Agenda and minutes
PDF 299 KBVenue: Remote - during Covid-19, watch live: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-committees/webcasts
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: No apologies had been received.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on (5 February 2021) as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2021 were agreed as a true record of that meeting.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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 a written response will be circulated to Panel Members and the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: One question was received from Paul Kennedy (District Councillor - Mole Valley District Council). The response can be found attached to these minutes as Annex A.
A supplementary question was asked by Paul Kennedy and the response can be found below.
• Supplementary question asked by Paul Kennedy:
The questioner thanked the Chairman and thanked the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for his positive written response, noting that although the PCC was not yet a convert to 20 mph schemes, he welcomed the new broader approach and consultation outlined.
Regarding the PCC’s meeting on 24 March with Surrey County Council and Surrey Police he asked whether the scope for establishing more county-wide default speed limits in certain situations could be explored, as opposed to the existing expensive speed-testing, feasibility studies and requirements for serious injuries. Not just for 20 mph outside schools, but also for example 40 mph on quiet country lanes with unseen hazards as opposed to the often 60 mph speed limit. That whilst rural County Councillors such as the Vice-Chairman had worked hard, with the support of Surrey Police, to get specific roads reduced, at least to 40 mph, it was a difficult process and he asked that the PCC try to make the process less difficult in those situations.
Response:
The PCC confirmed that he had put the issue of 20 mph speed limits on the agenda for that upcoming meeting and the aim of the meeting was for it to be the start of a long process to revitalise the DriveSmart programme. He noted that change would not happen overnight and that he had doubts as to whether a blanket approach to 20 mph speed limits was correct, but welcomed a considered debate going forward.
|
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN 2018-2021 - PROGRESS
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.
This report provides an update on how the plan has been met to date. The current plan has been extended to May 2021, with a renewed emphasis from the PCC on three areas in 2020/21.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC highlighted that: · The ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ which remained at 13% was a concern. Although not bad compared with nationally and better than Sussex Police’s positive outcome rate, improvement was needed and he was optimistic that the rate would increase noting that he was satisfied with the enormous amount of work going on in Surrey Police and the extra resources going in. He added that delays in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had created a backlog in cases. · In addition to supporting the DriveSmart programme as noted in his response to the public question, he commended the Community Speed Watch scheme and noted that work was underway to start to formalise Surrey Police’s support for HGV Watch - in which volunteers kept a lookout for HGV's in restricted weight limit roads - and its roll out across the county. · Surrey Police had received over £500,000 from the Government’s Safer Streets Fund, which had been invested in housing blocks in Stanwell North, with the doubling of national funding on offer as a result of the recent Sarah Everard case. · The Magistrates and Crown Courts in Surrey and Sussex were hit badly by Covid-19, and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC) had been working with the local teams, the CPS and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to try and get back to normality. Whilst the throughput was back to normal levels, the backlog remained. His view that people were waiting too long for justice was shared by his PCC colleagues, noting dissatisfaction with the Government's slow and unimaginative reaction to addressing the delays and that no extra funding had been provided. 2. A Panel memberhighlighted: · The appalling positive outcome rate forhigh harm offences highlighting Appendix A: Police and Crime Plan Performance Measuresin which the ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ had dropped throughout the PCC’s tenure from 26.5% from the 2015/16 baseline to 13% 2020/21; he further asked how women in Surrey could feel confident in Surrey Police. · Appendix B: Crime Measures Requested by the Panel - Latest Data in which the ‘Positive Outcomes’ for Serious Sexual offences was 7.1% in 2020/21. He noted that the PCC throughout his tenure had done nothing to persuade the Chief Constable and Surrey Police to improve upon those rates. - In response, the PCC recognised that the rates were not good enough but disagreed with the use of ‘appalling’ as he noted that regarding the actual numbers of offences that had been solved, the numbers were not dissimilar year on year. What had changed however, was the increase in the number of reported offences particularly Serious Sexual offences. - He noted that during his tenure as PCC he had: - firstly, provided ... view the full minutes text for item 25/21 |
|
|
TACKLING RURAL CRIME STRATEGY UPDATE
The Panel received a report on the rural crime strategy in June 2020 and requested an update for this meeting. The attached report presents the panel with an update on the progress against the force’s rural crime strategy.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. A Panel member asked whetherthere was a breakdown of the different types of rural crime and their prevalence as that was not specified in the report. In response, the PCC was happy to provide the information requested, noting the complexity of defining a rural crime as opposed to a crime that took place in a rural setting. 2. A Panel member congratulated the PCC in providing the important update highlighting the issue of rural crime. However, he sought a clear definition of rural crime in order to understand how it was flagged on Surrey Police’s crime recording system. - In response, the PCC noted that he would pass on that thanks and noted that the precept increase was being used to fund a rural crime squad. He noted that although there was a rural crime flag on the NICHE reporting system, rural crime was a complex area and so he would look into providing a more detailed explanation. 3. The Vice-Chairman praised the Strategy and welcomed the Rural Report newsletter provided which highlighted Surrey Police’s successes in the rural areas and hoped that it would encourage residents to report crimes in rural areas. She welcomed the inclusion of the contact details for the rural crime officers across Surrey and asked how the newsletter was distributed. - In response, the PCCexplained that the newsletter was distributed through as many channels as possible particularly via social media. He explained that rural crime officers would normally be out on patrol meeting many residents which was not possible during the pandemic; and welcomed feedback on whether residents viewed the newsletter as useful.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the progress report on tackling rural crime from Surrey Police.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R5/21 - The PCC will provide a breakdown of the different types of rural crime and their prevalence, and will provide a more detailed explanation of how rural crime was flagged on the NICHE reporting system.
