Two nominations were received
for the Vice Chairman position for the 2017/18 Council year.
Councillor Charlotte Morley was proposed by Ken Harwood and
seconded by Councillor Pat Frost. Councillor Margaret Cooksey was
proposed by David Reeve and seconded by David
Fitzpatrick-Grimes.
RESOLVED:
With agreement of Panel Members
a secret ballot was undertaken. Councillor Charlotte Morley was
appointed as the newly elected Vice-Chairman for Council year
2017/18.
A member of
the Panel made reference to page 8, Paragraph 9 and queried whether
officers could confirm the contact details of the new Rural Crime
Coordinator. Members noted that Sgt Adam Luck held this post and
was based at Guildford Police station.
RESOLVED:
The minutes from the previous
meeting held on Monday 6 February 2017 were agreed by the Panel as
a true and accurate record of the meeting.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
None.
19/17
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 Chief
Finance Officer introduced the item by summarising the Surrey
Police group financial report for month 12, financial year 2016/17.
Members were informed that there was an under-spend of £226K
against the approved budget of £212.6M, £124K of which
was achieved by the Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner.
Members
noted that one of the factors for the under-spend was the shortfall
of 66 police officer posts and the large number of leavers who had
earned more than the probationers that replaced them.
It was
explained that the substantial under-spend was off set by
over-spend in IT by £859K and estates and facilities by
£1.6M. It was further reported that the PCC approved capital
budget for 2016/17 was £12M and expenditure for the year
amounted to £7M, the remainder being carried forward to the
2017/18 capital programme.
It was
noted that the Surrey Police Group financial report for month 12
(31st May), financial year 2017/18 showed that the gross
revenue for the year was £212.6M, an increase of £6.9M
compared to the previous budget in 2016/17.
The Chief
Finance Officer explained forecasts based on just two month’s
figures should be treated with a degree of caution with forecasts
becoming more reliable as the months pass.
There was a
discussion around the financial volatility with the Surrey and
Sussex joint finance team and officers were asked to report on the
current progress. Members were informed that an independent review
was going to be carried out to ensure good measures would be taken
going forward as forecasts were uncertain.
Members
raised concern with the significant variances within the service
quality and change programme two months into the financial year,
Officers explained that savings were budgeted in the change
programme and on the basis savings would be achieved, the figure
would disappear to balance the budget. The Chief Finance Officer
advised further information on the service quality can be provided
at a later date.
It was
noted that the relocation and the running of two different systems
were main factors for the volatility between the Surrey and Sussex
financial team. The PCC advised that the office recognised the
issue and was taking necessary steps to solve the problem.
Following the concerns with the collaboration the PCC agreed a
report to be provided on the progress of the joint finance team to
be provided at a later date.
It was
reported that there were on average 18 leavers a month however due
to the salary rates Surrey Police have been able to recruit
heavily, 12 Police Constables ahead of establishment.
The
Vice-Chairman suggested that interim measures should be taken when
considering similar future collaborations to avoid decline and
experience, in particular to relocation of staff. The PCC assured
that the estates strategy was under review and the views of the
Panel would be taken into consideration when looking into
relocation.
The Police Reform and Social
Responsibility Act (2011) places a duty on Police and Crime
Commissioners to produce an Annual Report.Members of the Panel are asked to comment on the attached annual
report prior to its formal publication.
The PCC
informed members that the annual report was still in draft and that
there was intention to make it more user friendly for the public.
The PCC was pleased with the progress made in meeting the Police
and Crime Plan priorities, in particular areas which required
improvement from the previous year.
The PCC
indicated that there were areas of concern including police officer
retention rates, the high risk from IT systems and the rise in
burglaries across Surrey. The PCC assured the Panel resources would
be targeted in these areas to tackle the problem.
Members
commended the PCC for the progress and performance to date and
queried whether the PCC had any thought to recalling retired police
officers to assist with back office functions and investigations.
The PCC noted this suggestion and assured the Panel that
consideration would be given to this going forward.
It was
noted that the PCC has held recent discussions with police
colleagues about CCTV, there was currently no CCTV strategy in
place. He was aware that the matter
would be discussed at a future meeting of Surrey Chief
Executives.
The PCC
agreed that the number of Special Constables had reduced but
expressed eagerness to get numbers to a better position advising
the Panel measures were underway to ensure rapid improvement.
Currently training has been at capacity with new Police Officers
which means training for Special Constables has had to be
delayed.
Members
were informed that there has been substantial improvement with the
101 service over the last year and that it would be watched
carefully so that the current level of service would be
maintained.
The Panel
were advised that drones were an increasing feature for the police
force as they were more cost effective and cheaper than acquiring
helicopters.
It was
noted that the Volunteer Police Cadets were exceeding expectations,
with three more forces being recruited after the initial first
three being set up. The PCC commended the willingness of police
officers and staff who had taken the time to be
instructors.
The PCC
expressed the view that there was no strong connection between
recruitment and retention, explaining to the Panel that generally
no employee would be expected to stay with one employer and would
naturally progress to another place to enhance their
career.
The PCC
could not comment on the switching off of street lights, explaining
to members that this was a Surrey County Council (SCC) decision and
that Surrey Police had not seen a rise in crime as a result.
However the PCC welcomed any concerns regarding specific street
lights which should be kept on, assuring the Panel these would be
forwarded to the Highways authority for consideration. The PCC
further informed members that he would not provide funding for
keeping street lights on as this was a statutory responsibility of
the Council.
It was
noted that the statistics mentioned in the report were taken from
the Surrey Resident Survey which is carried out independently
...
view the full minutes text for item 22/17
For
the Police and Crime Panel to consider the recent inspections
undertaken for Surrey Police by her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary (HMIC) which is the independent inspection body for
policing.
