Agenda and minutes
PDF 410 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, Reigate
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Note: Live webcast: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-committees/webcasts
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
The Panel is asked to elect a Chairman for year 2021/22. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor David Reeve was proposed by Councillor Victor Lewanski and seconded by Councillor John Robini.
RESOLVED:
The Panel agreed the appointment of Councillor David Reeve as the Surrey Police and Crime Panel Chairman for the Council Year 2021/2022.
The Chairman:
· Welcomed all to the Annual meeting of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, held at Surrey County Council’s new headquarters. · Welcomed the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (2021-2024), Lisa Townsend. · Welcomed the following from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC): Alison Bolton - Chief Executive, Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer and Ellie Vesey-Thompson - proposed appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey. · Welcomed the following new Panel Members: Cllr Paul Kennedy - Mole Valley District Council, Cllr Bruce McDonald - Elmbridge Borough Council, Cllr Valerie White - Surrey Heath Borough Council, Cllr Mick Gillman - Tandridge District Council and Cllr Keith Witham - Surrey County Council. · Recorded thanks to outgoing Panel members and particularly to the previous Vice-Chairman, Cllr Hazel Watson.
|
|
|
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
The Panel is asked to elect a Vice-Chairman for year 2021/22. Additional documents: Minutes: One nomination had been received in advance of the meeting:
1. Councillor Victor Lewanski was proposed by Councillor David Reeve and seconded by Councillor John Furey.
A further nomination was made at the meeting:
2. Councillor Bruce McDonald was proposed by Councillor John Robini and seconded by Councillor Fiona White.
A Panel member noted that it would be useful for each of the nominations to provide background information about themselves, to which Councillor Lewanski and Councillor McDonald did.
As there was more than one nomination a vote was taken by show of hands, with 7 votes For Councillor Bruce McDonald and 3 votes For Councillor Victor Lewanski.
RESOLVED:
The Panel agreed the appointment of Councillor Bruce McDonald as the Surrey Police and Crime Panel Vice-Chairman for the Council Year 2021/2022.
|
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: No apologies had been received.
Councillor Bernie Spoor joined the meeting at 11.17 am, he noted his apologies for his late arrival.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 22 MARCH 2021
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2021 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: Referring to minute item 33/21: Building the Future - Update, a Panel member asked whether approval could be delayed for that item until after the upcoming Part 2 item 21: Building the Future Update as a result of possible contradiction in relation to statements made by the previous PCC.
In response the Chairman noted that the minutes were correct at the time of writing, therefore:
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2021 were agreed as a true record of that meeting.
Referring to page 15, minute item 24/21: Public Questions, Annex A: Question submitted by Paul Kennedy, concerning the previous Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey’s response, a Panel member noted that there was no evidence to prove “that there is a significant number of residents who are passionate to see them introduced” concerning an increase in 20mph speed limit areas in Surrey. He requested that the Panel note the misleading elements of the previous PCC’s response, unless the previous PCC was aware of evidence for his statement and asked for that number to be quantified and shared with the Panel.
A Panel member also referring to page 15, minute item 24/21: Public Questions, Annex A: Question submitted by Paul Kennedy, concerning the previous PCC’s response, explained that his question concerning the increase in 20mph speed limit areas in Surrey was triggered by a petition submitted by Oxshott residents to Elmbridge Local Committee, and a motion passed by Godalming Town Council. He asked whether the PCC would give a similar response to her predecessor.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R9/21 -The OPCC will look to quantify the previous PCC’s response: “that there is a significant number of residents who are passionate to see them introduced” and the PCC to confirm whether she would give a similar response to her predecessor, regarding minute item 24/21, regarding page 15, minute item 24/21: Public Questions, Annex A: Question submitted by Paul Kennedy.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (23 June 2021).
Note: A written response will be circulated to Panel Members and the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: Two public questions had been received and the responses can be found attached to these minutes as Annex A.
