.
It was further reported that the Surrey Police
budget was stable and this has been achieved by both investing,
making significant savings and cost reduction.
The PCC advised the Panel that there were reports
that the technical work for the new policing funding formula was
developing well and this would be in place in a year’s time.
However it was noted that there was also a huge risk in terms of
the final funding formula, which could possibly reduce the amount
of central government funding given to Surrey police.
The Chairman referred to the new funding formula and
requested that Government recognised how much Surrey residents pay
towards their Police Force in comparison to other parts of the
country where it is significantly less.
A Member made reference to the Policing in your
Neighbourhood report, Recommendation 1 and whether the PCC had
plans to improve the statistics in relation to recruitment and
retention. The PCC advised the Panel that there was no difficulty
in recruitment and that training courses were fully booked. However
the issue was retaining staff when other neighbouring Police Forces
were also recruiting.
The PCC further informed the Panel that there was a
shortage of detectives in Surrey which was a concern for both the
PCC and Chief Constable and ...
view the full minutes text for item 5/17
The attached reports provide Panel Members
with oversight of the budget to fund the Office of the Police &
Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for the financial year 2017/18 and also
Surrey Police Group’s and the OPCC’s financial
performance at Month 9 for the 2016/17 financial
year.
The PCC
introduced the report outlining the budget proposed for the Office
of the PCC by informing Members that a substantial amount of
funding was received from the Government to deal with Victim
Services and that this was entirely separate from the
budget.
The PCC was
pleased to report that in setting the 2017/18 budget for the OPCC
he had achieved a saving compared with the previous year’s
budget. This was due to the reshaping of the budget by reducing
staff members and putting a sharper focus on services for
residents, especially vulnerable residents.
The Panel
noted that some funds had been put to one side for contingencies.
These include plans for the Estate Strategy and the possibility of
Fire and Rescue Service governance changes.
The
Treasurer informed the Panel that another increased cost the PCC
would be expecting would be from employing a Sergeant to run the
Volunteer Cadets Force.
It was also
highlighted that the PCC was setting up a grant for the Community
Safety Board (CSB) in the sum of £50,000. This would allow
the CSB to effectively pump prime any projects or plans that will
improve community safety across Surrey.
It was
further noted that the PCC is including within the OPCC budget a
total of £75,000 for consultancy and project work, which
would give the PCC sufficient resource to provide adequate support
for new areas of activity.
Despite
these increases the Office budget would still achieve a gross
saving of £31,370.
A Member requested more information
regarding the rise in audit fees. The Treasurer explained the Joint
Audit Committee determines the audit programme and the rates are
charged on a daily rate basis. The number of days fluctuating
according to the number of days that are authorised by the Joint
Independent Audit Committee, who will increase audit coverage where
there are identifiable areas of concern which can lead to higher
fees.
Following the discussions around
auditing, the Panel noted that Surrey Police’s internal and
external auditors were separate firms. Members were advised that
Surrey Police internal auditors were RSM Tenon and their external
auditors were Grant Thornton.
A Member
expressed positive feedback on the increase of funding for the
Community Safety Fund and queried whether the process for bids on
this fund would be the same as the previous year. The PCC advised
that the system for allocating grants has changed, which is now
operating under a two tier system. Any applications for amounts
under £5,000 was simple and could be applied for online.
However amounts over £5,000 would mean identifying partners
and looking to work with them longer term.
The
PCC’s office was commended for reducing expenditure and
achieving savings for the year.
It was
noted that the HMIC publish statistics on the performance of OPCC
offices across the Country. In comparison to other forces the
Surrey OPCC did reasonably well. However not every office recorded
or measured their costs in the same way which made comparisons
difficult. ... view
the full minutes text for item 6/17
The
Panel are asked to consider progress made against the agreed Police
and Crime Plan. The PCC has published a Police and Crime Plan for
2016 to 2020 based on the 6 manifesto pledges he made during his
campaign to become PCC. This report provides the Panel with an
update on how the plan is being met.
