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.
Purpose of this report:to provide an update on Surrey
Police’s delivery of the Government Police Officer uplift
programme and wider commentary on key workforce planning
issues.
Damian
Markland, Head of Performance and Governance, Office of the Police
and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised during the discussion:
The
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) explained that Surrey was on
target to meet its Officer uplift target and now had more police
officers than at any other time in its history. A panel member
asked whether BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group)
targets were met during the uplift recruitment programme. 40.2% of
officers recruited were female and 6.5% from a Black, Asian, Mixed
or Other background. The Commissioner said that she was broadly
content that the Force reflected local ethnic demographics although
an exact mirroring was preferable. Statistics provided by the
Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 14.5 % of
Surrey’s population was BAME. On female representation the
Commissioner reported being very pleased. Surrey was one of the
most equal Forces in the country in terms of male/female
representation.
A
member asked about the attrition rates for women and ethnic
minorities. The Commissioner assured the Panel that strong
governance arrangements were in place to monitor and oversee
attrition and workforce development. Officers from the Office of
the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) were fully represented on
relevant boards including on the equality and diversity inclusion
board. OPCC had were working on an equality framework for its staff
and were actively involved in the development of the Force’s
race action plan. The Chairman asked for a fuller answer to be
provided in writing. (Action i)
A
member asked about the financial penalties that would be incurred
if officer numbers slipped below the stated threshold (2,253). Was
the Commissioner worried that this threshold might be reached? The
Commissioner responded that this was not a concern. The Force
projection was for uplift milestones to be met for September and
March 2023/24. Options for an additional entry route in January
were being assessed in case further recruitment became necessary to
address attrition.
The
PCC was asked about attrition amongst probationers. The report showed probationer attrition rate
standing at 32%. This was a clear
issue. The Commissioner explained that it was a problem faced by
all Forces. Surrey was working hard to understand why officers
leave. The Commissioner highlighted governance arrangements in
place to monitor attrition including through the Capacity
Capability and Performance board, Strategic Resource Management
meetings and regular Joint Force Retention reviews. A number of
changes had been implemented to ease the pressure on student
officers including improved study guidance, changes to the timing
of knowledge assessments and a reduction in volume. The programme
structure had been redesigned with improved guidance and better
oversight of the protected learning days. It was important
supervisors were appropriately informed to support their student
staff. The OPCC continues to monitor progress in this area
closely.
A
member questioned detective capacity and the 30% attrition rate for
Police Now Detective Probationers. The Commissioner explained that the Force had
undertaken a review into the Police Now programme to
understand ...
view the full minutes text for item 56/21
Purpose of the report:each year, as part of the budget setting process, a
Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) is prepared to assist with
demonstrating whether the Force is financially sustainable in the
medium term.
Kelvin
Menon, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner
Key points raised during the discussion:
A member
noted that according to the Medium-Term Financial Forecast (MTFF)
paper £3M of the £6M savings required for 2024/25 had
been identified and asked where these savings would come from and
how they would affect the Force and its capabilities. The
Commissioner explained that of the £3m only £250000 had
so far been delivered. The rest would flow from a review of
contact, fleet and back-office services as well as a longer-term
review of Custody. The ambition was to ensure that savings and
efficiencies did not impact Force capabilities or the level of
service the public received. It may be necessary to use reserves to
cover the gap whilst these reviews were taking place. The
Commissioner highlighted the importance of the reviews and assured
the panel that these were discussed regularly with the Chief
Constable who was equally focused on delivering value for money
without detriment to the service to residents. On the possible use of reserves a member asked if
there would be a plan to rebuild the reserves if they had to be
used. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that the priority was to address the savings needed, and
that the reserves provided welcome contingency for this, but that
it was intended that reserves would be rebuilt when the finances
allowed.