The
Chairman advised officers that page 73 of the report contained
errors under ‘Childhood Protection Revisit’ making
reference to the dates which needed correction. The PCC assured
Members this would be left with the respective officer to
amend.
The Panel
were informed that Surrey Police has a close professional
relationship with HMIC and valued the feedback and professionalism
of the inspectorate. The PCC expressed the view that this was
essential to support the force to maintain and raise good
practice.
The PCC
supported the view that more work was required to achieve a better
rating for ‘how effective is the force at investigating
crime’ and advised members that resources were being moved to
tackle the issue in particular towards training for officers. The
PCC made further assurances, expressing confidence with the
leadership and management in place to improve this
area.
Members
made reference to the report and grading for ‘how well does
the force understand the current and likely future demand’
which was graded as ‘requires improvement’. The PCC
informed members that this was captured and queried with HMIC as
the force was unclear about what this meant. The PCC requested that
the good practice within the force be recognised.
It was
noted that an action plan was in place for child protection and
this area was of significance to the PCC. The PCC informed the
Panel that colleagues from the OPCC were involved in monitoring
this. The OPCC had a close relationship with victim’s
charities and social services. The Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub
for vulnerable children was also extending their reach to
vulnerable adults, providing a good service which Surrey Police
work closely with.
RESOLVED:
Members of the Police and Crime Panel noted the
report and HMIC findings.
At the last Panel meeting it
was agreed that the Panel would receive a presentation on
PiYN to gain a better understanding of
the new way of working for Surrey Police.
Assistant
Chief Constable (ACC), Nev Kemp
delivered a presentation on PiYN to
allow members to gain a better understanding of the new ways of
working for Surrey Police (attached at Annex 1).
Members
noted that the Police Crime Commissioner’s enthusiasm for the
JET (Joint Enforcement Team) programme and informed the Panel that
funding may be available to other districts/boroughs who were
considering starting JET teams.
It was
explained that parking enforcement was the responsibility of the
highways authority and this did not, except for exceptional
circumstances, include involvement from Surrey Police. However the
PCC was in the process of talking to Cabinet Member for Highways,
Colin Kemp to scope whether there were ways of working
better.
There was a
discussion around the Drive Smart initiative and the Panel were
advised that work was in progress to reinvigorate the programme to
promote tackling road casualties and speeding.
In an
effort to promote understanding at a local level, members requested
officers to circulate the PiYN
presentation attached at Annex 1. The ACC assured the Panel a copy
would be distributed and welcomed feedback from members on the
matter.
Members
raised concerns with the lack of police presence and the ACC
advised that resources were focused where there was greater risk,
targeting resources where there was greater need. It was further
explained to utilise officers’ time more effectively
attendance at public meetings would be confirmed where there was a
specific policing issue on the agenda. Police patrols would also be
targeted i.e. in areas where there was an increase in
burglaries.
The
Assistant Chief Constable supported the view that work was required
after a crime was reported with keeping victims informed on
progress. The ACC assured members that considerable work was being
carried out to improve this area. It was further explained that an
engagement plan was in progress to develop better communication and
provide assurance across the county.
The PCC
informed the Panel that it was a statutory duty of the Police to
take responsibility for victims and was also one of the key
performance indicators that the Chief Constable was held account
to. The PCC was pleased to see work in progress with an engagement
plan to promote better practice.
Members
expressed the view that there was still an issue in rural areas and
not receiving efficient responses. The Assistant Chief Constable
explained that both the 101 and emergency service was accessible
and live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, assuring members the Police
would be dispatched when needed.
It was
noted that the Volunteer Police Cadets programme supported
engagement with young people however a special constabulary was
being addressed now which would engage with the wider
community.
Peter
Waddell left the meeting at 12.33pm
It was
explained that there are three divisions, east, west and north,
with a Chief Superintendent heading each division. It was further
highlighted that each borough holds a Borough Inspector and
officers are locally based and distributed.
At the last Police and Crime
Panel meeting there was a discussion around the ‘In the
Know’ community messaging system which replaced the previous
Active Citizen Service (ACS). Panel members asked for an item for
inclusion on the forward plan to discuss the new community
messaging system and how it is being used to increase local
engagement with the Police.
Members expressed the
view that the ‘In The Know’ community messaging system
was a valuable system and stated that although all districts and
boroughs were fully trained up it would be helpful to see how
actively it was working in each division. It was noted that Mole
Valley were proactively carrying out work to endorse the programme
to residents.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report and
agreed to help promote and direct residents to ‘In The
Know’.
To agree the membership and
terms of reference for the Complaints Sub-Committee for
2017/18.At the Panel meeting of 6 February
2017, the adoption of the draft revised Police and Crime Panel
Complaints Protocol was agreed in principle. Work had been
undertaken to refresh the Complaints Protocol. It was agreed that
formal adoption of the Protocol would be required at the Annual
meeting.
1. Questions were
submitted by Panel member, Cllr Reeve in advance of the meeting and
responses from the PCC were sent to Cllr Reeve ahead of the
meeting.
2. Members queried
how funding from the Community Safety Fund was allocated and were
informed that this information was available on the Surrey PCC
funding website at the following link, http://funding.surrey-pcc.gov.uk/.
RESOLVED:
The Panel raised issues and
queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the
PCC.
ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:
None
31/17
DATE OF NEXT MEETING: TUESDAY 12 SEPTEMBER 2017
Share this item
The next public meeting of the
Police and Crime Panel will be held on 12 September 2017 at 10.30am
in the Ashcombe Suite, County Hall,
Kingston upon Thames.
The next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel
meeting will be held on Tuesday 12 September 2017 at 10.30am in the
Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston
upon Thames.
PDF 191 KB