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 the report:A key responsibility of a
Police & Crime Commissioner is to set out a Police and Crime
Plan to cover their current tenure and until the end of the
financial year after the next election. The Plan should be set as
soon as is practicable after an election, at the latest before the
end of the financial year after election, that is March
2025.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
(DPCC)
Alison Bolton,
Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)
Damian Markland,
Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Kelvin Menon,
Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman provided the background of the report. The PCC gave a
brief introduction, noting that consultation was
ongoing.
A
member noted that the report referred to “…a period
of refinement and maintenance” that reframed some issues
of the previous plan while maintaining the same foundations. The
member asked if there were other areas being descoped or removed
from the Plan to allow this change. The PCC explained that some
areas, since the last Police and Crime Plan (Plan), had become
‘business as usual’ for the Force, and therefore did
not need as much focus. The first Plan was reviewed in Summer 2024
to review any possible areas for change.
The
member asked how impartiality and fairness would be ensured through
the consultation process. For example, if political proportionality
was guaranteed when consulting with political representatives and
if there was a risk that the consultation could constitute an
‘echo chamber’ of similar views. The PCC explained that
she viewed the consultation as apolitical. Everyone in Surrey had
an opportunity to contribute. The public survey and wider
engagement events would ensure everyone in Surrey had the
opportunity to contribute, should they wish.
A
member asked how the focus of the Plan was expected to change due
to the methodology, and if the PCC could commit to altering the
plan significantly to reflect stakeholder feedback. The PCC
explained that her Office (OPCC) awaited the results of the wider
consultation. The public consultation would follow. She did not
possess set expectations on the feedback. The Head of Performance
and Governance explained that the methodology was a structural
mechanism to collect and interpret data, to ensure the building of
the Plan was based on a firm foundation. When the Panel would be
given the final draft Plan, a breakdown of how the methodology
operated and translated into the Plan would also be
provided.
A
member noted the report’s reference that
“…preliminary findings will be shared with focus
group participants for feedback and confirmation” and
queried if this group of participants would be a sub-set of those
consulted in earlier rounds of consultation.The Head of Performance
and Governance explained that after each focus group, the OPCC
returned to participants with a transcript of the discussion for
checking. An electronic form was also sent to participants, so they
could clarify their statements and the OPCC’s interpretations
of them.
A
member asked how the views offered in the more
‘informal’ Community Engagement events in September to
December 2024 would be incorporated into the new Plan if the same
statistical methods were not applied. The PCC noted that the first
‘informal’ Community Engagement meeting took place in
Guildford on 23 September 2024. Consideration was given to
recording and producing a transcript of these ...
view the full minutes text for item 37/24
Purpose of the report: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 the financial 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 formatted version produced and
published.
The attached Annual Report
covers the period April 2023 to March 2024 and is submitted to the
Police and Crime Panel for comment.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
(DPCC)
Alison Bolton,
Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)
Damian Markland,
Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Kelvin Menon,
Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman provided a brief outline of the purpose of the report. The
Commissioner moved to take questions.
In
reference to the Domestic Abuse Hub, which secured £2 million
in funding from the Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Intervention Fund, a
member noted that the standards published alongside the fund
required intervention programmes to take place within a wider
community response, be delivered by well-supported specialist
staff, and benefit from monitoring and evaluation. The member asked
how these interventions at the Surrey hub met these
requirements.The PCC outlined the requirements were factored into
the service specification and procurement process. Requirements
were also embedded into the contractual obligations as part of
receiving the funding. The commissioning team had lots of
experience working with organisations to ensure contractual
obligations were met and issues were tackled early. There were good
relationships with funding partners which made a big
difference.
The
Head of Performance and Governance added that when the OPCC
received devolved funding, as part of the standing allocation or
through a competitive process, the Home Office and/or the Ministry
of Justice paid a lot of attention to what was done with the
funding. The commissioning team were required to provide regular,
formal updates on how money was being spent. This, in addition to
the procurement process and tendering exercises, was all factored
into the final contract.
The
member requested that in the Police and Crime Commissioner Annual
Reports, a summary of what was achieved in-year with the Domestic
Abuse Hub could be provided. The PCC confirmed this could be
provided.
Cllr Mike Smith
left the meeting at 11.07am.