A Panel member referred to item 6 - Public Questions, noting that Surrey Police’s response to Hazel Watson’s question on static acoustic cameras was unsatisfactory as it suggested that the commitment by the previous PCC was stuck in a review by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA). He asked whether the PCC had proposals to move that commitment along. - The PCC noted the question and would consider ways of moving the previous PCC’s commitment along - see item 46/21, key point 10 and action R11/21 where the Panel requested the CIPFA report.
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION FROM THE SURREY POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER 2021-2024
Following the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections on Thursday 6 May 2021 (postponed from 2020 due to Covid-19) a new Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey was elected for 2021-2024: Lisa Townsend.
The PCC will provide a verbal update. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (PCC) congratulated and welcomed the Panel’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2021/22. 2. The PCC thanked the Committee Manager (SCC) for preparing the agenda and the OPCC for its support in her first few weeks. 3. The PCC noted that it was a pleasure to meet the Panel and looked forward to working with Panel members going forward particularly on the development and consultation of the new draft Police and Crime Plan; which she hoped Panel members would contribute to and share the views of their residents - the Panel would receive the draft Plan in the autumn. 4. A Panel member asked the PCC to take note of two items which were regularly raised by local residents: · The lack of speeding enforcement by Surrey Police and support for the Community Speed Watch scheme. · The reduction in coverage by local newspapers over the last eighteen months of crime reporting. He asked whether the PCC would consider using an OPCC staff member to publicise court convictions via social media channels. 5. Referring to crime reduction, prevention and design, a Panel member sought assurance on whether there would be full-time crime reduction and Crime Prevention Design Advisors (CPDAs). 6. A Panel member noted that he read more on Facebook about local crimes committed such as burglary than he was informed by Surrey Police and queried how the publicity of crimes could be increased to local communities. 7. Since taking office in May, a Panel member asked what the PCC had learnt about policing in Surrey. - The PCC emphasised how hard Surrey Police worked throughout the county, noting the many dedicated unsung heroes and the police staff in the Contact Centre responding to enquiries twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. - The PCC recognised the enormous responsibility of her role in keeping Surrey safe and feeling safe by working closely with Surrey Police ensuring that it was resourced adequately and that the Chief Constable was held to account, and by working closely with the Panel. 8. The Panel member further asked the PCC what her aspirations and top priorities were for the next three years. - The PCC noted the importance for Surrey to feel safe through tackling antisocial behaviour, speeding and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and that her top priorities would reflect those of Surrey’s residents. 9. The Panel member further asked the PCC how she would be the voice of Surrey’s residents and engage with them going forward, asking whether there would be a similar level of public engagement events as there had been previously. - The PCC explained that she would be the voice of residents by listening to them and echoing their concerns as raised in the upcoming consultation on the draft Police and Crime Plan. - The PCC recognised the good level of engagement undertaken by her predecessor, ... view the full minutes text for item 44/21 |
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR SURREY ANNUAL REPORT 2020-21
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011) places a duty on Police and Crime Commissioners to produce an Annual Report. The report should cover the exercise of the PCC’s functions in the financial year and the progress made in meeting the Police and Crime Plan. The report should be presented to the Police and Crime Panel for comment and recommendations, and then a published version with pictures will be produced.
The attached Annual Report covers the period April 2020 to March 2021 and is submitted to the Police and Crime Panel for comment.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. Referring to page 28, Key Performance Measure (KPM): ‘Solved Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse, hate crime)’, a Panel member noted that the Panel had raised its concerns on the KPM with the previous PCC and OPCC and reiterated that it was unacceptably low. The Panel member asked whether increasing the solved rate would be a priority for the new PCC and Surrey Police over the next three years and what the target level would be for it to be judged as a priority. - In response the PCC agreed that the solved rate was unacceptably low and had been clear about that during her election campaign, she noted that she would not provide a target level, explaining that increasing the solved rate would be a priority.