|
|
|
OPCC COMPLAINTS HANDLING UPDATE
The Panel received a report on the main changes to the police complaints review system and details of how they have been implemented in the Surrey OPCC in September 2020. This report presents the Panel with an update on subsequent progress.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC highlighted that the OPCC had been responsible for the review of complaints for over a year regarding decisions on complaints made by Surrey Police’s Professional Standards Department. 2. The PCC noted that the OPCC was expecting around fifty requests for reviews per year, which was an underestimate as there was one hundred and seventeen in 2020. Although he delegated the review process to the Complaints Review Manager (OPCC), he looked at every review decision which both highlighted the day-to-day operations of Surrey Police officers and that most complaints were handled fairly and thoroughly. 3. The PCC concluded that the review process had highlighted areas of unsafe practice, however it was a concern that a lot of resources were spent on the review process and he had increased his budget as a result. A further review on the process was needed by Government to ensure that full justice was granted to those raising a complaint.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the progress report on complaint handling from the OPCC.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
SURREY POLICE RECRUITMENT AND WORKFORCE UPDATE
The Panel has asked for an update report detailing the allocation of newly recruited officers as a result of the 20,000 uplift, how many officers were in training and how many were ‘on patrol’.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC noted that recruitment numbers were slowly returning to previous levels, recognising pleas from residents who had asked where their Council Tax money was being spent noting that they had not seen police officers on the beat; and explained that the recruitment process took time which the report detailed. 2. A Panel member asked how recruitment numbers could be increased from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities, the numbers were low and as a public service it was important that Surrey Police reflected the population it served. - In response, the PCC agreed with the Panel member’s comments and recognised her concern. - The PCC noted that in the national league table Surrey Police was doing well in terms of diversity but noted the need to improve further. He welcomed the national focus and Government’s prioritisation of increasing diversity across the nine protected characteristics - under the Equality Act 2010 - including BAME and women. - The PCC was confident in Surrey Police’s desire to increase diversity, noting the actions undertaken by the Chief Constable downwards including a special diversity department to try to increase diversity from a multitude of communities who would not normally consider a police career. - The PCC was pleased that recruitment was widening but recognised the worry over the narrowing of diversity higher up the ranks. It was vital to both increase recruitment and to ensure that those from BAME communities had equal chance with white peers to get to the highest ranks, with preparing people for final interview panel for example. - The PCC noted that the statistics on ethnicity from the 2011 Census were out of date and so hoped for an increase in diversity characteristics nationally and as a county in the 2021 Census. In response, the Panel member added that it was vital to recruit people from those nine protected characteristics now, to ensure more diversity across the future experienced officers up to highest rank of the Chief Constable. 3. A Panel member noted that rather than the standard route of advertising to join Surrey Police through social media or the newspapers, there was a need for more lateral thinking to increase recruitment from diverse backgrounds. He asked whether BAME communities were being utilised by Surrey Police to work with them to provide the path for career development and further asked whether the breakdown of applications by ethnicity could be provided; so by encouraging greater applications from BAME communities that would be translated into more recruits. - In response, the PCC agreed with the need to think laterally by working more closely with people from those communities who would not normally think of joining the police. Once lockdown restrictions eased, face-to-face engagement and recruitment could resume. - The PCC responded that a more detailed breakdown of applications by ethnicity could be provided and welcomed ideas to further diversify recruitment.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted ... view the full minutes text for item 28/21 |
|
|
VICTIM AND WITNESS CARE UNIT UPDATE
The Police and Crime Panel previously received an update on the VAWCU at its June 2020 meeting, which provided an overview of governance arrangements and the outcomes of recent formal reviews commissioned to ascertain Unit performance. The purpose of this paper is therefore to look at further developments that have taken place since this last update, and to highlight current demand pressures created by the pandemic. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC noted the success of the Unit which was a bold in-house venture replacing the Victim Support external contractor two years ago. the unit gives an extremely good service. 2. The PCC highlighted the issue of delays in the CPS due to the pandemic, noting that the usual caseload held by the Unit which was approximately seven hundred people being supported at any one time had nearly doubled. As a result, staffing in the Unit had increased and he noted the need to get back to normality in order for the CPS to clear the backlog as people were waiting too long for justice. 3. The Vice-Chairman asked whether there were any surveys carried out to gauge feedback from victims and witnesses who had received support from the Unit and if there were, she queried what type of responses had been provided. - In response, the PCC confirmed that there were regular surveys as feedback was invaluable. The responses had largely been positive and it was vital to understand that often victims had gone through a deeply traumatic time. He would look to provide the feedback from the surveys and include them in future reports.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R7/21 - The PCC will provide the feedback from the surveys carried out by the Victim and Witness Care Unit and will look to include that in future reports.