The PCC informed the
Panel that he was pleased with the progress against the Police and
Crime in his 8 months in post and acknowledged there was a lot more
work to achieve a firmer foundation for the future years in
office.
A Member raised a
request whether the PCC would attend a Joint Committee in Woking to
discuss his role. The PCC advised that upon a formal invitation he
would attend if there were no other diary commitments.
The PCC noted the
concern with the reduction in positive outcomes in relation to
serious acquisitive crime statistics and assured the Panel that
this was a priority for the Chief Constable and PCC.
It was noted that a
campaign into tackling the use of mobile phones whilst driving took
place in November 2016 and January 2017. This campaign raised
awareness of the impact of using mobile phones behind the wheel and
promoted the prevention of it.
There was a
discussion around the PCC’s relationship with the Courts and
Tribunals Service and Court closures. The PCC was queried as to
whether he could liaise in the matter of court closures and
encourage police staff morale. The PCC noted this concern and said
he had recently assumed the Chairmanship of Surrey’s Criminal
Justice Board which would be the main mechanism in improving this
matter. The PCC went onto say that OPCC liaised with the Court
Service on a regular basis.
Following the above
discussion the Chief Executive of the OPCC assured the Panel that a
working group has been established to ensure some mitigating action
has been put in place with the impacts of court closures and the
changes to listings. It was understood that court closures would
also negatively impact on victims of crime.
It was stated that
101 had made a number of significant improvements and the PCC was
pleased with the system. It was noted that there was still progress
to be made going forward and this included following up with
victims and making sure they were provided with the right
support.
The PCC was asked
about his Police and Crime plan performance measures as listed on
page 65 of the agenda. Panel members highlighted that some of these
measures had shown a drop in comparison to 2015/16. The PCC
accepted the drop in performance and highlighted measure four which
centred on victim satisfaction as being his biggest concern. The
PCC explained that feedback from victims of crime is collated over
a period of time from a number of different services and sources.
The PCC stated that the current performance figures for 2016/17
were satisfactory in comparison to other forces.
A member of the Panel
queried whether a named contact for rural crime had been appointed.
The PCC informed members that the team had been struck by a period
of sickness but rural crime was now an integral part of the Surrey
Police recording system. The PCC went onto further say that a named
...
view the full minutes text for item 7/17
The Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PiYN) project was launched in April 2016
introducing new ways of working to tackle operational and financial
challenges. The Force has now carried out a review to assess how
the model has bedded in during the first six months and to identify
any improvements that need to be made.Attached is the PiYN post
implementation review executive summary for Panel Members
consideration and comment.
A Member
raised concern that Local Parishes felt isolated as there was a
perceived lack of communication regarding Policing in Your
Neighbourhood (PiYN). The PCC assured the Panel that in an effort
to strengthen communication he was happy to work with Parishes and
would look into formal ways of communicating with
Parishes.
The
Chairman indicated that it would be useful under PiYN for Officers
to work with Councillors and Members, particularly in relation to
Cyber Crime to make sure it is well understood to promote effective
awareness in tackling the issue.
There was a
discussion around the key findings from the PiYN report and
Recommendation 30 on training. The PCC informed the Panel that
training had been positive and that the service is regulated
regularly. Following from this discussion, Members enquired how
training fits with rest days. The PCC advised that rest days are
not affected by PiYN and are authorised as per the previous
system.
Members
shared the view that there was a lack of police visibility
especially in the last few months and were concerned this
influenced the rise in the number of burglaries. The Panel were
informed that with changing police priorities the only way a member
of the public would see a police officer is if a crime had been
committed. The PCC expressed the view that the core of PiYN was
sound however it was clear more work was to be carried
out.
The
Vice-Chairman indicated that the PiYN report was confusing and
complicated and should be less technical especially when made
available to the public. The Panel were advised that the report was
written by a Police Officer for an internal audience (although had
been shared with members for information) and therefore would be
technical.