RESOLVED:
Members of the Police and Crime Panel commented on the Annual Report prior to its formal publication.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R10/21 - The Panel will formally write to the PCC with the comments and feedback raised in the discussion.
|
|
|
SURREY POLICE GROUP UNAUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2020/21
The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the Surrey Police Group (i.e. OPCC and Chief Constable combined) unaudited financial position as at the year-end 31March 2021. The report compares the Group financial results with the budgets approved by the previous PCC Mr David Munro in January 2020 for the financial year 2020/21.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) highlighted that the accounts concerning 2020/21 were unaudited and noted that there could be some changes as a result of the audit that was underway. 2. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) provided a summary of key areas: · Revenue budget - was predicted to have a £1.6 million underspend, representing 0.6% of the total Surrey Police Group budget, partly due to unanticipated Covid-19 grants including £750,000 received in January and the phasing of the recruitment of officers pushed back to later in the year. · Increase in the number of Police Officers and Staff - the total increase from Operation Uplift and Precept investment was 156.5 individuals, with fewer Police Staff recruited from the Precept investment as at March 2021 - 38.5 compared to the investment provided of 52.5 - the target had since been reached. · Covid-19 costs - the total cost was £6.7 million however the costs were not all additional costs as for example officers doing a particular task had been reassigned to Covid-19 tasks. £4.3 million of the total costs had been funded by the Government, primarily in relation to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and marshalling costs. · Capital budget - as in previous years several projects had slipped into the current year which was in line with Surrey Police’s multi-year capital budgeting system, £6.74 million would be carried forward from 20/21 to 21/22. · Reserves - increased slightly from £19.5 million to £19.6 million, highlighting the transfer of £750,000 Government surge funding into the Covid-19 reserves. Out of the Surrey Police Group’s overall budget of around £250 million, the reserve amount was small at around 3% which was at the lower end nationally. 3. A Panel member queried the earmarked and unearmarked reserves noting the low level for an organisation the size of Surrey Police and asked whether there were plans to increase the reserve levels. - In response the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) agreed that the level was low compared with nationally, noting that the only way to increase the level would be to impact on the delivery of services. - The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) highlighted the need to make substantial savings over the next three years, however Government funding if better than predicted could be used to increase reserves. Although the reserve level did not provide much flexibility for addressing shocks, if there was another large crisis the Government would step in with funding. 4. Referring to section 3 - Capital Financial Performance for the Year, a Panel member highlighted the notable underspend in the ICT Strategy as most organisations tended to overspend in that area and asked whether that was due to delays in projects because of Covid-19. - In response the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that several ICT projects had been carried forward from the previous year due to capacity issues in relation to staffing and Covid-19 had been a factor. Surrey Police ... view the full minutes text for item 46/21 |
|
|
OFFICE OF THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER END OF YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2020/21
The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the OPCC’s year-end financial out-turn for the 2020/21 financial year. The report compares the net expenditure incurred against the OPCC financial budget approved by the previous PCC Mr David Munro.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) introduced the report which set out the predicted financial outturn for the OPCC for 2020/21, split into a section on operational costs and the other on grants and money paid to third party providers and services. 2. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that the total underspend of approximately £100,000 was detailed on page 48, some of that underspend had been used to give more grants to various organisations and during year over £3 million had been used to fund Community Safety, domestic and sexual abuse services and the Victim and Witness Care Unit. 3. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that the OPCC had also received additional grants from the Ministry of Justice and from the Government’s Safer Streets Fund - going forward the strategy was to access more of those grants. 4. A Panel member referred to the additional £500,000 for third sector partners agreed by the previous PCC and asked who those partners were and who had been consulted on that spend. - The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that he would provide a list in due course and explained that the partners included the third sector and voluntary organisations that the OPCC worked with. - A further Panel member noted that the additional grants to partners particularly during the Coronavirus crisis was important and supported the provision of further detail on the spend of those grants and the monitoring process. 5. The Vice-Chairman referred to the PCC Operational Costs highlighting the variance within Governance and Audit due to the change in responsibility for funding for Police Cadet posts and the double accruing of the OPCC’s and Surrey Police’s internal audit costs - to which he asked for further detail. - In response the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained in the previous year 2019/20 the internal audit costs were accrued by both Surrey Police and the OPCC. When the accrual was brought forward to 2020/21, Surrey Police paid those internal audit costs, giving a large credit to the OPCC. 6. Referring to Surrey Police taking on responsibility for funding of the Police Cadet posts, a Panel member asked for assurance on whether that change in responsibility would be accounted for in next year’s outturn. - In response the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) confirmed that the switch was built into the budget going forward for 2021/22.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted and commented on the financial performance of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey for the 2020/21 financial year.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R12/21 - The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) will provide a list of the third sector partners given an additional funding as part of the £500,000 allocation to cope with the financial challenges of Covid-19, who had been consulted on that spend and the monitoring process undertaken.
