Cllr Paul Kennedy nominated Cllr
Barry Cheyne for Vice-Chairman. The Chairman seconded this
nomination. No other nominations were received. Cllr Barry Cheyne
was elected as Vice-Chairman by general assent.
Cllr Paul Kennedy raised a
typographical error. The Scrutiny Officer agreed to make the
alteration.
The draft minutes were then AGREED as a
true and accurate record.
53/24
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 Chairman read out the public
question received in advance of the meeting from Dr Rishi
Shah.
On behalf of Dr Rishi Shah, Cllr
Richard Wilsonasked what Surrey Police was doing or could do to
deter retail crime committed by children/teenagers. The Police and
Crime Commissioner (PCC) explained a lot of work was being
undertaken and that she would be happy to write to the Panel with
an answer. She felt it was not appropriate to speak on behalf of
the Force regarding operational issues.
The PCC added that the issue is not
something that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
(OPCC) or the Force ignore, and that there were around 3,500 extra
charges/arrests made in the past 12 months, 837 of which were for
shoplifting. Surrey Police was doing better on this issue despite
the national increase in shoplifting, she added.
Actions/requests for
further information:
The Commissioner to write back to the Panel on
policies referenced in the public question, i.e. shoplifting,
especially when committed by children.
Purpose of the
report:The Head of Policy and
Commissioning will provide a presentation to the Panel at its
meeting, setting out the OPCC’s commissioning activities in
more detail. However, to provide greater context, this paper sets
out the main funding streams used by the team to support local
services.
Lisa Herrington, Head of Policy and
Commissioning (OPCC)
Michelle, CEO of East Surrey Domestic Abuse
Services and attending to represent Surrey Domestic Abuse
Services
Rachel Roberts, Head of Victim and Witness
Care Unit
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner
for Surrey (PCC)
Key points raised
during the discussion:
The Head of Policy and Commissioning
provided a presentation on the OPCC’s commissioning work,
which entails commissioning a range of projects, services and
activities covering community safety, reducing reoffending and
supporting victims of crime, all of which link to creating a safer
Surrey. The PCC took responsibility for commissioning victim
services in 2014. In 2022, the Ministry of Justice opened an
opportunity to submit bids for a significant funding uplift for
services related to domestic abuse and sexual violence, which
allowed Surrey to increase services provided. This funding will
cease in March 2025, creating uncertainty around future
arrangements for services. 72% of the commissioning budget comes from
central government, but an additional £1,458,000 comes
from local discretionary funding to create a Community Safety Fund,
Children and Young People Fund, Reducing Re-Offending Fund and the
PCC Fund. It was also noted that the introduction of the Serious
Violence Duty created a budget for commissioning interventions, and
that a Duty to Collaborate was expected in the Victims and
Prisoners Act 2024 for the commissioning of services related to
domestic abuse, criminal conduct of a sexual nature and serious
violence.
The Chairman requested that the
presentation slides be circulated after the meeting.
The Head of the Victim and Witness
Care Unit provided a presentation on the work of the unit, which
provides a traditional witness care service and a generalist victim
support service. 45% of the unit’s funding comes from the
OPCC and 55% from Surrey Police, with additional funding also
received from the OPCC to support specialist posts such as that of
a Fraud Caseworker, Children and Young Persons Caseworker and
Non-intimate Stalking Caseworker. In terms of witness care, Victim
and Witness Care Officers act as Single Point of Contact and
provide information and needs assessments, assist with practical
arrangements and emotional support as well as escalation to senior
managers in HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Crown
Prosecution Service if there are issues with a case. In terms of
victim support, the Victim and Witness Care Officers and
Caseworkers provide a core generalist support service to all
victims, which includes provision of an initial needs assessment,
one instance of contact support and an ongoing tailored support
plan if required. They added that Specialist Caseworkers were also
available and trained in fraud, non-intimate stalking and issues
affecting children and young people.
The Head of the Victim and Witness
Care Unit explained that the unit contacted around 4000 to 5000
people each month to offer support, that approximately 30% of
victims contacted were identified for an enhanced service, and that
50% of these were victims of domestic abuse. From April to October
2024 there were 820 referrals for ongoing support, 352
...
view the full minutes text for item 55/24
Purpose of the report:This report sets out the financial performance of the Surrey
Police Group (i.e., OPCC and Chief Constable combined) as at the
30th of September 2024 with a forecast to the 31st
of March 2025.
