Agenda and draft minutes

Surrey Police and Crime Panel
Wednesday, 18 September 2019 10.30 am

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Contact: Amelia Christopher 

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

52/19

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

53/19

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 123 KB

54/19

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    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.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

55/19

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

56/19

POLICE AND CRIME PLAN 2018-2020 – PROGRESS pdf icon PDF 364 KB

    The PCC published a refreshed Police and Crime Plan in May 2018 for the period 2018 to 2020. This built on the previous plan issued in 2016. The refresh was informed by emerging crime trends, consultation, scrutiny of current force performance and meetings and visits with Surrey Police, public and partners.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)

    Damian Markland, Head of Policy and Commissioning, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1. The Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report and highlighted the new Enterprise Resource Planning system (known as Equip) and informed Members that a detailed update on this item would be presented to Members at the next Informal meeting.

     

    In response to Member queries:

     

    1. The PCC explained that it was positive that 9 out of 11 districts and boroughs had supported and funded the domestic abuse service and that he would continue working with the other 2. They would not be named and shamed as the Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) informed the Panel that some boroughs and districts had given direct funding whilst others provided non-financial support such as accommodation.
    2. The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) responded to the concern around domestic abuse by explaining that there had been changes to the way that it was commissioned. As of April 2020 there would be a formally commissioned service, contractually based providing a clear access point for borough and district councils to support.
    3. The PCC agreed with Members’ concerns that the figures on anti-social behaviour were not moving in the right direction. In Appendix A the ‘% of public from survey believing that the police deal with anti-social behaviour and crimes that matter in their area’ had declined and was almost down a third. The PCC explained the period of turbulence Surrey Police had been through following the adoption of the policing in the neighbourhood system. It was in place a month after the PCC began his term and its destabilising impact had now been realised three years later. It had to be done as the previous model was not affordable. He was pleased this has now been got over and there was a sea change in Surrey Police through engagement with communities and noted positively the current good relationship with the districts and boroughs.
    4. The PCC hoped that public perception and confidence would increase from around 70% - which was a high number - due to the extra 104 police officers, the doubling of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) who had a critical role in tacking anti-social behaviour, extra one youth intervention officers per borough and the ongoing work on unauthorised encampments.
    5. A Member however commented the 10% drop in public confidence since 2015/16. He noted several cases in his borough of Runnymede where the police had failed to deal with anti-social behaviour including unauthorised encampments. The PCC was happy to meet with that Member on his particular problems.
    6. In response the PCC, explained that Surrey Police now had the procedures and officers on the ground to deal with unauthorised encampments but there were still no transit sites in Surrey compared to Sussex and a complete section of the act dealing with unauthorised encampments was not operative in Surrey. He urged district, borough and county  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56/19

57/19

VICTIM AND WITNESS CARE UNIT STAFFING AND GOVERNANCE pdf icon PDF 121 KB

    On 1 April 2019 Surrey Police opened its new Victim and Witness Care Unit, based out of Guildford Police Station. This professionally trained team has been established by the OPCC and Surrey Police to help victims of crime cope and, as far as possible, recover from their experience, putting in place care plans tailored to the needs of the individual.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

    Damian Markland - Head of Policy & Commissioning, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1. The PCC informed the Committee that this was a bold new venture that started 18 months ago and required a large amount of work in order to give better care to victims.
    2. The Head of Policy & Commissioning (OPCC) introduced the report and explained that Surrey OPCC received £1.4 million from the Ministry of Justice a year to be used for range services for victims; this was a combination of third sector providers which offered specialist services and more generalist services through a safety net for victims of crime.
    3. Historically, the independent charity Victim Support provided this service but as the contract had come to an end after four years, victim care was brought in-house to Guildford as the new Victim and Witness Care Unit. It was not primarily about saving money but to provide a single point of contact and support for victims and creating a better understanding of victim and witness support within Surrey Police.
    4. There would be a six month post-implementation review on the successes and challenges of the Unit through the joint Surrey/Sussex Police Change Delivery Team; which would be shared shortly to the Panel. The Unit was working well with the largest challenge being the duplication of cases on the IT system, and an accessibility issue by volunteers to the police IT system.
    5. In response to a Member query, the Head of Policy & Commissioning (OPCC) stated that there was currently no skewing along geographical lines posing difficulty for victims on the eastern side of Surrey County. Initial support would be offered from the Unit’s base in Guildford through text messaging, calls and online help; and long-term support offered though the mobile base of volunteers and paid staff spread across the county.

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report and it was noted that for further information members of the Police and Crime Panel could visit: victimandwitnesscare.org.uk

     

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

     

    R40/19 – The results of the six month post-implementation review on the successes and challenges of the Unit would be shared shortly to the Panel.

     

58/19

RURAL CRIME STRATEGY pdf icon PDF 7 KB

    The attached report presents the panel with an update on the progress against the force rural crime strategy.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1. In response to the Chairman’s query on the meaning of ‘Niche flags’, the PCC responded that it was a statistically useful police IT system which categorised crime more accurately including rural crime.
    2. A Member queried whether the rural crime system had an effect to reduce rural crime and whether residents in rural areas felt supported. The PCC responded that an update on the strategy’s results would be provided and that anecdotally people felt re-assured and welcomed greater Surrey Police engagement in rural areas.
    3. Members were concerned with the issue of mounted police and the training costs of the horses and their insurance. The PCC explained that they were fully insured and being privately owned the training costs of the horses were significantly reduced.