|
|
|
PCC DECISIONS AND FORWARD PLAN
This report provides information on the formal decisions taken by the PCC from March 2021 to present and details of the OPCC’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2021/2022.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Alison Bolton - Chief Executive (OPCC) Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. Referring to Appendix A - OPCC Decision Log 2021, a Panel member suggested that it would be helpful to have a column indicating the spend on those items. - In response the PCC was happy for that to be added for the next meeting where appropriate. 2. A Panel member referred to Appendix B - OPCC Forward Plan and queried when the outstanding items from May 2021 including the GDPR audit and CIPFA Return would be completed. - In response the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that he would need to check whether the CIPFA Return had been completed - the OPCC Forward Plan would be updated. - Regarding the GDPR audit the Chief Executive (OPCC) responded that she believed it to be completed along with the ICV Annual Training, adding that the GDPR audit would go to an upcoming OPCC and Surrey Police’s Joint Audit Committee agenda, all reports were published publicly unless official sensitive.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R13/21 - A column indicating the spend where appropriate on the items in the OPCC Decision Log 2021 would be added for the next meeting.
|
|
|
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 (24 June 2021). Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
SURREY PCP BUDGET 2020-21
The Surrey Police and Crime Panel has accepted a grant from the Home Office to meet the costs of the Panel, including the administrative support. This paper is to report on the use of the grant in 2020/21 (April 2020 - March 2021). Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that the Surrey Police and Crime Panel received an annual grant from the Home Office of £66,180, the report showed the expenditure for 2020/21. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) explained that the report had been originally scheduled for September’s Panel but was brought forward to align the Budget information as contained in the PCP Annual Report 2020-2021. 3. The Committee Manager (SCC) highlighted that the total spend for 2020/21 of £39,415 was significantly less than the 2019/20 total of £50,811 as a result of savings due to Covid-19. 4. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted the increased level of public engagement over the past year whilst meetings had been remote as a result of Covid-19; noting that the total webcasting hits for meetings between June - February 2020/21 was six times greater than compared to the 2019/20 figures, the figures for the February 2021 Precept meeting were over ten times greater than the previous year.
RESOLVED:
That Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
SURREY POLICE AND CRIME PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2020-2021
In accordance with best practice for scrutiny and transparency as noted in Schedule 3 – In-Year Monitoring Information Requirements of the Home Office Grant Agreement, an annual report by Police and Crime Panels is an important Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to be monitored and reported on.
This report provides a summary of the activity of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel during June 2020 - May 2021 (up to the elections).