A member
questioned what assumptions had been made about the level of
precept increase required for 2024/25 and over the remaining MTFF
period. The Commissioner responded that a decision on the precept
would be made at an appropriate time after consultation with the
public and the Force. For the medium-term forecast it been assumed
that the precept would increase by £10 for 24/25 and rise by
2% after that. Each additional pound
raised £0.5m for the Force. The CFO explained his view that
from a financial standpoint the level of precept should be
maximised in order to maintain services. Precept changes were cumulative meaning that an
increase not taken in a particular year could not be recovered in
future years resulting in a loss of income in every subsequent year
going forward. The PCC would have other considerations as well as
finance to weigh up in coming to her final precept decision. A
member endorsed the comments of the CFO and urged the Commissioner
to follow the advice of her Chief Finance officer to request the
maximum increase and not to be over cautious. His view was that
past precept increases for policing had not caused an outcry in the
County and that improved and continued policing services was the
priority for Surrey residents. The Commissioner highlighted the
importance of the precept consultation with the public in making
her decision. Another member reminded the panel that Surrey
residents already pay the highest level of police council tax in
England.
Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime
Commissioner
Key points raised during the
discussion:
A member asked a follow-up relating
toCommunity Sentence Treatment requirements
and thanked the OPCC for sharing the reducing reoffending plan.
Surrey has the highest reoffending rate of the three counties
covered in the plan. Two probation
delivery units inspected last year had been declared
‘inadequate’. The member noted the view of others that
the probation service should return to local control. What action
could the PCC take to work with partners including the Surrey
Health and Wellbeing Board to combat these issues and to mitigate
the risk of a crisis of reoffending on Surrey streets? The PCC
shared some of the concerns expressed about centralisation and
emphasised the existing close working with the Health and Wellbeing
Board. As a cohort PCCs have been clear they are willing to take on
further responsibility for probation. However, Surrey has one of
the smallest OPCCs in the country and the resource available to
work on probation was very limited. A change from central
government would be necessary in order for PCCs to be able to
provide further support in this area.
A member flagged the question that had been
submitted on Car Meets and asked for the work with Districts and
Boroughs to be explained. The Deputy PCC responded that work was
taking place locally via Joint Action Groups and suggested specific
local queries or concerns be raised in writing. A member requested
that local Councillors are kept informed by their Borough
Commanders on these issues and highlighted problems arising from
frequent turnover of Borough Commanders in certain areas. The PCC
assured the Panel that the importance of communication with
Councillors and MPs was emphasised in a recent training event for
Borough Commanders at Mount Browne.
On shoplifting, a member asked about the practice of
aggregating multiple shoplifting incidents where they were taking
place on the same day in the same place and whether this was an
appropriate way to record the crimes.
The PCC indicated that this was an operational matter for the Chief
Constable but that she expected a much harder line to be taken on
shoplifting in the future. The member
questioned whether national guidelines were set around the capture
and management of data on shoplifting crimes and queried whether
Borough Commanders considered shoplifting a priority. The PCC said
that the approach was changing in line with the new Chief
Constable’s priorities. When asked if the Police and Crime
Plan should be updated to reflect this new priority the
Commissioner responded that the Plan already covered the issue of
shoplifting and that there were no plans to review or update the
wording of it. A member asked whether the PCC wascontent with Surrey Police’s policy for
tackling shoplifting and fuel station drive-offs and the mechanisms
in place for reporting these crimes to the police, and asked for
assurance that an effective policy was in place to ensure these
crimes are investigated properly. The PCC ...
view the full minutes text for item 58/21
Purpose of the report: to
set out the unaudited financial performance of the
Surrey Police Group (i.e. OPCC and Chief Constable combined) as at
the year-end 31 March 2023. It compares the Group financial results
with the budgets approved by the PCC in February 2022 for the
financial year 2022/23.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Kelvin
Menon, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner (OPCC)
Key points raised during the
discussion:
A
member asked what lessons had been learnt from the revenue and
capital underspends detailed in the report for 2022/23 (£8.7M
& £6.6M respectively). How would these feed into budget
profiling for 2024/25? The CFO
explained that revenue underspend was due to phasing of uplift
recruitment and staff vacancies which had been higher than
anticipated. The vacancy margin for 2023/24 had been increased to
reduce the risk of underspend in the 23/24 budget. On capital, the
plan was to move to a two-year capital programme rather than
expecting all the capital to be spent in one year. The CFO was asked about overtime costs which had
increased on the previous year (£8.1M to
£8.9M). This was due to vacancies
which had increased overtime particularly in the contact centre.