A
member, in reference to the report’s statement that
“…we have made millions of pounds available to support
victims of crime”, asked if the level of funding for these
services had increased, decreased or remained the same in the last
three years. The PCC explained that all the funding data was
available in the annual financial statements on the OPCC’s
website. The absolute level of funding available to the OPCC each
year varied. In addition to funds received from the government,
which was not yet known for future years, the OPCC and
commissioning team bid for additional funds for areas such as Safer
Streets and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). The annual difference does
not necessarily reflect a trajectory of the OPCC’s commitment
or lack of commitment, as the funding was often outside their
control, she added. It was not always easy to separate victim
services from community safety or reducing reoffending, as support
offered by any one service, such as the Domestic Abuse Hub, was
often there to support a range of people such as both perpetrators
and victims. For 2022/23, the OPCC funded local services to
£5.4 million (m) and for ...
view the full minutes text for item 38/24
Purpose of the report:This paper provides an update
to the Surrey Police and Crime Panel as to the Casues for Concern,
Areas for Inprovement and Recommendations identified for Surrey
Police in the PEEL Report.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
(DPCC)
Alison Bolton,
Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)
Damian Markland,
Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Kelvin Menon,
Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman outlined the purpose of the report. The PCC provided a
brief introduction to the report and highlighted the work done on
the ability to answer emergency calls quickly enough, noting that
the Chief Constable informs her that Surrey Police was the fastest
improving Force in the country on this measure.
A
member asked if there was a link between the latest PEEL inspection
report finding that the Force required improvement on data
recording, and the Information Commissioner ordering Surrey Police
to address backlogs in its responses to information requests. The
PCC did not believe there was, as it was done separately in
different teams, but suggested members could ask the Chief
Constable at the Panel’s meeting with him in
October.
Regarding the report’s reference to a new shift pattern
being introduced in the call handling centre from September 2024, a
member asked how the introduction of this measure featured into the
plan for call response times, given the advances that had already
been attained. The PCC noted she was pleased with performance
improvements in 101 and 999 calls, and it was important to maintain
this, and that revised shift patterns were being explored to ensure
performance could be maintained. There were lots of measures being
reviewed across the Force to ensure that where there were areas of
improvement, it was improved, and where areas were improved, it
would be maintained, she added, stating that she felt the workforce
was integral to this.
In
reference to page 63 of the report, a member noted that the
compliance against published response times for Grade 1 and Grade
2, despite an improvement from 2023, remained below the March 2022
level. The member asked how confident the PCC was that improvement
in this area could be achieved. The PCC explained that the Force
was making good progress, but were not there yet, which was
important to recognise, and that the Chief Constable has
highlighted it as an area he wants to improve. She stated that it
was important to be transparent about the data, and that the Force
was looking at the grading system as whole to allow for a more
refined target. The Commissioner clarified that the grading system
produced some unintended consequences, such as how the broad
parameters for a Grade 2 response could make it seem that the Force
had not attended something in time, when it may be that officers
had spoken to a member of the public and agreed another time to
arrive that suited the resident, meaning that it would appear that
the Force had missed its Grade 2 target. The PCC encouraged the
Panel to ask the Chief Constable about this at its next with
him.
Purpose of the report:This report is intended to
providean update on recruitment,
retention, misconduct, vetting and wider organisational challenges
facing Surrey Police.
In
reference to Surrey Police now employing more officers than ever
before, due to exceeding the government officer recruitment uplift
target, a member asked what impact this had on Surrey Police
Group’s finance, given the £18m of savings required
over the next four years.The PCC explained that the previous
government offered two incentives to Forces to recruit above
uplift. The Force took advantage of both offers in 2023/24 and
2024/25. 10 people applied in the first year, and a further 12
people in 2024/25 - for each officer recruited above the uplift in
2024/25, the government provided a grant of £48,000, and it
was assumed that the additional officers would continue to be
funded separately, not under the wider Force budget. She noted
that, if this ceased to be the case, officer numbers may need to be
reduced through natural wastage and until it returned to the uplift
figure, clarifying that all Forces lobbied the previous government
to recognise the cost of funding. Uplift officers increased
overtime, as officers moved up the pay scale, which was a
challenge, she added. This had so far not been recognised in
funding allocations and was a growing pressure. The OPCC was
waiting to see if this would be reflected in the spending review
later in 2024, but the PCC was not hopeful. The Chief Finance
Officer added that he was on the National Police Chief’s
Council (NPCC) Finance Committee which had put in their submission
that the rising cost of the uplift needed to be recognised and
adequately funded. However, public finances were
tight.
The
member asked if there was any indication on this from the new
government. The PCC reiterated that the spending review was
awaited, along with more detail from the government. Police Chief
Constables had been told to not expect more
money.
The
Chairman asked if Surrey was still lobbying for different funding
formulas so that Surrey received a fair amount. The PCC confirmed
this was the case and stated that any change in the funding formula
would not necessarily benefit Surrey, despite this being the
assumption due to Surrey’s position.
