Agenda and minutes
PDF 59 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Damian Markland or Victoria Lower
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN
Members of Surrey’s Police and Crime Panel to elect a Chairman for the 2013/14 council year. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Dorothy Ross-Tomlin was proposed by four Members to be appointed the Chairman for the municipal year 2013/2014. The Panel unanimously voted, by a show of hands, to appoint Councillor Dorothy Ross-Tomlin as Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.
The Chairman thanked the Panel for their support and stated she was looking forward to working with them over the next municipal year.
RESOLVED: That
1. Councillor Dorothy Ross-Tomlin be appointed as Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for the 2013/2014 municipal year. |
|
|
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Members of Surrey’s Police and Crime Panel to elect a Vice-Chairman for the 2013/14 council year. Additional documents: Minutes: There were three nomination for the position of Vice-Chairman, Councillor Terry Dicks who was proposed by Councillor Victor Broad, Councillor Margaret Cooksey who was proposed by Councillor Charlotte Morley, and Councillor Ken Harwood who was proposed by Councillor George Crawford.
The Panel’s constitution allowed for three or more Members to request a secret ballot, which Councillor John O’Reilly proposed and three additional Members seconded.
The result of the ballot for the position of Vice-Chairman gave Councillor Terry Dicks seven votes, Councillor Margaret Cooksey two votes, and Councillor Ken Harwood four votes. Councillor Terry Dicks was duly elected Vice-Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for the 2013/2014 municipal year.
The Vice-Chairman thanked the Panel for their support.
RESOLVED: That
1. Councillor Terry Dicks be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for the 2013/2014 municipal year.
|
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: None were received. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2013 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained there had been a template error and the front page of the minutes of the previous meeting would be corrected to give Members their correct assignment.
RESOLVED: That
1. The minutes of the meeting that took place on 12 March 2013 be agreed as a correct record. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: None were received. |
|
To receive any public questions.
Note: 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. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained one public question had been received by the Panel before the deadline. The question and the Commissioner’s response were tabled at the meeting and are attached to these minutes as a record.
The Panel and Commissioner had no further information to add. |
|
|
INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF THE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL
Members to note recommendations made by the recruitment sub-group and co-opt an Independent Member to the Panel. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman outlined the recruitment process for a new Independent Member of the Police and Crime Panel following the resignation of a Member. A full report was submitted as part of the agenda pack which outlined the Recruitment Sub-Group’s proposal of co-opting Maria Gray as a member of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Panel unanimously agreed to formally co-opt Maria Gray as an Independent Member of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for the remainder of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s term of office. |
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER'S ANNUAL REPORT
To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s draft Annual Report. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel explained that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 required the Police and Crime Commissioner to share with the Panel his Annual Report for comment prior to its publication.
The Chairman stated that the purpose of this item was for Members of the Panel to question the Commissioner on the content of the Annual Report, to discuss areas of concern and to suggest ammendments to the Report before its publication.
The Commissioner provided the Panel with a short introduction to his Annual Report stating that the report covered the period of the previous Police Authority and his own time as Police and Crime Commissioner. Additionally, he confirmed there were a couple of figures he would like clarification on before its publication, including the numbers of those charged for dealing drugs and the number of burglaries committed in Surrey.
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his introduction and invited questions from Panel Members. During the following question and answer session, the following points were clarified:
· The Commissioner remained in favour of the qualitative approach outlined in his Police and Crime Plan. He stated that policing should be about quality and not driving to fulfil targets. However, the figures in the Annual Report gave a benchmark which he would request the Chief Constable to better in future years, including a reduction in offences and an increase in detection rates.
· Members raised concerns that some of the statements in the Annual Report meant that there was no way of judging whether the Commissioner’s policies had been successful as they were not quantifiable.
· The Panel queried the Commissioner’s wish to see more senior officers working away from the Police head quarters at Mount Browne. He confirmed he would like to see this although it was an operational matter and the Chief Constable would be the one who decided where her officers were positioned. He confirmed, however, that the Chief Constable had begun a review on the location of senior officers.