The
Vice-Chairman further requested whether victims could be asked
whether they were happy to be contacted by Councillors to discuss
their experiences with the Police and check if they were receiving
all the support they needed. The PCC did not feel this approach was
appropriate and did not believe it was appropriate to create extra
responsibilities for Police Officers.
The PCC
agreed on having a presentation on PiYN at the next Panel meeting
to understand the basics of the new way of working. Members
highlighted that no glossary was provided and crucial information
in the full PiYN report which had been sent to the Panel separately
had been redacted.
From the
report it was evident that the number of deployable assets were not
high as they should be. The PCC agreed that more could be
done.
It was
stated that the public had input into the report which was
controlled via Surrey Police. The PCC agreed that the details
around the PiYN report needed investigating.
A member of
the Panel raised concerns around whether discussions were straying
into operational policing. The PCC stated that the border between
strategic and operational policing was ‘blurred’ but
always tried his best to give the Panel answers ...
view the full minutes text for item 8/17
For
the Panel to consider issues raised during monthly discussions
between the PCC and the Chief Constable. The PCC holds monthly
Performance Meetings where the Chief Constable reports on progress
against the Police & Crime Plan and other strategic
issues.
The PCC was
asked to provide more information on the transition occurring in
the Coroners Office. The Panel noted that this referred to the
transfer of staff from Surrey Police to Surrey County Council and
further information could be provided later as discussions were
still ongoing.
Upon
request the PCC agreed to give the Panel more details regarding
Employee Retention Proposal.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the update on
the PCC’s Performance meetings.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
R4/17 – For the PCC to
provide the Panel with details of employee retention proposals as
discussed at the November performance meeting with the Chief
Constable.
The Complaints Protocol was introduced in August
2013. In order to streamline and improve processes work has been
undertaken to revise the current Complaints Protocol. Members of
the Panel are asked to note and comment on the revised complaints
protocol and agree the recommendations listed in the
report.
The Chairman thanked Members
for their contribution and patience throughout the
process.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the
draft revised Police and Crime Panel Complaints
Protocol.
The Panel agreed in
principle the adoption of the draft revised Police and Crime Panel
Complaints Protocol. Formal adoption of the draft revised
Complaints Protocol is required at the Annual Panel meeting on 13
July 2017.
A Member requested that the
Panel consider an item on the collaboration work between Surrey and
Sussex Police Forces which would also cover what savings had been
achieved.
RESOLVED:
The Panel reviewed the Forward
Work Programme and Recommendations Tracker.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
R5/17- For the Panel to receive
an update report on Collaboration between Surrey and Sussex Police
Forces at the 12 September 2017 Panel meeting.
The Vice-
Chairman raised an advance request regarding the number of Police
Officers across the county. This information was circulated to the
Panel Vice-Chairman prior to the meeting.
The PCC
advised this information was confidential and was not to be
released in the public domain as it could be made use of by
criminals in identifying gaps in the system.
It was
noted that trials for the Cadet Force were taking place in
Runnymede, Woking and Epsom. The PCC informed the Panel that the
scheme was working very well.
RESOLVED:
The Panel raised issues/queries
concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the PCC.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
None.
14/17
DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 20 FEBRUARY 2017
Share this item
The next public meeting of the
Surrey Police and Crime Panel is provisionally
scheduled for 20 February 2017 at 10.30am in the Ashcombe Suite,
County Hall, subject to the outcome of Item 5.
The Annual meeting of the Panel
will take place on 13 July 2017.
The meeting provisionally
scheduled for 20 February 2017 was cancelled.
The next meeting of the Panel
will be held on 13 July 2017, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames.
This will be the Annual Panel meeting.
The Chairman informed the Panel
that she would not be standing for re-election in May and that
today’s meeting was her last as Chair of the Panel. The
Chairman thanked old and new Panel Support Officers, Officers from
the OPCC, the Chief Executive of the OPCC and Panel Members for all
their support and dedication over the years.
The Vice-Chairman commended
Councillor Dorothy Ross-Tomlin for her excellent chairmanship
throughout the years and wished her well for the future.