Agenda and minutes
PDF 61 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Damian Markland or Victoria Lower Email: damian.markland@surreycc.gov.uk or Email: victoria.lower@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Borough Councillor Colin Davis.
Apologies were also received from the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, Jeff Harris, and the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner for Victims, Jane Anderson. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on (6 February 2014) as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting.
Members requested they receive further details on the relative cost of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to the previous Police Authority. |
|
|
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 received. |
|
|
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: None received. |
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN QUARTERLY UPDATE
The Police and Crime Panel for Surrey scrutinises the work of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Surrey, Kevin Hurley. The PCC published the Police and Crime Plan in March 2013 and issued some additional actions in March 2014. This report provides the third quarterly update for 2013/14, from September 2013 to December 2013, on how the PCC is progressing against the plan. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commissioner outlined some key points of success including; a reduction in crime by 8% within the last year, increase in arrests by 8% across the county, almost £1million of assets seized from criminals, an increase in public satisfaction by up to 3% and the enforcement project in Reigate & Banstead having been launched.
· The Panel discussed the Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report which had Sussex fairing less well than Surrey, and requested assurances that resources would not be diverted from Surrey to Sussex. The Commissioner conceded this was a concern but that collaboration was only for support functions and would not affect 999 response or neighbourhood policing. The Commissioner, however, did hope to see more cross-border work where it was appropriate.
· The Commissioner stated that he still personally believed that amalgamation was the way forward, however he was aware that it would not happen in the next few years. He also would not support an amalgamation which put Surrey at a disadvantage.
· Members queried what was being done with the assets being seized and were informed that the money was being held by courts as some had to be used for the prosecution, however the Commissioner was part of a lobby group which called for more money from seized assets to be available for frontline staffing.
· A Member raised concerns regarding the victim satisfaction survey as it was felt that a yes/no response did not allow for a full evaluation and it would be better to have a scale of one to ten. The Commissioner stated that he intended to review this survey and requested the assistance of Panel Members in this piece of work.
· The Panel raised the concern that there was still a high level of hidden crime in Surrey. The Commissioner stated that there had been a rise in reports of domestic violence and sexual assault but felt this was due to victims feeling in a position to report the crimes when previously they felt they could not. This suggested that there was hidden crime but that confidence in Surrey Police was rising. However, to-date there had been no reports of Female Genital Mutilation in Surrey which suggested that more work needed to be done as statistically there would be victims in Surrey.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that Local Road Accident Officers were covering two or three boroughs and districts which was not ideal but a symptom of austerity. The Police however, continued to work with partners such as Surrey County Council on the Drive Smart campaign, and continued to look at other initiatives.
· The Community Safety fund had decreased, however the Commissioner wished to encourage Community Safety Partnerships to bid for grants. These grants were evaluated on merit, however last year not enough bids were made by councils for the funding. The Chairman informed the Commissioner that the Panel would scrutinise the dispersal of the bids across Surrey at a future meeting.
· Members were concerned that detection rates had declined substantially and ... view the full minutes text for item 16/14 |
|
|
BUDGET QUARTERLY UPDATE
To consider the budget update of Surrey Police and the Office of the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner.
Surrey Police Financial Report Page 29 -36 Report on the budget for the OPCC Page 37 - 40
Additional documents: Minutes: The Commissioner informed the Panel that the budget for Surrey Police was on track for the financial year end with a potential underspend of around £180,000. The Chairman confirmed with the Commissioner that he was willing to work with Members of the Finance Sub-Group on the formation of the budget for 2015/16, ahead of the precept deadlines. Member of the Finance Sub-Group were invited to ask questions relating to the reports submitted.
· Members felt the summary report did not contain enough explanation to the figures within the annexes. There was also some concern that it appeared the reserves had risen by £1.5million during the financial year despite the norm being to evaluate reserves contributions at the end of the financial year. The Chief Finance Officer stated that the Commissioner had a policy to put aside 3% to reserves, and during the last year had been able to put more into reserves due to an underspend in budgets.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that Operation Franklin, the flood response operation, had cost in the region £600,000 which the Police were hoping to reclaim from the government. At the time they were developing their claim with all the figures related to the Operation.