· Members raised concerns that they had seen fewer police officers on the street and queried whether this was part of cost saving plans. The Commissioner stated that visibility was an important aspect of his plan, and that to-date there had been no change to the establishment of neighbourhood policing and his aim to seize more criminal assets would assist in funding neighbourhood policing and Surrey Police as there would have to be cuts in the future.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that last year Surrey Police had seized £750,000 of criminal assets, and this year had initiated the process to seize nearly £3 million of confiscated assets. He had begun conversation with the Leaders and Chief Executives of Surrey’s Districts and Boroughs to raise awareness of the work being undertaken to seize criminal assets.
· The Panel queried whether the Commissioner felt his office would continue to cost less than the previous Police Authority. He confirmed that in the last tax year his office was ... view the full minutes text for item 22/13 |
|
|
APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONERS
To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s appointment of two Assistant Commissioners. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained that on 7 May two new Assistant Commissioners had taken up their posts in the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and that unlike the appointment of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, the Panel had no formal powers concerning the appointments. The Commissioner in the spirit of the Panel’s wider scrutiny role had provided details of the appointments and had invited comment from Panel Members.
The Commissioner provided the Panel with a short introduction of the roles of the Assistant Commissioners, as detailed in the agenda papers. The Chairman thanks the Commissioner for his overview and invited questions from Panel Members. During the following question and answer session, the following points were clarified:
· Members raised the concern that these new roles would reduce the publics’ accessibility to the Police and Crime Commissioner, which the Commissioner denied as he was regularly attending meetings and felt that he and his Deputy were unable to fully discharge the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner fully by themselves. He felt that the Assistant Commissioners increased the publics’ visibility of his office and gave residents more opportunities to make their views known.
· Panel Members requested the Commissioner inform them if he planned to hold an event in their area so they could attend and work in partnership with him and his office. The Commissioner apologised that this had not happened and confirmed in future Panel Members would be informed of future meetings and events in their Borough or District.
· Jane Anderson, Assistant Commissioner for Victims, stated that many of her meetings were not held in public, but that she had published her first months experience as a blog on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website. Members were concerned that many residents across Surrey were unable to access the website and felt that this information should be more widely available. The Assistant Commissioner for Victims agreed to circulate her blog updates to the Panel for their information.
· Shiraz Mirza, Assistant Commissioner for Equalities and Diversity, requested the Panel’s assistance in reaching out to the hard to reach communities in Surrey. He had already met the gypsy/traveller community to discuss how best to engage with them and his work would feed into the Polices wider work with minority groups in Surrey. The Commissioner agreed that currently there was not a problem with these minority groups specifically, but felt that it was important to form connections with these communities for the future.
· Panel Members requested that in future they could be informed before the appointments were made so they were able to give more meaningful feedback to the Commissioner. The Police and Crime Commissioner confirmed that he had no intention to create new positions within his office.
· Members of the Police and Crime Panel felt there should be measurable outcomes for these positions. The Commissioner stated that if the experience of the victim improved or the speed of answering 101 calls got quicker then these were measurable areas of success.
|
|
|
DEPUTY POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER'S OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW
To consider the performance of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained that when the Surrey Police and Crime Panel supported the appointment of Mr Harris as the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner during its meeting in December 2012, the Panel had requested that the Commissioner provide it with performance updates on the Deputy’s work.
The Commissioner provided the Panel with an overview of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner’s objectives and performance, as detailed in the agenda papers, and made the following key points:
· This report had given the Commissioner the opportunity to review the outcome of the post of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner and he proposed to raise the wage of the Deputy by £5,000 to £55,000 per annum.
· The Commissioner was pleased with the work his Deputy had completed on reviewing Project Siren and overseeing the Salfords Custody Suite development in addition to building partnerships across Surrey.
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his overview and invited questions from Panel Members. During the following question and answer session, the following points were clarified:
· Some Members were concerned by the proposed 10% pay increase given the current financial situation and felt it was insensitive. The Commissioner conceded that he had wrongly assessed the pay grade of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner at the start and that he felt the Deputy had done more than he was employed to do and wanted to rectify the situation.
