Agenda and minutes
PDF 61 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Damian Markland or Victoria Lower
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Richard Billington.
The Panel congratulated Independent Member Anne Hoblyn on the news that she had been awarded an MBE in the New Years Honours List.
The Panel were informed that Independent Member Maria Gray had tendered her resignation from the Panel, which had been accepted. The Panel thanked Maria Gray for her contribution. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2013 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
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: There were no public questions. |
|
|
CHIEF CONSTABLE UPDATE
To inform the Panel’s consideration of the proposed precept [Item 6] the Chief Constable will be in attendance to provide an update on reviews currently being undertaken by Surrey Police. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman welcomed the Chief Constable, Lynne Owens, to the meeting of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, and invited her to provide the Panel with an update on reviews currently being undertaken by Surrey Police.
· The Chief Constable informed the Panel that she had been in the role of Chief Constable of Surrey Police for two years and remained committed to improving policing within Surrey. Since taking up the post there had been a number of reviews completed due to budget pressures, the need to respond to risk, the changing pattern of crime, and to ensure Surrey Police were able to respond to future challenges. The Chief Constable conceded there had been recent challenges with historic cases which had required resources to be moved to investigate them appropriately.
· The Chief Constable stated she was fully committed to Neighbourhood Policing as she believed it had lead to an increase in confidence in policing and a decrease in anti-social behaviour. The intention was to replace 60 Community Support Officers with 60 Police Officers which responded to the public wish for more warranted Officers. The Panel were informed that the Police had done some engagement online with local communities, but that there had not been any specific engagement on the topic of Community Support Officers. The Chief Constable was keen to not put junior constables in neighbourhood roles due to the challenges of these roles and envisaged more experienced Officers would be placed within Neighbourhood Policing.
· Further reviews had looked at custody provision in the county, CID provision, IT and HR within Surrey Police, and the work done with other Police forces such as Sussex Police. In addition, Surrey Police were taking part in a work stream which looked at the 999 services in Surrey. At present there were currently 13 different call centres across the county at a cost of £45million, and there was a need to work together and to share resources and information.
· The Chief Constable explained there were two elements of Zero Tolerance – a change of attitude and investigating crime properly. She informed the Panel that there had been a round of briefings for all senior officers regarding improvements to behaviour and appearance of Officers.
· Panel Members questioned whether crime levels were dropping, as there was evidence to suggest that a number of crimes went unreported and raised concerns that there was a risk of complacency. The Chief Constable stated that her Officers used both the national crime survey and the police recorded crime figures. There was a Crime Registrar whose role it was to look at both sets of data and integrate the figures. It was important that crime was recorded as resourcing decisions were informed by these figures. Furthermore, she was clear that she expected all officers to work with integrity and had stopped the process of multiple cautions and had changed the way in which community resolutions were utilised as they had affected the crime figures.
· Members were concerned that fraud below £0.5million was ... view the full minutes text for item 5/14 |
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN UPDATE
To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed update to the Police and Crime Plan.
Note: In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), before issuing or varying a Police and Crime Plan, a Police and Crime Commissioner must:
(a) Prepare a draft of the plan or variation; (b) Consult the relevant chief constable in preparing the draft plan or variation; (c) Send the draft plan or variation to the relevant police and crime panel; (d) Have regard to any report or recommendations made by the panel in relation to the draft plan or variation; (e) Give the panel a response to any such report or recommendations; (f) Publish any such response. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman explained that the Commissioner had notified the Panel that he wished to update his Police and Crime Plan and, in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, the Panel had a duty to consider the proposed changes.
· Members expressed concern that the Assistant Commissioner for Victims had not attended a Panel meeting since June 2013 and requested that she attend the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.
· The Panel enquired whether the cost of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) was still less than the previous Police Authority, as the report provided to the Panel stated that ‘the budget was comparable’. The Commissioner confirmed that his aspiration had always been to not increase the budget to more than the Police Authority, though it was important to recognise that the Police Authority was largely a scrutiny body whereas his role was wider in remit with far more engagement work involved. He informed the Panel that he had become the national lead for Victim Support for PCC’s which required funding from his office until he received government funding for this role. He confirmed that the OPCC did everything possible to keep costs to a minimum. The PCC’s Chief Finance Officer reiterated that it was not possible to make a direct comparison due to the responsibilities being largely different, however he would provide the Panel with details of the costs of the Police Authority and OPCC.
· Members queried how much public resources were going into raising awareness of the chronic underfunding of Surrey Police and who the PCC was working with to address the issue. The Commissioner stated that he felt that cooperation was necessary, and to that end he had written to the Police Minister, the Home Office, the Treasury and all Surrey MPs to make them aware of his concerns. He had since been invited to take part in a review of the funding formula by the Police Minister. Furthermore, he had spoken to the Leader and Deputy Leader of Surrey County Council, and 70% of Surrey MPs, and had submitted a copy of the Commissioners commissioned Oxford Economics report to MPs and the Home Office.
· The Panel enquired when someone would be held account for the failings of the Project Siren IT project. The Panel was informed that the Commissioner was still awaiting the final independent audit report, which he would share with the Panel once he received it. Furthermore he confirmed he would continue to share the outcome of the audit into Project Siren with the Panel once available. The Commissioner notified the Panel that a new IT system had been implemented which worked with Sussex’s system.