· The figures provided to the Panel were for up to the end of January 2014 and had been updated in March 2014.
· Members queried the £1million savings from the Learning and Development budget due to the Commissioners commitment to development. The Commissioner stated that he would look at this budget saving.
· The Chief Finance Officer explained that the costs associated with the cancellation of Project Siren was capital, however the costs discussed within the report were revenue expenditure as they were for the maintenance costs related to the maintenance the system.
· Members queried why the budget for the Officer of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) had three budget headings for audit – internal, external and independent. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the external audit fee was a contractual fee which was agreed by the Audit Commission which they were required to pay. In addition, the external auditors had been contracted to audit Project Siren. The internal audit was a joint audit committee with the Chief Constable, while the independent audit fee was for the expenses of members on the independent audit committee. The Panel were informed that one member of the independent committee had previously sat on the Police Authority.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that it had been a year since he had cancelled Project Siren and that there was a draft report out to consultation. He hoped the final report with lessons learnt within the next two months, and he would circulate the report as soon as he was able.
· Members queried the £1.3 million underspend on specialist crime and were informed that due to the reconfiguration of the Force to a more regional focus some budgets and staff were still being recoded. It was hoped the recoding would be completed with variances being balanced ... view the full minutes text for item 17/14 |
|
|
REPORT ON COMMISSIONING VICTIMS' SERVICES IN SURREY
To consider the changes to victims’ services, the commissioning approach and programme and key milestones ahead. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman informed the Police and Crime Commissioner that the Panel had made the decision to defer this item until a meeting to which the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner for Victims would be able to attend. The Commissioner accepted this proposal, but stated that the Assistant Commissioner was not involved in the commissioning project as two officers were leading on this work.
The Panel further expressed their concern that the Assistant Commissioners contracts would automatically be renewed, and requested they were consulted before this took place.
RESOLVED: That,
1. The report on the Commissioning of Victims’ Services in Surrey be deferred to a future meeting to which the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner for Victims is able to attend. |
|
|
FEEDBACK ON MANAGEMENT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF CONSTABLE
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, Kevin Hurley, holds bi-monthly management meetings with the Chief Constable, Lynne Owens and appropriate members of her senior team. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commissioner informed the Panel that there had been two management meetings with the Chief Constable which were reported on within the agenda pack.
· Panel Members queried the work on the Blue Light Collaboration project and the aims and objectives of this work. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the Police were looking to improve emergency services response alongside the ambulance and fire services. They were looking to having a joint system which would enable information to be shared quickly and effectively, along with services which could be shared such as having defibrillators on police vehicles.
· The Commissioner stated that there was an intention to have neighbourhood PCSOs working within local schools on projects such as drug dealing in schools. This was not a government target currently but was still an area which needed consideration.
· Members queried what was discussed under the item of ‘Treasury Management’ and were informed that the Commissioner particularly concentrated on whether the budget balanced, the condition of the reserves, and budget plans. The Chief Finance Officer stated that there were twice annual reports on the reserves and that the reserves were managed by Surrey County Council through a service level agreement. This report included the risks associated with the investments.
· The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the Officer turnover as the attrition rate was the highest in the country due to Surrey being one of the most expensive places to live . However due to pay rates being nationally set they did not reflect the cost of living. The Metropolitan Police offered Officers free travel on South West Trains in addition to £6,000 more in pay, and with the Winsor report it was felt that cuts in wages were causing people to leave the Force.
· Members were concerned that there was a link between the attrition rate and the detection rate in the county, as there was a loss of knowledge within the Force which the Commissioner conceded was a concern.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that he would raise concerns regarding attrition rates in Surrey with the Policing Minister, Damian Green MP, as there was a need to sort out the issue particularly as Surrey was training Officers which were moving elsewhere.