Staff were now less willing to do overtime and the Force was
looking to reduce the overtime budget to £7.4million. An
overtime Working Group looked regularly at the issue including from
a staff wellbeing point of view. The
Chairman asked about the practice of banking overtime and taking
time off in lieu. The CFO agreed to come back to the Chairman on
whether this remained a practice. (Action iii)
A
member asked about the overspend in Digital Forensics, Professional
Standards Department and legal costs. What was the reason for the
rising demand in these areas and how much overspend was
attributable to outsourcing? On digital
forensics the CFO explained that most crimes now had an electronic
element which meant significant demand for digital forensics
services. Staff were trained to do this
within the Force, but costs were rising due to volume. On legal
costs, improved mechanisms for reporting concerns to the
professional standards department had increased the volume of
incidents to be investigated and associated legal costs for
disciplinary procedures. The CFO agreed to revert with further
detail on the question of outsourcing Digital Forensics work.
(Action iv)
A
Member noted that OPCC Operational costs represented around 0.5% of
net total group expenditure and asked how this compared to other
Force areas. The CFO explained that
comparative data was not readily available. Many Forces do not
separate OPCC figures out in their budget. The Chairman supported
the Commissioner’s transparency in providing these figures
when others chose not to. The
Commissioner explained that most PCCs aimed to keep the figure at
around 1% or below of total group expenditure on which basis 0.5%
for the Surrey OPCC seemed a reasonable amount. The use of reserves
to cover business as usual costs was raised.
Asked about the government’s uplift target for officers
and discrepancies between different figures provided the CFO
explained that the government’s officer target was for
headcount (2,253) whereas the Force budgeted on the basis of FTE.
This can cause discrepancies due to the numbers of part time staff.
As at 30 September the Force was ...
view the full minutes text for item 59/21
Purpose of the report: to
provide information on the key decisions taken by the PCC from June
2023 to present and sets out details of the Office’s ongoing
Forward Plan for 2023-24.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Key points raised during the
discussion:
A
member noted that the Commissioner’s review of Fire &
Rescue Service governance was not included in the forward plan and
asked for an update on progress. The Commissioner responded that
there was no update to give the Panel at this stage and no further
detail on timings. It was suggested that unallocated items should
also appear in the key decisions log as not yet having a
date. The Joint Audit Committee report
was raised and a member asked for an explanation of the limited
assurance review in relation to accounts receivable. The CFO
said these issues had been addressed and were to do with invoices
being raised more quickly and the speed of debt collection. The CFO
agreed to provide an interim Financial Update at the next Panel
meeting.
Purpose of the report: to
update the Panel on how funding secured by the PCC
through Home Office competed Funds is being used to commission new
projects and services for Surrey residents.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Damian Markland, Head of Performance &
Governance
The
Head of Performance and Governance introduced the item. The OPCC is responsible for a multimillion-pound
commissioning budget which is used to commission a wide range of
services a subset of which was highlighted in this
report.
Key points raised during the
discussion:
A
member asked about the Surrey Healthy Schools Project: How are participants chosen for the professional
development course and is attendance targeted at areas or
communities with a higher risk of VAWG (violence against women and
girls)? The Head of Performance &
Governance explained that any school in Surrey could apply to make
use of the scheme. There was targeted promotion in certain areas
but a universal approach was felt to be the best. The challenge
with VAWG was that it could affect any girl anywhere. It would be
unhelpful to promote the idea that there were some areas or
communities which were not at risk or conversely other areas where
the risk was higher. VAWG occurred across all demographics. A
Member asked about the Anti VAWG Public Campaign, where and how
would it be delivered and how would the impact be
measured? The Officer explained that
this was a county wide campaign. The detail was currently being
worked out. A more detailed update would be provided to the Panel
in due course.(Action
v)
A
Member asked about the Steps to Change Service aimed at
preventing offending. How would success be measured, and should we
be measuring impact rather than outcomes? The OPCC explained that
the formal service contract included a range of KPIs and
performance indicators against which performance would be measured.