· Members questioned whether the Commissioner still felt that having no numerical targets in his Police and Crime Plan was effective. The PCC stated that he wanted to see qualitative improvements within Surrey Police and that numerical targets were not the right approach to achieve this.
· Members raised concerns regarding allocation of Community Safety ... view the full minutes text for item 6/14 |
|
The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2014-15.
Note: In accordance with the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012:
(a) The Commissioner to notify the Panel of his proposed precept by 1 February 2013; (b) The Panel to review and make a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept (whether it vetoes the precept or not) by 8 February 2013; (c) If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner is to have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish his response, including the revised precept, by 15 February 2013; (d) The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying it of his revised precept, to review the revised precept and make a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2013 (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/her response by 1 March 2013. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel were informed that with the announcement of the precept ceiling the Commissioner’s precept proposal had been amended to be 1.99% rather than the 2% stated within the report. This amendment meant the precept would be £211.68 for a Band D property for the financial year 2014/15. This would result in a £9,433 loss in funding which would be made up by reserves.
· Members suggested that the manner in which the budget was formed did not lend itself to making savings.. The Panel felt that the Commissioner could have taken a zero-based budgeting approach to inform the amount of precept required, as opposed to a simple incremental increase The Commissioner stated that he anticipated cuts to the Police budget, with increases to National Insurance and pension contributions, and so felt he would need a 2% rise. Furthermore, a £1.2 million top slice had taken place which caused further problems, however the reserves would continue to be maintained. The Commissioner stated that he was keen to use the experience of the Panel to inform decisions for the next financial year.
· The Panel queried whether the financial schedules provided to the Panel were the ones used by the Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable to account. The Commissioner confirmed that he regularly discussed the budgets with the Chief Constable. The Chief Finance Officer informed the Panel that the appendices within the agenda were high level summaries of more detailed reports which the Commissioner discussed with the Chief Constable.
· Members were surprised that the majority of the budget appeared to be for ‘business as usual’ and that there did not appear to be any movement of funds to support the Commissioner’s People’s Priorities. The Commissioner stated that the majority of the budget was for ‘business as usual’ and that he saw the People’s Priorities as a change in ethos rather than changes in budgets.
· Members stated that, similar to the previous year, they were still not comfortable with the level of detail being provided, and that this made it difficult to scrutinise the precept proposals. In particular, Members stated that the lack of actuals for 2013/14 made it hard to determine whether proposed budgets for 2014/15 were appropriate.
· Members queried whether there had been a pension under spend in recent years and were informed that every three years the Local Government Pension Scheme was reviewed.
· The Panel queried details around the Collection Fund Surplus, which had been recommended within the report to be used to make up a short-fall in funding if the precept ceiling had been lower. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Collection Fund was a joint collection pot used by the precepting authorities in Surrey and went up and down during the year, with a final report being collated at the end of each year. He informed the Panel that he would provide them with details of the financial status of this fund.
· Members raised concerns that many residents did not want to see a rise in ... view the full minutes text for item 7/14 |
|
To consider the appointment of Johanna Burne as Temporary Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
The Panel will:
· Put questions to the Police and Crime Commissioner and his proposed appointee; and
· Following deliberation, make a recommendation to the Police and Crime Commissioner as to whether or not the nominee should be appointed.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Commissioner informed the Panel that his Chief Executive, Alison Bolton, was expecting a baby and so he was required to fill the post of Chief Executive within his office during her maternity leave.
· The Commissioner proposed that Johanna Burne fill the post of Chief Executive during this period due to her extensive experience within the Police and experience of covering the role during times illness and annual leave. Johanna Burne was the Senior Policy Officer within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in Surrey.
· The Panel were surprised by the salary the interim Chief Executive would receive, however were informed by the Commissioner that as she would be filling the role she would receive what was considered an adequate wage especially as she was changing elements of her private life to take on the role.
· Members enquired what would be happening to the role of Senior Policy Officer during this time and were informed that the Commissioner intended to back-fill the post through an open recruitment process.
· The Panel congratulated Alison Bolton on her news.
Resolved:
· That Johanna Burne be appointed interim Chief Executive within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. |
|
|
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
To note any complaints received against the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner since the last meeting of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman informed the Panel that one complaint had been received since the last meeting, details of which could be found in the agenda.
Resolved:
· That the report be noted. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
To review the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel reviewed the recommendations tracker and forward work programme. Members requested that the Panels suggestion of a closer working relationship between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Police and Crime Panel, with regards to the budget, be included within the recommendations tracker. It was requested that work with the Commissioner started in September 2014, at the latest.
Members requested a report on Community Safety Funding, specifically in relation to how the Commissioner would precent duplication of funding within Surrey.
Resolved:
· That the Panel requests a closer working relationship with the Commissioner on the building of the 2015/16 precept proposals.
· That the Panel requests a future report on Community Safety Funding within Surrey, specifically in relation to duplication of funding. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel will be held on the 29April 2014 at 10:30am. Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel would be on 29 April at 10.30 am. |