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC) Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that it was the second of such reports brought to the Panel since being introduced last year and it provided a summary of the Panel’s activity during June 2020 - May 2021. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) further noted that the report was provided in accordance with best practice for scrutiny and transparency as noted in Schedule 3 – In-Year Monitoring Information Requirements of the Home Office Grant Agreement. 3. The Committee Manager (SCC) highlighted that the report included the newly introduced Chairman and Vice-Chairman’s foreword which summarised that despite the sudden change from in person meetings to remote meetings the Panel continued to act as a ‘critical friend’ to the PCC, it held its Complaints Sub-Committees, it recruited two new Independent Members in September, Panel members attended virtual events such as the was used for the PCP Ninth National Conference in November and received full Panel training in January to investigate its scrutiny approach going forward. 4. The Chairman thanked Panel members for their work over the past year. 5. The Chairman suggested that Panel members used the report to publicise the work of the Panel to their respective Borough and District Councils, and local areas; adding that the Panel’s dedicated website would be upgraded to provide a central location for Panel information and documents available to the public. 6. A Panel member noted that in respect of raising awareness of the Panel, he noted that when Woking Borough Council appoint a representative to an outside body such as the Panel, a report is submitted to Council annually summarising the Panel’s work. He asked whether other Panel members representing District and Borough Councils did something similar or could do going forward. 7. The Chairman noted that it would be useful if Panel members promoted the Panel’s Annual Report at their respective Borough and District Councils particularly in advance of a visit from the PCC; and welcomed any suggestions from Panel members in terms of raising awareness of the Panel’s work. 8. A Panel member noted that the earlier queries he posed to the PCC were reflective of two key issues raised by residents in response to his posts on various local Facebook pages last weekend where he noted his opportunity to question the PCC on behalf of residents. 9. The Chairman requested that the Committee Manager (SCC) re-circulate the Panel’s Annual Report document to Panel members so it could be easily shared. 10. A Panel member noted that he had submitted three of the four Public Questions last year, noting that the lack of Public Questions showed that the work of the Panel was not widely known. - In response the Chairman confirmed that role of Panel members was to encourage Public Questions and to make the PCC’s and Panel’s work more visible to residents. 11. The Vice-Chairman commented on the ... view the full minutes text for item 51/21 |
|
|
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 (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) explained that the Complaints Sub-Committee had received one complaint since the last Panel meeting as noted in Appendix A, which set out the details of the complaint and the action taken; the complainant and the PCC were informed of the outcome on 1 June 2021. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that it was standard practice for the Director of Law and Governance (SCC) to attend the Complaints Sub-Committee to provide legal advice.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the report and Appendix A: 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 (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman explained that the Recommendations Tracker included detailed responses to actions agreed at Panel meetings. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) highlighted the additional Annexes A-C to the Recommendations Tracker concerning items: R1/21, R4/21 and R7/21. 3. The Committee Manager (SCC) thanked the OPCC for providing comprehensive responses and would continue to work with the OPCC to complete their allocated outstanding actions. 4. The Chairman reminded Panel members that he welcomed any suggestions for items to be added to the Forward Work Programme.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted the Actions & Recommendations Tracker and the Forward Work Programme.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMPLAINTS SUB-COMMITTEE 2021/22
The Panel is asked to reconstitute the Complaints Sub-Committee for 2021/22. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman explained the role of the Complaints Sub-Committee including its chairmanship, noting that Panel members were required to attend meetings at short notice - within four weeks of a complaint being recorded - and that the frequency of meetings varied. 2. The Chairman noted the seven nominations put forward for the Sub-Committee and that as it had to be convened at short notice, he asked whether any other Panel members would wish to join. - In response Councillor Kennedy confirmed to the Committee Manager (SCC) that he would join the Complaints Sub-Committee as a substitute member. 3. The Chairman informed the Panel that the Complaints Protocol would be reviewed in the coming months, ensuring the logical ordering of the sections such as in relation to the handling of the disapplication of the Regulations - by the Panel’s Chairman or by the Complaints Sub-Committee.
RESOLVED:
1. Agreed the Terms of Reference for the Complaints Sub-Committee. 2. Appointed the following members to the Complaints Sub-Committee for the 2021/22 Council year, having filled the vacancies: · Councillor David Reeve - Chairman · Councillor Bruce McDonald - Vice-Chairman · Councillor John Furey · Councillor Valerie White · Councillor John Robini · Councillor Bernie Spoor · Independent Member - Mr Philip Walker · Councillor Paul Kennedy (substitute) 3. Agreed the Surrey Police and Crime Panel Complaints Protocol, and the Complaints Handling Flowchart.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R16/21 - A review of the Complaints Protocol will be undertaken.
|
|
|
RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FINANCE SUB-GROUP 2021/22
The Panel is asked to reconstitute the Finance Sub-Group for 2021/22. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman explained that whilst not meeting as frequently as the Complaints Sub-Committee, the Finance Sub-Group was intensive around the time of Precept-setting currently scheduled to meet once in February with the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC). 2. The Chairman noted the four nominations put forward for the Sub-Committee and he asked whether any other Panel members would wish to join to fill the two vacancies. - In response Councillor Gillman volunteered himself as a member, filling in one of the vacancies. - The Chairman responded that the remaining vacancy would look to be filled by or at the next Panel meeting. 3. The Chairman noted that in addition to the February meeting of the Finance Sub-Group a few days before the Panel meeting, as agreed last year the Finance Sub-Group would look to meet in the autumn to have an initial review, if possible, of the PCC’s upcoming budget.