· The Panel queried what piece of work the Commissioner was most satisfied with. He stated he was pleased with the work the Deputy Commissioner had done on a variety of projects including: distributing the grants to community groups; the work he had done with County Councillor Kay Hammond looking at Community Partnerships; covering evening meetings the Commissioner had been unable to attend; the reviews on Project Siren and the Salford Custody Suite; and the project review on the disposal of police stations.
· The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner stated he had found the work rewarding as he felt he was making a difference especially as he had been able to a save a seven figure sum on a single project. He was, however, frustrated with how disjointed the community groups across Surrey were but hoped to assist in creating a more cohesive group.
RESOLVED: That
1. The report be noted;
2. In the future an additional column be added to the performance monitoring table in the report, detailing specific outcomes and achievements. |
|
To consider the feedback from meetings between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman invited the Commissioner to give a brief introduction to the report on management meetings with the Chief Constable, as detailed in the agenda papers, and he made the following key points:
· That at the last meeting with the Chief Constable she reported on progress against the six People’s Priorities and he was content that her team was starting to take on and implement these key strategies.
· His meetings with the Chief Constable were webcast, and he was the only Commissioner in the Country who did this. He felt webcasting meetings enabled him to properly hold the Chief Constable to account.
· He felt that in his meeting with the chief officers of Surrey Police to be held later in the week he would begin to make progress with the implementation of the People’s Priorities, as it was a day for them to consider how they would be applied.
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his overview and enquired whether the Commissioner would be comfortable with the Panel inviting the Chief Constable to a meeting to give her feedback on their working relationship. The Commissioner confirmed that this would be acceptable.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Police and Crime Panel invite the Chief Constable to comment on her relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner.
|
|
|
FINANCE UPDATE: MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN FOR SURREY POLICE
To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Quarterly Budget update. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman invited the Commissioner to give an overview of the Medium Term Financial Plan for Surrey Police.
The Commissioner provided the Panel with an outline of the Medium Term Financial Plan, as detailed in the agenda pack, and made the following key points:
· The report established where Surrey Police thought it would be by 2019, giving both an optimistic and pessimistic outlook. The optimistic financial situation was based on a 5.6% rise of the precept. However there were indications that there would be a limit on the rate of increase of the precept from central government.
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his overview and invited questions from Panel Members. During the following question and answer session, the following points were clarified:
· The Commissioner confirmed that cuts would need to be made in future years as Surrey Police would need to find £4.4 million, and the figures given within the report gave only a little consideration to the rate of inflation so he stated the funding gap was likely to be larger. Additionally, there would be a review regarding pension contributions which could increase the funding gap.
· The Panel enquired whether research had been completed into whether Surrey residents would be prepared to pay a precept increase of 5.6%. The Commissioner confirmed that there was no research on this and that to raise the precept by this much would trigger a referendum as it would be above the current upper limit of 2%. He suggested that were he to hold a referendum it would be for more than 4% to cover the £1-2 million cost of a referenda, but this was not an avenue he wished to explore.
· The Commissioner stated that he was currently unsure how the funding gap would be met, but that savings would need to be found within the £170 million staffing budget. He raised the issue of retired police investigators being employed by Surrey Police and there was a necessity to build experience in the Force.
· Members raised concerns over the central government funding formula and the work the Commissioner was undertaking to influence a change which would benefit Surrey. The Commissioner stated that since coming into the office of Police and Crime Commissioner he had written to the Chancellor, Home Secretary and Surrey MPs regarding his misgivings in respect of the current funding formula. Furthermore, he had contacted the Oxford Economics group to create an informed document to assist in lobbying government which is costing £30,000. It was hoped this would help to change the funding formula to the benefit of Surrey.
· The Commissioner stated he felt savings in the Police budget would come from collaborative work with neighbouring forces which was something he continued to look into. He was adamant that he was looking to get best value for public money, and had authorised consultants to look into the police stations which were in the process of being sold.