     

    Councillor Andrew Povey left at 11.30am

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report.

     

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

     

    R41/19 -The PCC to provide an update on the strategy’s results.

     

59/19

INDEPENDENT CUSTODY VISITING SCHEME pdf icon PDF 65 KB

    The attached report presents the Annual Report for the OPCC for Surrey’s Custody Visiting Scheme.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1. The PCC paid tribute to the volunteers who ran the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme.
    2. The Chairman highlighted that there was feedback from the Independent Custody Visitors but no feedback had been reported from ‘detained persons’. In response, the PCC stated that there was feedback available reported by the ICVs and was largely positive.
    3. The Vice-Chairman queried more visits were held on Wednesday rather than the assumption of Friday/Saturday evening of more people in custody. The PCC explained that generally the distribution of visits was good with monitoring done suite by suite and that he wanted the volunteers to do more visits out of hours if possible.
    4. In response to the Chairman’s question over the recruitment of ICVs, the PCC informed the Panel that there was regular and successful recruitment campaigns primarily online based and the majority of recruitment was by word of mouth. It was reported that the retention rate was also good.

     

    RESOLVED:

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report.

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

    None.

     

     

60/19

PCC PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT pdf icon PDF 80 KB

    The attached report details how the PCC seeks to engage with the Surrey public through face-to-face meetings and events, communications and consultation.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1. The PCC introduced the report and remarked that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), himself and the Chief Constable of Surrey Police held a series of successful community engagement sessions in all 11 boroughs and districts in summer. He hoped to repeat these in January around the time of consultation on the precept. The PCC reported that these events were very useful with a good turnout and interesting questions asked by members of the public.
    2. In response to the Chairman’s query, the PCC recalled anecdotal comments from when he went out on shift with Neighbourhood Policing Teams and Street Angel teams. It was noted that there was an enthusiasm and a depth of commitment by those teams to the task and a frustration on not being able to help even more due to a lack of resources.
    3. The PCC responded to a Member question, that a wider and more formal survey on public opinion would be useful rather than the sole focus on precept consultation. The PCC would look into it, but stated that it would be costly and time intensive, there was however constant daily engagement between the police and residents. There was also a large amount of free-standing views at 4,000 on general opinions not just around the precept.
    4. In response to the Vice-Chairman’s query on the groups the PCC consulted with, he stated that he went round as may groups as possible – not just through the police text messaging service ‘In the Know’ - such as this Panel, stakeholders, borough and district councils and he had a close link to the Chambers of Commerce and Federation of Small Businesses.

     

    RESOLVED:

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report.

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

    R42/19 - The PCC would look into a possible wider survey of topics to gather greater public opinion on the police.

     

61/19

CCTV pdf icon PDF 190 KB

    The Police and Crime Panel have asked for an update on the Surrey Police CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) strategy.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1. The PCC introduced the report and expressed frustration that CCTV in Surrey was not a rationalised process unlike in Sussex with a more consistent service through good partnerships between Sussex Police and borough and district councils.
    2. Despite the budgetary pressures, the PCC pledged not to reduce funding for CCTV whilst he was in office.
    3. In response to Members’ concerns over Surrey Police’s long-term financial commitment on CCTV enabling future financial planning by eastern borough and district councils, the PCC noted the forward joint strategy. He also reported that he had not picked up specific issues with east Surrey, CCTV was being monitored at Reigate police station for the foreseeable.
    4. In response to a Member question, the PCC stated that CCTV as an evidence gathering tool had decreased in its importance of live recording as mobile phones and dash cams had filled this role but it was still useful as a reassurance tool.
    5. A Member recalled that Surrey Highways used the live feed from the CCTV network and whether Surrey County Council was aware of Surrey Police’s plans over the change of CCTV strategy. The PCC commented that the council were fully involved in this and he would check the specific point on the live feed being used in road side cameras.
    6. A Member thanked the PCC for putting money back into CCTV but questioned the low funding offered by Surrey Police. Runnymede received £30,000 a year for CCTV access from Surrey Police, but it had cost Runnymede Borough Council over £1.8 million to establish which meant the borough had to recover the costs elsewhere.
    7. A Member stated that mobile phones were not always the best placed item to capture crime and queried whether Surrey Police could collaborate more greatly with Sussex Police to ensure best practice. In response the PCC remarked that there was currently good collaboration between both forces.
    8. The PCC recalled that Surrey Police had no powers to require district and borough councils to give ownership of CCTV up, Woking for example chose to keep ownership. This resulted in fragmented funding on CCTV, with Surrey Police proposing a county wide procurement programme over many obsolete CCTV systems. The PCC suggested that borough and district councillors on the Panel should take this matter back to their respective councils.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report.

