A Member made reference to a
discussion on rural crime where the PCC visited Mole Valley
District Council and advised that this was not reflected in the 10
October 2016 minutes, the Panel noted this.
The minutes from the meeting
held on Monday 10 October 2016 were agreed by the Panel as a true
record of the meeting.
61/16
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.
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.
The PCC advised that the key
issues arising from policing matters would be covered in
today’s agenda, therefore a verbal update at this time would
not be necessary as matters would be raised in the
reports.
The
Panel are asked to consider progress made against the agreed Police
and Crime Plan. The PCC has published a Police and Crime Plan for
2016 to 2020 based on the 6 manifesto pledges he made during his
campaign to become PCC.This report
provides an update on how the plan is being met.
The PCC introduced
the item and informed Members that although the report was written
two weeks ago, there had been various updates. The Panel was
pleased to note that the PCC has agreed to fund the Police Cadets
uniform. The Panel was further advised that Waverley Borough
Council has informally agreed to develop a JET team and to support
this plan the PCC was providing £50k in funding.
The PCC advised the
Panel that he recently met with the Director for Public
Prosecutions, Alison Saunders to improve victims’ cases going
through the criminal justice system. The PCC recognised the delays
in cases and assured the Panel Alison Saunders was looking to
expand the number of prosecutors to remedy the concern and ensure
progress was made. The Panel also noted that a Police Officer was
being embedded into the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to
administer support and to improve delays in the CPS reaching a
charging decision.
The PCC was queried
whether he was aware that certain files held by the CPS, relevant
to Guildford Crown Court were being processed in Canterbury. The
PCC acknowledged this and assured that work was underway in
pressing the matter in recruiting more lawyers to be based in
Guildford. However as the CPS was a regional service there was good
reason why lawyers were based in Canterbury.
The Vice-Chairman
sought clarification on the funding behind the initiative to
support victim’s cases in the criminal justice system, with
regards to the costs involved with embedding a Surrey police
officer into the offices of the CPS. The PCC advised that there was
funding to support this role.
A Member mentioned
that the Policing in your neighbourhood (PiYN) review had been completed, however findings
had not been circulated. The PCC explained that the report was a
public document and would be available shortly after final checks
were carried out. A press release regarding the review had been
released on 30 November 2016.
The PCC was also
questioned as to whether information about the victims’ fund
and community safety fund had been circulated to the Boroughs. The
PCC informed the Members that the information in fact had been
circulated as widely as possible, including a press release. The
Panel were advised the best way to access all the information was
to visit the Surrey Police Funding Hub online.
There was a
discussion around tackling rural crime and a Member wanted more
information with regards to the time scales in delivering the new
Rural Crime Strategy, in particular the new rural crime community
engagement volunteers’ scheme. The PCC notified Members that
the implementation was a working progress and a colleague in the
OPCC was actively working on this with police colleagues. The PCC
encouraged the Panel to notify his office if anyone would like to
come forward as a volunteer.
A Member drew the
PCC’s attention to Reigate and Banstead’s problem with dangerous parking and
obstructions, in particular around schools and appealed for
...
view the full minutes text for item 64/16
The attached reports inform the Police & Crime
Panel of the OPCC’s financial performance at Month 6 for the
2016/17 financial year and Surrey Police Group (i.e. Finances of
both the PCC and Chief Constable) financial position up to Month 6
(September) for the 2016/17 financial year.
The Chief Finance
Officer introduced the report and informed the Panel the following
updates were a representation of the financial performance and
position up to month 6 for 2016/17 financial year.
The Officer
highlighted that the OPCC was forecasted to achieve an under spend
of £455k at year end, as a result of the changes made by the
PCC since his appointment. The PCC would decide what happened with
this underspend in advance of setting
his budget for 2017/18.
The Panel also noted
that Surrey Police was also going to reach an under spend of
£1.5M. The Officer advised that the main reason for this
under spend was the turnover of Police Officers leaving the force
at a faster rate than officers were being recruited.