RESOLVED: That
1. A letter be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner ... view the full minutes text for item 26/13 |
|
|
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
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. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained that the Panel has a statutory duty to resolve non-criminal complaints about the conduct of the Commissioner and his Deputy, and to remain aware of other complaints which fell outside this scope.
The Panel was informed that one complaint had been made against the Police and Crime Commissioner since the Panels last meeting, details of which were contained within the report. This complaint fell within the scope of the Police and Crime Panel and a Complaints Sub-Group had been formed to resolve the complaint.
RESOLVED: That
1. The complaint was noted. |
|
|
RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMPLAINTS SUB-COMMITTEE
To agree the membership and terms of reference for the Complaints Sub-Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel agreed that, in line with the Panel’s Complaints Protocol, the Complaints Sub-Committee was to be re-established to informally resolve noncriminal complaints about the conduct of the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, in addition to conduct matters which were referred back to the Panel from the IPCC.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Complaints Sub-Committee be re-established for the municipal year 2013/2014.
2. The Complaints Sub-Committee to have the following membership:
· Councillor Victor Broad · Councillor Margaret Cooksey · Councillor George Crawford · Councillor John O’Reilly · Independent Member Maria Gray · Independent Member Anne Hoblyn
· Chairman (ex-officio) · Vice-Chairman (ex-officio) |
|
|
RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FINANCE SUB-GROUP
To agree the membership and terms of reference for the Finance Sub-Group. Additional documents: Minutes: The Finance Sub-Group was proposed to be re-established to assist the Panel in consideration of budgetary and financial matters.
The Chairman suggested Independent Member Maria Gray should sit on the Finance Sub-Group, in addition to those stated in the report, due to her experience as a School Business Manager.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Finance Sub-Group be re-established for the municipal year 2013/2014.
2. The Finance Sub-Committee to have the following membership:
· Councillor Victor Broad · Councillor Bryan Cross · Councillor Penny Forbes-Forsyth · Councillor Charlotte Morley · Independent Member Maria Gray
· Chairman (ex-officio) · Vice-Chairman (ex-officio)
|
|
|
FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME AND RECOMMENDATION TRACKER
To review the Recommendation Tracker and the Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel was notified that this item would enable Members to see upcoming agenda items and those which had been recently considered. The Chairman explained that Panel Members had previously raised a number of topics for possible Task Groups including:
· Community Safety Partnerships - A review of how the changes in funding since the Police and Crime Commissioner had taken office had impacted on their operation.
· PCSOs - To consider the Impact of reductions in PCSO numbers on the nature of neighbourhood policing in Surrey
· A detailed review of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and priorities.
· A review of the progress on reducing levels of rural crime in Surrey.
The Panel additionally raised their wish to hold meetings with the Police and Crime Commissioner more frequently, to ensure they were scrutinising him appropriately.
RESOLVED: That
1. Officers look at the possibility of scheduling additional meetings of the Police and Crime Panel.
2. Officers work with the Panel to determine which Task Groups to progress initially. |
|
|
DATES OF MEETINGS
The Panel to note that meetings of the Police and Crime Panel will take place at 10.30am at County Hall, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, KT1 2DN on the following dates:
Tuesday 10 September 2013 Tuesday 29 October 2013 Thursday 6 February 2014 (provisional) Tuesday 29 April 2014 Tuesday 10 June 2014
Additional documents: Minutes: The following future meeting dates were noted by the Panel:
Tuesday 10 September 2013 Tuesday 29 October 2013 Thursday 6 February 2014 (provisional) Tuesday 29 April 2014 Tuesday 10 June 2014
Panel Member stated they would like additional meetings, if required, for which proper notice would be given.
|
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Recommendation: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 and in accordance with the Panel’s protocol, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Additional documents: Minutes: Members of the Panel agreed that members of the public be excluded from the meeting for the following piece of business as it was agreed it would likely to disclose exempt information, as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
The Chairman advised the Panel and Commissioner that the next item was to be discussed in Room G30.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Police and Crime Panel exclude members of the public to discuss the following agenda item. |
|
|
PROJECT SIREN UPDATE
Minutes: The Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner gave the Police and Crime Panel an update on Project Siren. |