     

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

     

    1. R43/19-The PCC would check the specific point on the live feed being used in road side cameras.

     

    1. R44/19 -The PCC suggested that borough and district councillors on the Panel should take the matter of CCTV ownership back to their respective councils.

     

62/19

FEEDBACK ON MANAGEMENT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF CONSTABLE pdf icon PDF 144 KB

    This report provides an update on the meetings that have been held and what has been discussed in order to demonstrate that arrangements for good governance and scrutiny are in place.   

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Lisa Herrington, Chief Executive, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)

    Ian Perkin, Treasurer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1. A Member questioned how the reduction in the Levels of Victim Contact compliance was compatible with the new Victim and Witness Care Unit. The Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that the Victim Contact compliance was done by investigating officers separately to the Victim and Witness Care Unit which was a mandatory requirement as part of the Victims’ Code.
    2. In response to a Member question concerning the lessened role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Surrey the PCC stated that the CPS was very under resourced. There was however a good relationship between Surrey Police and the local CPS in Kent, Surrey and Sussex as a result of ‘embedded officers’ which were police who sat with the local CPS for joint collaboration over cases.
    3. The Vice-Chairman queried the amount of the 50% of all cash forfeitures recovered from the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 that went to Surrey Police and highlighted the error on page 68: that 18/75% should be 18.75 % of confiscation orders fulfilled by Surrey Police. The PCC stated that POCA was a success which brought in a large amount of money to the police with a recent successful bitcoin fraud crackdown.
    4. In response to the Vice-Chairman’s query, the PCC would report at a later date with more detail on the issue of Surrey Fire and Rescue receiving hate crime reports.
    5. In response to a Member’s concern over the lack of long-term success on Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) representation with the target of 9% being missed by half, the PCC remarked that Surrey Police had stepped up its positive action programme. This ensured that all candidates regardless of their background received the same access to training and mentoring through the selection process. Surrey Police needed to work with the BAME community to remove cultural disadvantages and it was also important to recruit more women and LGBT individuals.
    6. In response to the Chairman’s query on stalking and harassment, the PCC explained it was a severely underreported crime now with its own ‘Niche flag’. That ‘compliance in crime data integrity’ meant that volumes were recorded, ensured through better categorisation and encouragement for victims to report it. 
    7. The Chairman raised the issue of the Capital Programme and why Surrey Police only ‘appear’ to be getting this under control and whether the new finance tool called Host Analytics would resolve this. In response, the Treasurer (OPCC) stated that there was a caution of underspending within Surrey Police as past schemes did not take into consideration the additional costs from planning difficulties for example. Greater encouragement to use the funds available was necessary rather than a constant rolling over into the next year.

     

    RESOLVED:

    That the Police and Crime Panel noted the update on the PCC’s Performance Meetings.

     

    Actions/Further information to be provided:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62/19

63/19

COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION TIME pdf icon PDF 55 KB

    For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1. A Member remarked that earlier this year there was a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Knife Crime which linked the reduction in the amount of activities available for young people- through cuts in grant provisions - with knife crime. In response the PCC noted that knife crime in Surrey was low, however the fear of being stabbed by young people in Surrey was second on their anxiety rating behind mental health. He reported that there was not a major correlation between knife crime and closing youth services, but education in schools was important.
    2. The PCC also pointed out that preventative work was essential as although knife crime was more prevalent in London, it travelled out of the capital to counties such as Surrey. He also informed the Panel that he had pushed for a portion of the Governments’ £100 million of ‘Surge’ funding - of which the majority went to urban areas, London and the West Midlands for example- to tackle knife crime to be allocated to Surrey.
    3. Members were also informed that Surrey Police was running a knife amnesty campaign that week where anyone carrying a knife could surrender it anonymously to police stations. This included: Woking, Guildford and Reigate, to which Members were concerned as it was a long way to travel for those on the outskirts of Surrey. The campaign recognised that there was a higher correlation between knife carrying and being stabbed, the PCC commented that he had made a video the day before the Panel to widely publicise it.
    4. A Member raised the issue of the decreasing positive outcome rate of ‘high harm’ crimes and asked what the category consisted of. The PCC stated that it included a number of categories. In response, a Member stated that those categories should be included in an updated Appendix B: Crime Measures Requested by the Panel, on both the Levels of Crime and Positives Outcomes. The PCC recalled that he had six-weekly performance meetings with the Chief Constable where ‘high harm’ crime was taken seriously and he would look into expanding Appendix B in a future report to the Panel.
    5. Concerning the average time to answer 101 calls, a Member noted that many in his borough of Runnymede felt it worthless without any follow up. In response, PCC confirmed that there were statistics available on the nature of the calls; these would be reported by borough if available at the next Informal meeting. The PCC extended an invitation to the whole Panel to visit the Surrey Police Contact Centre, he also informed the Member that all 101 calls were recorded and he would follow-up specific calls and cases he may have.
    6. The PCC commented that half of all calls to 101 were not police matters. There had been an improvement of 101 use and handling over the last three years- made a priority by the Chief Constable and PC- with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63/19

64/19

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 53 KB

65/19

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME pdf icon PDF 44 KB

66/19

DATE OF NEXT MEETING