|
|
The purpose of this paper is to answer the Police and Crime Panel’s question with regard to: what work has been done by the PCC to tackle Hate Crime and ensure none of Surrey’s communities are subjected to discrimination. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC introduced the report and in response to a Panel member’s question he noted that he supported the recent announcement by the Government to record misogyny as a hate crime following the recent Sarah Everard case and provided assurance that Surrey Police was responding to the matter. 2. A Panel member highlighted the recent shootings in Georgia against Asian Americans and denounced former president Trump’s terming Covid-19 the ‘Chinese virus’ which had encouraged hate crime against Asian-Americans; he asked whether there was a rise in hate crime against British Asians. - In response, the PCC stated that he had not been briefed on any recent specific attacks against the Asian population in Surrey, however he noted the rise in hate crimes a few years ago in response to the rise in attacks by Islamist terrorists. 3. A Panel member sought clarification regarding paragraph 3.4 on page 78 on whether the ‘third of offenders’ that had mental health issues referred to offenders in hate crime, or whether it referred to offenders more generally. - In response, the PCC noted that the third related specifically to hate crime offenders. - The PCC recognised the need to address the prevalence of mental health issues noting a recent meeting with the Chief Constable and the Chief Executive of the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust in which a new task group was agreed to ensure that people with mental health issues who came to Surrey Police’s attention were to be treated in a more medical way. 4. A Panel member welcomed the collaboration between Surrey Police and Stop Hate UK but noted that it had taken a low number of calls on the issue of hate crime. She queried whether it might be possible to persuade local authorities to link in with Stop Hate Crime UK to encourage reporting, such as through training staff on front desks so residents could walk in and easily report hate crime. - In response, the PCC would take that point away especially as lockdown restrictions began to ease, adding that Surrey Fire and Rescue Services’ joint initiative which began two years ago in which residents could walk in to designated fire stations to report hate crimes and he noted that he would follow up on the outcomes of that initiative which could be extended to Borough and District Councils which he worked closely with. 5. The Vice-Chairman commented that it was important that the Stop Hate Line was well publicised to encourage more people to come forward particularly for those reluctant to go to the police to report hate crime incidents. She welcomed any ideas for the PCC to promote the service. - In response, the PCC thanked the Panel member for that suggestion. 6. The Chairman referred to paragraph 4.8 ‘Police Officers joining Surrey Police from 01/01/2020 to 31/12/2020 (includes probationers and transferees)’ which listed the headcount and ... view the full minutes text for item 30/21 |
|
|
PCC DECISIONS AND FORWARD PLAN
This report provides information on the formal decisions taken by the PCC from January 2021 to the present and details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2021.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman thanked the OPCC for providing the report with the decisions tabulated and welcomed it as a standing item.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None. |
|
One of the main responsibilities of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) is to hold the Chief Constable to account for delivery of the Police and Crime Plan. David Munro has set up a governance framework to discharge this duty. The main part of this framework is to hold six-weekly Performance Meetings where the Chief Constable reports on progress against the Police & Crime Plan and other strategic issues. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC highlighted the next PCC Performance Meeting with the Chief Constable on 30 March 2021 which was the last before the upcoming elections. 2. In response to the Chairman, the PCC confirmed that the meeting was public and so was streamed online.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the update on the PCC’s Performance Meetings.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
BUILDING THE FUTURE UPDATE
A verbal update will be provided to the Panel on the key aspects of strategic change concerning the Building the Future (BTF) programme since the Panel’s last meeting in February 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Alison Bolton - Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC) provided a verbal update on the Building the Future project following a key meeting held last Friday which marked the end of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stage 2 - Concept Design - with Stage 3 commencing. 2. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC) noted that recent consultation events on the project had been well-attended, in which residents and local councillors were provided with the design of the new Surrey Police headquarters in Leatherhead which would be operational in the next three to four years. Further information on the disposal strategy for some of the existing police estates was becoming available. 3. The PCC stated that he was pleased with the way the project was progressing and the Building the Future Board was working well. He added that it was a large and complex project over the next three years and that the appointed contractors were looking at the details of the construction. 4. The PCC highlighted the series of community engagement events in Leatherhead for local residents which were positive, noting some concerns raised including parking and road congestion. The planning application would be submitted to Mole Valley District Council later in the year. 5. A Panel member asked for further information as to whether there was a timeline available regarding the future closure of Reigate Police Station. In response, the PCC noted that the non-local functions would move into the new headquarters and the local functions including the front counters and the police officers and staff would be re-provided for within the Reigate and Banstead borough. The current police station would not be vacated until a new building was found and the headquarters were operational.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION TIME
For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.