A
member asked for clarity on how the PCC expected government plans
for 13,000 new neighbourhood police, PCSOs and special constables
across the UK would affect the Force and be implemented. The PCC
explained that the OPCC and the Force were still waiting for
clarity on this. It was a manifesto commitment, so the OPCC was
expecting it, and early discussions with Home Office indicated it
would be a mixture of officers, the PCC added. Chief Constables had
been told to not expect any extra funding, which would be a
potential challenge, and it was believed ...
view the full minutes text for item 40/24
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.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Kelvin Menon,
Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman outlined the purpose of the report. The Chief Finance
Officer gave a brief introduction, outlining the report was the
latest updated financial forecast for the period from 2025/26 to
2028/29. It set out the level of savings based on assumptions in
the forecast, which may need to be found in the
period.
A
member raised that the report stated that “[…]
cumulative savings of £23.4m will be required for the 4 years
from 2025/26 to 2028/29”, while the Annual Report stated
that “[…] the MTFF indicates that savings of over
£18m are required over the next four years”. The
member asked what the reason for this discrepancy was or if it was
an updated figure. The Chief Finance Officer explained they were
updated assumptions. In particular, the pay assumptions in the
intervening period were updated, which was why the gap
increased.
The
member noted that the report assumed for 2025/26 that the
referendum limit would be returned to 2%. The member asked if this
assumption was the same for the next three years. The Chief Finance
Officer confirmed this was the assumption in the forecast, but
hopefully in the October Budget the Government will announce what
the referendum limit will be.
A
member referred to paragraph 11 of the report which noted that
Surrey could receive the lowest share of a £175m Home Office
grant for funding Police Force pay awards, depending on the
calculation methodology used. The member asked what contingencies
were being explored for if this occurred, and what impact meetings
with the Home Office had had on this area. The Chief Finance
Officer explained the Force had received pay grants in previous
years which unfortunately were all allocated on the funding formula
basis despite the PCC lobbying the previous government to change
the methodology. The same formula allocation was done this year
despite the Home Office informing him that various methodologies
were considered. This meant Surrey Police had the lowest share
nationally of the £175m amounting to £2.1 million to
cover the pay increase for officers and staff for 2024/25. One of
the reasons provided was that the Home Office did not want Forces
to lose faith in the current formula methodology overall. The
£2.1m grant awarded should cover the increase in officer pay
this year but for later years need to wait to see what next
year’s increase would be.
The
member asked what the gap between the £2.1m and the total
cost of the Force’s pay award was. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that for police officers, the grant just covers the
additional cost over the 2.5% allowed for in the budget. However,
there was no additional money to cover the staff increase and the
government had been clear that the grant was intended to cover the
staff and officer increase. The shortfall on this was around
£2.4m.
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 2024. It
compares the Group financial results with the budgets approved by
the PCC in February 2023 for the financial year 2023/24.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Kelvin Menon,
Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman outlined the purpose of the report. The Chief Finance
Office provided a brief introduction, noting that the audit was
currently being conducted and was on track to be completed by the
statutory deadline in February.
A
member asked how the underspends in ‘Supplies and
Services’ and ‘Grants and Income’ (of £1.8m
and £5.8m, respectively) were achieved in 2023/24, and if it
was anticipated that these would be repeated for 2024/25. The Chief
Finance Officer explained that the £1.8 m was an effort to
drive savings earlier in the period for use in 2024/25. This meant
several centrally held budgets for things like estates were not all
used. The £5.8m was made up by things such as additional
income for the use of custody cells, due to prison overcrowding.
Grants were also awarded in-year for Safer Streets. Although there
was an underspend in ‘Supplies and Services’, there
would be an overspend elsewhere in the budget, they added, noting
that Surrey Police Group had income from mutual aid and
counterterrorism, and received a £1.6m refund of business
rates which would go towards the Group’s estates programme.
He noted that some of these would be repeated in 2024/25, such as
additional income for custody cells and mutual aid due to civil
disturbance.
A
member referred to the £0.2m that was underspent by Surrey
Police Group and the substantial increase in total reserves which
had increased from £30.8m in 2023 to £37.2m in 2024.
The member queried if there was a significant revenue surplus, but
it had been put into reserves. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed
there was a revenue surplus and part of this increase was the
£1.6m rates refund. During the year, Surrey Police Group had
sold several assets, and this money was put into reserves. He
stated that some programmes had slipped in the capital programme,
and this money also went into reserves, and that more information
could be retrieved from the Force to provide more detail to the
Panel.
Regarding the additional funding that was secured from the Home
Office for recruiting above the uplift target, a member asked if
this was financially prudent, given this increase did not cover the
future salaries of officers as they were promoted up the pay scale.