Members were briefed
upon the strategic saving programme, noting that there would be a
shortfall for this financial year. The Officer informed the Panel
that the remaining 19% of budgeted savings that were not achieved
will have to be included into the next financial year.
A Member referred to
the under spend figures and recommended that more needed to be done
to increase recruitment and training opportunities. The PCC
explained the problem was with retention and losing Officers to
neighbouring authorities or out of the police service altogether.
The PCC and Chief Constable’s main focus was on alleviating
this problem and focusing on making Surrey a more attractive
employer although it was recognised that retention would always be
a problem, particularly with the high cost of living in
Surrey.
There was a
discussion around the new joint finance service between Surrey and
Sussex Police Forces and Members requested further information on
this merger. The Officer advised that the merger involved two
finance functions which would deal with a significant combined
annual budget. The Officer stated that as this was a recent merger
teething problems existed, although he was confident the actual
spend figures to month 6 provided to Members in the reports was
correct, he felt that the year-end forecasts provided in the report
were not so reliable. In the future staff would require retraining
on one computer system.
A Member proposed
whether some of the under spend could be put towards housing for
Officers, making it more attractive for them to stay in the police
service. The PCC noted this suggestion and assured Members that
there were a number of measures the Police force were considering
in tackling recruitment and retention issues.
Members were
concerned with the references made of Police Officers leaving the
force and requested Officers to provide exact figures of
recruitment and turnover for better understanding.
A Member referred to Annex A and noted the spend on
Memberships was very high and sought more information regarding
this. Officers explained that the funds that were spent in this
area were for National Association membership costs. These
associations were non-profit and allowed officers to do research
and put forward joint responses to consultations. Going forward the
Panel ...
view the full minutes text for item 65/16
The
PCC has introduced a new commissioning strategy for 2016-20, based
upon his six Police and Crime Plan Priorities. The Panel are asked
to consider this strategy.
Officers
introduced the report by providing the Panel with a presentation.
This covered the main themes of the Commissioning Strategy, the
progress made to date and the key areas going forward.
The
Chairman proposed within the list of themes to have Child Sexual
Exploitation and Rape at the top of this list so it was seen to be
given a higher priority. Officers advised that the list was not in
any particular order of priority and noted the Member’s
suggestion.
A Member
queried the local principles in which the commissioning strategy is
guided and driven by and requested for further information around
these. The Officer explained that these local principles were
developed through Commissioners’ work around the county,
focusing on the resident as well as the victim and offender who are
at the heart of this service.
In
achieving the outcomes set out in the strategy, Officers outlined
specific areas of focus as building good practice, developing
services that work in hand with Surrey Police and partners, working
with partners to ensure best use of resources and providing strong
management.
Jane
Anderson was appointed by the previous Police & Crime
Commissioner to the role of Assistant Police & Crime
Commissioner (Victims). PCC David Munro has extended the
APCC’s short term contract until the end of the financial
year. The PCC has agreed to provide the
Panel with progress made by his APCC and the work undertaken by his
APCC.
1.The Assistant PCC for Victims introduced the report
and informed Members that her role ensured the voice of the victim
was at the heart of the service. The APCC emphasised a considerable
amount of her time was spent speaking to victims, in particular
vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, rape and sexual
assault.
2.The APCC explained that her contribution in this
area involved putting the victim’s experiences on record,
then using this knowledge to influence decision making.
3.The PCC commended the work of the Assistant PCC for
Victims, informing the Panel that in the community Jane Anderson
was held in very high regard and was pleased to have her as part of
the team in Surrey Police.
4.The APCC was asked to provide the Panel with details
on her biggest achievement for 2016. Members were informed that the
Assistant PCC’s biggest achievement was her work around Child
Sexual Exploitation and the time that was spent with victims of
this crime which led to more funding for this area.
5.The Panel also noted that the Assistant PCC’s
contribution towards rape victims provided better understanding and
training back into the police service. The APCC was also one of the
only people to have access to speak with victims of rape. The APCC
also explained that she would be meeting with women from BME
backgrounds in Woking to speak about domestic violence and the
support available.