Note: The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (16 March 2021). Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
See Annex B - Submitted Questions and Responses
1. Councillor Will Forster (Woking Borough Council):
Thanked the PCC for his positive answer noting that he was pleased that he had taken on board the suggestion for Surrey Police to review its position on Surrey County Council’s part-night lighting policy and welcomed the OPCC’s application for further Safer Streets funding; and asked whether he had a timescale for the review and application.
In response, the PCC recognised residents’ concern on the part-night lighting policy which he noted was Surrey County Council’s policy. Regarding a timescale for the application to the expanded Safer Streets Fund, he noted that the OPCC was in a position to act swiftly.
A Panel member sought clarity on whose responsibility it was to turn on or off street lights as when the question around the part-night lighting policy was raised at March’s Surrey County Council meeting, the response was that it was down to Surrey Police to recommend if they felt that lights ought to be turned back on in a particular area which was contrary to the PCC’s last comment that it was up to Surrey County Council.
In response, the PCC explained that the lights and part-night lighting policy were under the jurisdiction of Surrey County Council.
A Panel member clarified that the part-night lighting policy was Surrey County Council’s, Surrey Police were regarded as consultees which meant that if it provided strong reasons to turn streets lights on in terms of safety or crime then it could influence the outcome that had been requested. He stated that overall there had not been a large number of residents or Borough and District Councils asking for street lights to be turned on, he noted that any Borough or District Council could ask for the streets lights to be turned on and pay for it themselves, which is what Spelthorne Borough Council had done.
A Panel member commented that in her experience Surrey County Council had reacted positively to questions on street lights, noting a successful example of getting the street lights turned back on in a local road.
The PCC echoed Panel members’ clarifications and noted Surrey Police’s supporting role regarding the policy.
RESOLVED:
The Panel raised issues and queries concerning Crime and Policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
To note complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner received since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager, Surrey County Council (SCC) David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) explained that regarding Appendix A page 95, the complainant and PCC had been informed of the outcome on 16 March 2021. 2. The PCC confirmed that as recommended by the Complaints Sub-Committee, he wrote an explanatory letter to the complainant which was circulated to the members of the Complaints Sub-Committee for reference. 3. The Chairman thanked the Complaints Sub-Committee members for their work and the Committee Manager’s (SCC) presentation of the complaint information.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report and that the Complaints Sub-Committee had received one complaint since the last Panel meeting.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
To review the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager, Surrey County Council (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that regarding an update on the EQUIP project, action R7/20, that had been completed as an action and had been added to the Forward Work Programme 2021 as a standing Part 2 item when an update was available. 2. The Chairman thanked the OPCC and Committee Manager (SCC) for keeping the Actions and Recommendations Tracker updated with detailed responses.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the Actions and Recommendations Tracker and the Forward Work Programme.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 30 June 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel noted that its next public meeting would be held on 30 June 2021 - Annual General Meeting - the location was to be confirmed.
The Chairman thanked the Panel members for their participation and the work of the OPCC and Committee Manager (SCC) to ensure meetings ran smoothly. He wished those standing for re-election the best of luck, thanking Panel members for their service as critical friends to the PCC.
The PCC noted that it may be his last meeting pending the upcoming elections and thanked the Chairman, past chairmen and Panel members for their contributions over the years which he hoped had added to good policing in the county over the last five years.
The Chairman reciprocated thanks to the PCC for his service over the last five years which included the extra year due to the delayed PCC elections. He wished all a good spring and a safe easing out of the Covid-19 restrictions.
|