The Chief Finance Officer explained that the government offered the
incentive to recruit above uplift, but Surrey Police Group was not
monitored on this target as part of the base uplift figure.
Therefore, if the funding was not renewed, Surrey Police Group was
no longer obliged to keep to those additional officer numbers and
so the overall total could fall back to the uplift total through
natural wastage. This meant that Surrey Police Group could recruit
ahead of time and get paid an incentive to do so. It was felt this
was the right thing to do at the time, but it would need reviewing
...
view the full minutes text for item 42/24
Purpose of the report: 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 (PCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The
Chairman outlined the purpose of the report.
A
member asked why no Performance and Accountability meetings had
taken place since late 2023 when they were supposed to occur every
six weeks. The PCC confirmed that regular scrutiny meetings were
taking place, and formal meetings took place in January, March and
July 2024. The next meeting was scheduled a couple of weeks after
this Panel meeting, clarifying that there had been a small gap
between meetings due to the PCC elections. Approach to the public
meetings, which were historically webcasted, was being reviewed to
balance holding the meetings and holding them publicly. She further
stated that with the public events up to Christmas, the PCC was
confident the public had ample opportunity to question the Chief
Constable and raise concerns. Dates set aside for the public
meetings were being used to continue the 6-weekly meetings with the
Force. Work went into ensuring scrutiny meetings were well attended
but it was recognized not everyone had time to watch the meetings.
Therefore, the PCC stressed the importance of transparency and
accessibility of the website and Data Hub.
The
member asked if the Chief Constable was making himself available
for the scrutiny meetings. The PCC confirmed this was the case, and
added she met with the Chief Constable at least once a week to
discuss issues.
Purpose of the report: This report provides information on the key
decisions taken by the PCC from February 2024 to present and sets
out details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for
2024.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
A
member asked if the PCC could provide an update on the award of
contract to a developer for Mount Browne Headquarters. The PCC
explained that the tender process was intense, and a contractor had
been selected. The contractor would be announced publicly as soon
as it was appropriate.
Lisa Townsend,
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Alison Bolton,
Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised during the
discussion:
On the question
received from Cllr Richard Wilson
The
PCC added that she was regularly updated on the early release of
some prisoners by Surrey’s Gold Commander. There was one of
the regular meetings of the Surrey Criminal Justice Board where the
issue was discussed amongst all of Surrey’s criminal justice
partners. Surrey was in a much better position than perhaps other
forces, partly because Surrey had a relatively low number of
prisoners released and had taken a proactive
approach.
A
member asked if Surrey Police had a greater workload or was
undermined due to failures in other public services such as the
courts and probation. The PCC did not believe this was the case,
stating that, particularly since Covid, ongoing court backlogs have
been experienced. Surrey Police had charged 3000 more offences than
in the same period the year before.
On questions
received from Cllr Paul Kennedy
On
question 2 - The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer explained
that the principal difference from five years ago to the point
which the PCC received the report was the steer the OPCC had from
the previous government that it wanted fire governance to be in the
hands of an elected individual. The report was received in early
2024. Then PCC elections took place, and there was since a change
in government. She stated that it is not clear what the new
government’s views are around fire governance. The
PCC’s direction was that the review was not a priority to
progress.
On
question 2 - A member asked if there was any significant change
found in this piece of work - the PCC replied that there was not.
The big change was the Home Office’s direction around fire
governance. It felt wrong to focus on this work without any further
direction form the government.
On
question 4 - A member raised that, from residents’ responses,
a challenge seemed to be around why local authorities had to pay
for this when CCTV was there to help the police, but simultaneously
the public wanted CCTV to be funded. The PCC raised that CCTV was
there to help all residents, regardless of who was providing it,
though was not always as helpful as what some people thought,
particularly given other tools available to the police. The PCC
referred to the written response provided.
Purpose of the report: 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
Chairman outlined that three complaints were received. Two were
considered by the Complaints sub-committee, while one had the
Complaints Protocol disapplied and was not
considered.
A
member asked if the Panel was allowed to know what the outcome of
the two complaints were. The PCC explained she had since written to
one of the complainants. The Scrutiny Officer agreed to check the
rules on disclosing the outcome of the
complaints.
The Panel
NOTED the report.
47/24
APPOINTMENT TO COMPLAINTS SUB-COMMITTEE
Share this item
Purpose of the report: To appoint a member to the Complaints
Sub-committee of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel in light of a
present vacancy.
The
Chairman outlined that a nomination was received for Cllr Richard
Wilson. No other nominations were received, and Chairman took this
as general assent.
The Panel
AGREED to the appointment of Cllr Richard Wilson to the
Complaints Sub-committee.
PDF 245 KB