6.A Member queried the APCC on what improvements had
been identified as a result of her work. The Panel were informed
that victims were pleased with the response they received when
reporting crimes such as rape and domestic violence. The Assistant
PCC reported that this was an improvement from previous years with
improved feedback.
7.There was a discussion around the drop in victim
satisfaction from 81% to 79% for the year and what the Assistant
PCC for victims can do to ensure this is improved. Members were
advised that the APCC ensured that the voices of victims was heard
by the Police service. The feedback from victims is directly
targeted at police training. Any gaps
that need attention are raised with the PCC and CEX to ensure
resources are targeted appropriately.
8.The Panel noted that Surrey Police undergo mandatory
victim surveying which is contracted and conducted by an external,
independent service. Officers indicated it was difficult to assess
these results as there was a time lapse between the results and
reporting, however the force has a programme in place to improve
this.
9.A Member of the Panel stated her involvement with
the Woking People of Faith Forum and how there has been no
reference to the work Assistant PCC for Victims in that context.
The Officer explained that faith groups was a difficult territory
to gain access to, taking years to build a strong relationship. The
Assistant PCC for victims welcomed any contacts in this
area.
For
the Panel to consider issues raised during monthly discussions
between the PCC and the Chief Constable. The PCC holds monthly
Performance Meetings where the Chief Constable reports on progress
against the Police & Crime Plan and other strategic
issues.
A Member
queried the PCC on crime statistics, which were absent in the
report and questioned whether crime statistics were mentioned in
discussions with the Chief Constable. The PCC assured the Panel
that crime statistics were touched upon frequently in discussions,
not only on figures of crime committed but crime that was
solved.
The Panel
requested that the PCC could provide quarterly updates on crime
statistics for Surrey. The PCC informed Members that these were
publicly available and would be happy to provide the link to access
these.
There was a
discussion around the employee survey results and the Panel noted
that the Sussex Deputy Chief Constable was overseeing this analysis
and it was on the agenda for the next performance meeting with the
Chief Constable. Officers assured the Panel results would be
presented as soon as they were available.
The
Chairman asked how Surrey Police were responding to new legislation
regarding Modern Slavery and whether training was being organised
for Officers around this. The PCC informed Members that a series of
training courses were being provided to Officers to raise awareness
around Modern Slavery.
RESOLVED:
The Police and Crime Panel noted the update on
performance meetings.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
R16/16- For the PCC to provide the Panel with details of crime
statistics for Surrey.
R17/16- For the PCC to share with the Panel the Surrey Police
employee survey results once these become available.
A Member
raised a concern that although hate crime figures had declined,
there was no indication whether these hate crimes were solved. The
PCC advised the Panel that these figures were not currently
available, however could provide them at a later date.
The Panel
noted that the PCC was familiar with Tell Mama (Measuring Anti
Muslim Attacks) and recognised the importance of tackling hate
crime and the organisations involved in representing the voices of
minority groups.
A Member
referred to the ‘hate crime coordinator’ mentioned in
the report and asked for more details regarding what this involved.
The PCC assured the Panel the role would be undertaken by a Police
Staff Officer and not a uniformed Officer and further details could
be provided into the responsibilities of the position.
For the Panel to receive a
report on CCTV in Surrey and the funding arrangements in place for
this. This item was deferred from the 10 October Panel
meeting.
The PCC
introduced the report and informed the Panel that Surrey Police was
commissioning a CCTV review to address the long term issues with
resourcing and funding of CCTV..
A Member
queried when the Panel could expect the final CCTV review. The PCC
advised that no date was in the diary at the moment, however the
matter was being pressed as urgent and would require a high level
of demand.
There was a
discussion around the funding in relation to CCTV and a Member
sought assurance that the strategy coming forward would not
undermine the system currently in place. The PCC advised that
substantial amounts of funding would be required and evidence would
be sought to justify the means.
A Member
expressed concern with the capacity of monitoring more cameras and
requested for further information on how the PCC would meet that
demand. The PCC noted this concern and assured he would take it
away to reflect on when reviewing the matter.