The Chief Finance Officer outlined
that the report set out Surrey Police Group’s finances as of
30th September 2024 and clarified typographical errors
in paragraph one of the report (in the ‘2024/25 Forecast
Outturn’ column which should state £0.8milion (m), not
£1.3m) and the first sentence of paragraph 2 (which should
refer to £0.2m rather than £0.8m).
A member raised that increases in
areas such as Wages and Salaries, Premises and Capital Financing
and Reserve was offset this year, largely by increased Grants and
Income, the forecast for which rose by £3.3m. The member
asked if this was likely to be repeated in future years, and what
it would mean for the Surrey Police Group’s finances if not.
The Chief Finance Officer noted it was difficult to predict future
funding, that the Surrey Police Group had some of the 2.5% pay
increase funded by the government. The overspend in Wages and
Salaries was mainly due to overtime, they added, and a group was in
place to help manage the cost of this, while additional staff were
placed in areas such as the Contact Centre. They also noted that
disorder earlier in the year had generated a mutual aid income,
and, if there was no additional income, Surrey Police Group would
need to find more savings or use reserves.
The Vice-Chairman outlined that last
year’s report projected a positive £5.5m variance in
Wages and Salaries, and a positive Grants and Income variance of
£6.6m, double what it was for mid-year 2024/25. The
Vice-Chairman asked what the reasons were for these changes. The
Chief Finance Officer clarified that last year’s report was
for the whole year, up to 31 March 2022. The variance in Wages and
Salaries was due to the timing of uplift, where it was possible to
receive all funding upfront, but recruitment was phased over the
year. This meant there could be an underspend against the grant.
This was not possible in the current year as uplift was no longer
linked to recruitment, they clarified, noting that, if Surrey
Police Group did better on income, it was expected to go towards
the capital programme.
The Vice-Chairman asked if the Chief
Finance Officer was expecting that the year-end results were going
to reflect a better picture than current projections. The Chief
Finance Officer hoped it would but could not give an exact
prediction.
A member asked how the overspend in
the Premises budget would be impacted by planned works to the Mount
Browne Headquarters (HQ). The Chief Finance Officer explained that
it should not affect Mount Browne and clarified the overspend
related to the cost in moving the Force to Wray Park. Mount
Browne’s costs are factored into the Medium-Term Financial
Strategy, they clarified.
Regarding paragraph 6 of the report,
a member asked why only £0.3m of the £21m estates
budget was spent so far, and if this affected the Estates budget
forecast for the end ...
view the full minutes text for item 56/24
Purpose of the
report:This paper provides an
update for the panel on the projects being undertaken to support
the delivery of the Surrey Estates Strategy.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner
for Surrey (PCC)
Key points raised
during the discussion:
The Chief Finance Officer outlined
that the report was an update on the Estates strategy, mainly
around the Mount Browne redevelopment, along with other
elements.
A member asked if the same course
would still be chosen if the 2021 decision to retain and redevelop
Mount Browne was taken again today. The PCC felt that the same
decision would be taken.
The Vice-Chairman referred to
paragraph 3 of the report which stated that Public Works Loan Board
(PWLB) loans to redevelop the Mount Browne would be paid back from
money saved through reduced running costs. The Vice-Chairman asked
if the PCC could provide an assurance that this would occur, and
that monies would not be redeployed to other services. The
Vice-Chairman also asked how greatly those repayments would add to
the pressures across the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The
Chief Finance Officer explained that the business model for Mount
Browne relied on the savings from the running costs financing the
loan, there is an obligation under the prudential indicators to
cover the interest repayments, and that the savings would be used
to repay the loan. It should not affect the MTFP in terms of
pressures on the Force’s operational budget given that
savings generated from Mount Browne’s redevelopment would be
used to repay the loans.
A member asked what controls and
contract management practices would be in place to ensure risks of
overspends and overruns were protected against in the construction
project. The Chief Finance Officer explained that there were a lot
of negotiations with the developer on the development contract to
ensure the Force was protected as much as possible, and that the
developer was required to submit a bid before entering each stage
of the contract through an open book process, which the Force could
then challenge. They assured the panel that cost consultants and
quantity surveyors were appointed to assess the spend, and that, if
it was found that the cost for a particular stage was more than
anticipated, the specification would be reviewed to bring it back
into budget. Contingencies for inflation and interest rate rises
were also in place, they said.