RESOLVED: That,
1. The report be noted. |
|
|
CHIEF CONSTABLE'S APPRAISAL PROCESS
To update the panel on the process undertaken by the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) to conduct the Chief Constable’s appraisal and to advise members of the outcomes of the appraisal discussions. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commissioner informed the Panel that he felt that the Chief Constables appraisal had gone well as she and her team were working towards delivering the six People’s Priorities. Furthermore, the Commissioner stated that the Chief Constable was dealing with various challenges with historic cases, staying in budget and the restructuring of the Force with senior officers in the localities.
RESOLVED: That,
1. The report be noted. |
|
|
DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONERS' OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW
This report sets out details of the work that Jeff Harris, Shiraz Mirza and Jane Anderson have been undertaking and the outcomes they have achieved. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel felt that it was not appropriate for neither the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) or Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner for Victims (APCC) to not be in attendance, particularly when items which related to their work were being considered.
· Members questioned the work of the APCC for Equality and Diversity as they felt that the work was very generic and could relate to all the residents rather than just minority groups, and queried whether there had been a rise in the recruitment of BME. The Commissioner informed the Panel that his role was very different from that of the Police Authority and he would not be able to engage with all residents on his own. Due to the work of the APCC for Equality and Diversity the Commissioner stated there was now better communication between the Police and minority groups, with these groups now feeling as though they can raise their concerns. This work had been well received and the APCC was now working at Crawley Mosque to improve relations with Sussex Police.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that he was looking to encourage taxi drivers as a mobile Neighbourhood Watch as they were out at all hours of the day and across the county.
· Members raised concerns that while the APCC for Equalities and Diversity was visible within the community, the APCC for Victims was not. The Commissioner felt that the APCC for Victims was visible in the courts and victims services units across the county, which was where her work was focussed.
· The Commissioner informed the Panel that the DPCC was scrutinising the business cases for amalgamation of services with Sussex Police to ensure the process was effective. Additionally, the DPCC’s involvement in the review of the disposal of assets would cause an estimated additional £1million of revenue, by thinking more strategically about what buildings need to be kept.
· The Junior Citizens Scheme was being developed with six boroughs and districts involved. However for the other five there was an issue of cost, however the DPCC had been able to agree Epsom Racecourse as a venue and was looking into funding to enable the other boroughs and districts to be involved in the scheme.
· Members suggested that the Outcomes section of the reports should contain examples of the DPCC and APCCs work to better explain what they had done so as to enable to the Panel to better evaluate their work.
· The Commissioner stated that he had seen the APCC for Victims in action and found her to be very competent at raising concerns and questioning the organisations. He further stressed that he would look into having her attend a future Panel meeting.
· The APCC for Equalities and Diversity informed the Panel that he was working to assure Officers that minority groups were on their side and wanted a proactive force.
RESOLVED: That,
1. The report be noted.
2. The Police and Crime Commissioner consider the level of detail provided in the Outcome section of ... view the full minutes text for item 21/14 |
|
|
WEBCASTING OF POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETINGS
To review the merits of webcasting meetings of the Police and Crime Panel and determine future arrangements. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman stated that though some Members of the Panel were unsure whether to webcast meetings at the start, they now believed that webcasting the meetings was right way forward. The Panel had received praise for being open and transparent and the viewing figures were very encouraging.
· Members of the Panel stated that the viewing figures showed that residents were interested in the work of the Panel and though there were concerns regarding the costs, it was felt that they were relatively low considering it enabled residents to engage with the process.
· Borough Councillor Margaret Cooksey proposed a vote to continue to webcast the Panel meetings which Borough Councillor Terry Dicks seconded. The Panel voted unanimously to continue webcasting Police and Crime Panel meetings.
RESOLVED: That,
1. Meetings of the Police and Crime Panel continue to be webcast. |
|
|
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 Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that two complaints had been received since the last meeting. Details of the first complaint could be found in the agenda, while the second complaint was considered by the Complaints Sub-Committee on 24 April 2014 and would be reported on at the next meeting of the Panel.
RESOLVED: That,
1. 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.
RESOLVED: That,
1. The recommendations tracker and forward work programme be noted. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 10 June 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel would be on 10 June 2014 at 10.30 am. |