A Member
highlighted how the Woking Street Angels rely heavily on CCTV to
ensure safety and sought assurance from the PCC the new strategy
would not raise unattended consequences for other systems in play.
The PCC explained that the strategy was still in the making and
would raise more questions than answers.
The PCC
noted the recommendation that industry standards should be applied
to the various provisions already in effect around the County to
establish an accurate picture of the delivery capacity.
The PCC
further noted the concern around the Clackets Services in Tandridge which is known as an area where illegal
Migrants unload from Lorries and assured the Panel this would be
looked into in more detail going forward.
The PCC
began the item with thanking the Panel for their support in adding
weight to the representations made for Surrey in the new policing
funding formula.
The Panel
noted the PCC’s support in relation to the Policing vision
2025, in particular with the principles set out in the vision which
had now been accepted by the Association of Police and Crime
Commissioners (APCC).
The PCC
informed Members that there was a big debate surrounding specialist
capabilities, in particular with how much control should be
retained in the County forces like Surrey and how much should be
coordinated by national/regional services to deal with
crime.
There was a
discussion around the public consultation in relation to the new
policing funding formula and the PCC assured Members that the
public would be consulted in due course. The consultation on a new
funding formula would not be ready until 2018/19.
The
Chairman expressed concern with the growing problem of cyber crime
amongst the elderly and requested the PCC address this going
forward, the PCC noted this concern and stated that every Surrey
Resident was of key concern.
A Member
sought clarification around the time scales for when Surrey could
expect the implementation of the new policing funding formula. The
PCC advised that the new formula would most likely come into effect
for financial year 2018/19 and the preliminary proposals would be
circulated on 1 April 2017.
A Member
queried whether specialist capabilities would effect the
collaboration between Surrey and Sussex Police. The PCC explained
that specialist capabilities promoted services working together and
it would be highly unlikely that the collaboration would be
affected but rather collaboration would be extended to the whole
South East region.
Following
on from the above, a Member asked whether Surrey Police would exist
in 2025 as a result of the increasing collaboration. The PCC
expressed the opinion that Surrey Police should exist and that
Surrey Residents were entitled to their own police force. However
the PCC explained the overriding criteria in retaining the identity
would not matter if collaboration fights crime better.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the updated
report.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
None.
Graham Ellwood and Anthony
Mitchell left the meeting at 12.40pm
Margaret Cooksey –
Visited Surrey Fire and Rescue HQ in Reigate
(non-pecuniary)
Ken Harwood - Visited Surrey
Fire and Rescue HQ in Reigate (non-pecuniary)
Dorothy Ross- Tomlin
–Husband employed by Respirex UK Ltd (based in Redhill) and Respirex
France – manufacturers of specialist protective clothing and
equipment (pecuniary interest)
Key
points raised during the discussions:
The PCC introduced
the report and commended the front line collaborative work
undertaken between the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Surrey
Police. The PCC informed the Panel that the Chief Fire Officer and
Chief Constable are keen that this grows and continues.
The PCC expressed
support for the provisions around fire governance set out in the
Policing and Crime Bill, however remains cautious. The Panel noted
that Sussex Police would be developing a business case for change
with closer working with the Fire Service. The PCC stated he would
like to observe their experience before putting forward a business
case.
A member commented
whether the Panel should be anxious that delays are being made with
putting forward a business case and the subsequent financial
implications. The PCC stated that if things were to change, a
consultant could be paid to hurry a business case. However the PCC
was keen to learn lessons from other authorities before putting
forward a business case for changes to governance of the fire
service. Members appreciated the PCC’s approach to gather all
the facts first.
A Member queried what
the implications would be if Sussex’s early adoption of the
change proves successful. The PCC advised that in that instance he
would look into hiring additional resource to see whether Surrey
and Sussex’s timelines could be brought together.
The Panel has requested information in respect of
Surrey Police’s policy regarding the policing of Remembrance
Day Parades and in particular, the PCC’s response to some
local concern over the levels of police support offered to certain
local parades.
The PCC
introduced the report by advising Members that no adverse feedback
was received in relation to Remembrance Day parades
2016.