The aim of the scheme was to create positive behavioural change.
There were various ways this could be measured for example through
pre and post engagement assessments, however the challenge of
demonstrating and monitoring behavioural change long term was
noted. Demand for the Service was expected to be manageable. Steps
could be taken to expand the service if uptake was high. The Head
of Performance and Governance offered to share detail on the
contractual KPIs for measuring success and impact of the scheme,
and to report back to the Panel at the end of the funding period
2025. (Action vi)
RESOLVED:The
Panel noted the report.
Actions/Further information requested:
i)OPCC to provide Panel with a more detailed update
regarding Cllr Cheyne’s question on the Anti VAWG Public
Campaign - Where and how will the campaign be delivered? Will it be
targeted or Surrey-wide? How will you get a result?
ii)OPCC to circulate detail on contractual KPIs for
measuring success/impact of Steps to Change. OPCC to report
back to the Panel on progress/success of the scheme at the end of
the funding period 2025.
Purpose of the report:the OPCC produces an annual report
setting out the work of the Independent Custody Visitor (ICV)
scheme, and this is being presented to the Police and Crime Panel
for information.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
A
member asked about the areas of concern identified in the joint
HMICFRS & HMIP Inspection report on Surrey’s Police
Custody Services published last year. The Commissioner responded
that both issues had been dealt with or were in progress. In
November 2021 a new training and compliance team had been
introduced. Compliance had since increased from 81 to 88% in July
2023. There had also been an increase in the compliance rate for
accurate recording of detainee check times from 22% to 100% in July
2023. The Force was taking the issue
seriously and the PCC expressed satisfaction that the causes of
concern were being addressed. The Vice Chairman noted that the
annual report made good reading and congratulated the
team.
[The Police and Crime Commissioner left
the meeting]
The
Commissioner was asked about the shortage of Criminal Justice
Liaison Diversion Service (CJLDS) staff in custody suites
highlighted in the Report. Had the
Commissioner done anything to raise concerns at a strategic level
with NHS England? The Deputy PCC
flagged that the Commissioner was the national PCC lead on mental
health and liaised regularly with the NHS on this and related
issues. Improvements had been made to ensure cover was in place for
the majority of shifts. There were two applicants currently
awaiting vetting which would further alleviate
pressures. The new Custody
Scrutiny Panel was discussed. OPCC was represented on the Panel
which provided oversight of challenges faced by Custody Suites. No
recurring or systemic issues were identified.
A
member paid tribute to the volunteers of the Independent Custody
Visitor Scheme who give up their time to carry out this important
role. There was a discussion around volunteer demographics. The
OPCC said it was proactive in trying to encourage increase
diversity in terms of ethnicity and age, but it was a struggle to
get younger people represented.
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.
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.
Alison
Bolton, Chief Executive Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner
Key points raised during the discussion:
The
Complaints Sub-Committee has been notified of 6 recorded complaints
made against the Commissioner since the last Panel meeting. In each
case the Sub-Committee endorsed the Chief Executive’s
decision to disapply the informal resolution procedure. A member asked which criteria were used in the
disapplication of the regulations regarding the 6 complaints which
had been received. The Chief Executive explained that the criteria
were set out in the complaints protocol. From memory the complaints
were disapplied on ‘repetitious’ grounds. The Chairman
confirmed that each case the Complaints Sub Committee agreed with
the criteria that had been applied by the Chief Executive for
dealing with the complaints in question.
RESOLVED:The Panel noted the
report.
Actions/Further information requested:
i)Chief Executive to share summary of the criteria
under which the 6 complaints were disapplied (and to confirm
whether all were ‘repetitious’).
1.The Panel’s next meeting will be held on 24
November 2023. The Chair reminded the Panel about the informal
session with the Chief Constable on 24 October.
PDF 471 KB