A member asked if there would be a
risk register for the Mount Browne project. The PCC explained that
a risk register was already maintained by the Estates Team and was
discussed at every Estates Board meeting.
The member asked how much money was
likely to be raised by selling Reigate Police Station, and if it
was not attained, what impact this would have on the Eastern
Division Accommodation Strategy, and how this eventuality had been
planned for. The Chief Finance Officer explained that final bids on
Reigate Police Station were awaited. If bids did not meet
expectations, then there would have to be additional borrowing or a
slightly less ambitious Eastern Division HQ.
Purpose of the item: To note the Commissioner’s response to
the Panel’s letter detailing its recommendations on the
content of her annual report, which was tabled at the Panel’s
20 June 2024 meeting.
Purpose of the report: This report
provides information on the key decisions taken by the PCC from
September 2024 to present and sets out details of the
Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2024.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner
for Surrey (PCC)
Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime
Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC)
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
To note for the
minutes, Commissioner’s questions and responses can be found
in the supplementary agenda.
Key points raised
during the discussion:
Written responses to questions were
provided to members by the OPCC. Regarding Commissioner’s
question 1 from Cllr Mike Smith, the PCC added that there was a
significant focus on improving Grade 1 and Grade 2 incident
responses in Surrey Police, adding that there had been an extensive
data-led review, the results of which would be implemented on
9th December 2024. There was also internal analysis and
comparison with other Forces, they said. For Grade 1, the time
limit was increasing from 15 to 20 minutes, aligning with Sussex
Police and reducing confusion for collaborative teams including the
Roads Policing Unit - the performance target has also been raised
to 80%. Regarding Grade 2, the PCC clarified that analysis showed
that the criteria used for both Grade 2 and Grade 3 were being
handled as Grade 2 incidents by Surrey Police, inflating the pool
of Grade 2 incidents. Therefore, Grade 2 had been separated from a
new Grade 3 classification, which is now set at a 24-hour response
time, matching Sussex Police. The Grade 2 response time is set at 1
to 24 hours with a target of 80%. The PCC also noted that Grade 3
incidents include the use of Scheduled Appointment Vehicles since
implementation on 14 October 2024, a measure that has received
positive feedback from divisions, and referred to the new embedded
Chief Inspector Silver role in the Command Room, due to start
imminently. Surrey Police has also been making good use of the
‘Suspicious Activity Portal’, which allowed the public
to upload CCTV footage to aid in police investigations, they
said.
Cllr James Baker returned to the room at
12.25pm
In follow-up to Commissioner’s
question 2, Cllr Richard Wilson asked if there had been a change in
policy, noting that the PCC had previously stated she was not in
favour of the facility for DISC to report directly into Surrey
Police’s Niche system, and that people should instead dial
999 or 101. The PCC answered there was not a change in policy and
that she did have concerns around this topic. She noted that
multiple reporting systems could create more risk. In reference to
the Cllr Wilson’s question to whether its availability could
be brought forward, the PCC stated this was not possible because
the Force and partners had to ensure it was done correctly and were
reducing the risk as much as possible.
Cllr Richard Wilson asked for
clarification that the concern was not around a large increase in
reporting of shoplifting which could reflect negatively on the
figures. The PCC confirmed this was not the concern. The concerns
were around victims not getting the response needed due to multiple
channels of reporting and confusion this could ...
view the full minutes text for item 60/24
Purpose of the
report:The Surrey Police and
Crime Panel has accepted a grant from the Home Office to meet the
costs of the Panel, including the administrative
support. This purpose of this paper is to
report on the use of the grant in 2024 (April 2024 - September
2024), as noted in the Panel’s mid-year claim submission to
the Home Office submitted by the 6 September 2024
deadline.
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.
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and
Governance (OPCC)
Jake Chambers, Scrutiny Officer
Key points raised
during the discussion:
A member raised that the Panel was
expecting to receive an update on establishment numbers and a
breakdown by division and role and asked if this was still
expected. The Head of Performance and Governance stated that it
would be included in future workforce planning documents that were
received by the Panel every two meetings. The Scrutiny Officer
confirmed.
64/24
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next public meeting of the Police and
Crime Panel will be held on 3 February 2025.
PDF 220 KB