The
Chairman expressed the view that Remembrance Day parades were a
good opportunity for Police Officers to attend and show support for
the community.
The
Vice-Chairman sought the PCC’s assurance that the attendance
of Officers at parades would grow and continue for the following
years. Members were advised that that this was an operational
matter and the PCC could not comment on future officer attendance,
however comments would be relayed to the Chief Constable on this
matter.
A Member
informed the Panel that ahead of the parade in Walton the Police
force advised that they would be attending in limited numbers,
however on the day they exceeded the support which was offered and
commended the service for this.
A Member
informed the Panel that is some local areas road closures were
organised by council Officers. The Member further advised that
these events attract big crowds and was an opportunity for
something untoward to happen. The PCC assured the Panel that the
Police force had plans in place in the event something untoward was
to happen and expressed confidence that these plans would be
delivered successfully.
Parking, a Member
suggested it would be appropriate for a report on Police
responsibility regarding highway/ parking enforcement to be
included on the forward work programme so that Members are clear on
Police responsibilities.
The PCC proposed a
joint report to be produced with the support of the highway
authority. The Chairman indicated that a report from Surrey police
would be appropriate in any case but would speak to the relevant
Cabinet Member regarding this.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the Forward
Work Programme and Recommendations Tracker.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
R18/16- For an item to be added
to the forward work programme on Police responsibility regarding
highways enforcement (parking).
76/16
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION TIME
Share this item
The
panel is asked to raise any issues or queriesconcerning crime and policing in Surrey with the
Commissioner.
The Chairman
explained that the Panel had a liaison meeting with the Sussex
Police and Crime Panel Chairman and Vice - Chairmen who gave
details of an item on their agenda called Commissioners Question
Time. It was as an opportunity for Members to expand and discuss
matters that were not on the agenda with the PCC.
A written question
was given in advance of the meeting to the PCC by a Member of the
Panel which read the following, ‘Judge Peter Moss in a recent
case at Guildford Crown Court criticised Surrey Police for not
prosecuting an Albanian man for having six wraps of cocaine when he
was arrested for having improper identity documents,’. What
is Surrey’s current policy on possession and whether there
has been any change in this policy in the last three years whether
the PCC was confident Surrey Police was acting in accordance with
this policy’?.
The PCC thanked the
Member for advance notice on this question and responded with
giving the Panel assurance that there is no policy; rather that
Surrey Police act in accordance with the law and that there has
been no change in the last three years. Surrey Police are there to
uphold the law which may involve making difficult
decisions.
The Vice Chairman
asked the PCC how often he had met with leaders of Faith groups in
Surrey. The PCC informed the Panel that his visit to the Shah
Jehan Mosque in Woking was cancelled
but another meeting had been scheduled. He assured the Panel that
he intends to visit the mosque and other major mosques as he is
keen to engage with faith groups. The PCC also explained that he
had met with Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum (SMEF) and other various
BME groups.
The Chairman
indicated that the previous PCC used to hold ‘Crime
Summits’ to engage with residents on policing matters,
however it was brought to the Panel’s attention the
PCC’s intention was to visit overview and scrutiny committees
instead. The PCC explained that he does not intend to exclusively
attend overview and scrutiny committees, however attends such
meetings where his diary permits him. The PCC informed the Panel
his visits have stretched over neighbourhood watch meetings, parish
council meetings and community safety meetings.
The PCC indicated he
is open minded towards crime summits and there are three more years
of his term to serve.
The Chairman advised
attending overview and scrutiny committees was not an appropriate
use of the PCC’s time and a duplication as Members of the
Panel were also there too and could feedback the work of the PCC to
those in attendance at these meetings. The PCC emphasised he will
attend meetings where he is requested and where his diary
commitments permit him.
A Member expressed
the cost implications of holding crime summits and suggested that
attending Joint Committees would be more beneficial as these
meetings have a high attendance level from the public.
The
next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 6
February 2017 at 10.30am in the Ashcombe Suite, County Hall,
Kingston upon Thames.
PDF 207 KB