RESOLVED:
1. Agreed the Terms of Reference for the Finance Sub-Group. 2. Appointed the following members to the Finance Sub-Group for the 2021/22 Council year, with one vacancy remaining: · Councillor David Reeve - Chairman (ex-officio) · Councillor Bruce McDonald - Vice-Chairman (ex-officio) · Councillor Paul Kennedy · Councillor Mick Gillman · Vacancy · Independent Member - Mr Martin Stilwell
Actions/further information to be provided:
1. R17/21 - The remaining vacancy on the Finance Sub-Group will look to be filled by or at the next meeting of the Panel. 2. R18/21 - A meeting of the Finance Sub-Group will be scheduled in the autumn to have an initial review, if possible, of the PCC’s upcoming budget.
|
|
|
CONFIRMATION HEARING: APPOINTMENT OF A DEPUTY POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR SURREY
Following notification from the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner of her intention to appoint the preferred candidate, Ellie Vesey-Thompson as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, the Surrey Police and Crime Panel has a responsibility to hold a Confirmation Hearing, in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Note:
See Appendix C for the Surrey Police and Crime Panel - Confirmation Hearing Protocol for the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey.
See Item 22 - The Panel will hold a closed session in Part 2 to agree its recommendation to the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Proposed appointment to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman: · Welcomed the proposed appointee to the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC), Ellie Vesey-Thompson. · Noted that the Panel received informal notification on the proposed appointment to the role of DPCC on 27 May 2021 and formal notification was provided from the PCC on 22 June 2021 - date of agenda publication. · Noted that following notification from the PCC, the Confirmation Hearing had been convened in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in order for Panel members to question the proposed appointment on whether she had the professional competence and personal independence to exercise the role. · Referred Panel members to the Surrey Police and Crime Panel - Confirmation Hearing Protocol for the DPCC, included as Appendix C in the agenda. · Further noted that after the Panel had dealt with the remaining items, Panel members would go into a private closed session under Part 2 (item 22) to decide upon its recommendation to the PCC, which may include a recommendation as to whether the individual should or should not be appointed. · Concluded that following the decided recommendation, he would then write to the PCC with the Panel’s recommendation.
2. The Panel began with asking the PCC to introduce the proposed appointment:
In response the PCC stated that:
· The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 provides, under section 18(1), that the PCC for a police area may appoint a person as the DPCC for that area. · It was understood that the Home Office would bring forward legislation to mandate that each PCC must appoint a DPCC, rather than wait she noted that she wished to appoint a DPCC and in her view was fortunate that the perfect candidate was willing. · Miss Vesey-Thompson brought a lot to the role and complemented her own competencies, she was passionate about public service and around 75% of her time would be spent on issues of youth and crime prevention - tacking problems such as antisocial behaviour, school exclusions, speeding - which the PCC noted were areas of focus lacking in the OPCC. · Miss Vesey-Thompson assisted her on her election campaign, where she saw her commitment to liaising with the public and with young people in the community, stressing that a young person could be both a victim and perpetrator of crime. · She was delighted to nominate Miss Vesey-Thompson and looked forward to working together with the Panel. 3. The Chairman asked the PCC whether her proposed appointment of DPCC would be identified as her preferred successor and whether she was assured that Miss Vesey-Thompson had the required skills, experience and knowledge to effectively discharge the functions of her office in such an event. - In response the PCC noted that it was not Miss Vesey-Thompson’s intention to succeed her ... view the full minutes text for item 56/21 |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Recommendation: To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during the following item of business, as it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within Paragraph 3 of Part I Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, being information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information) and, further, that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
While there may be a public interest in disclosing this information, namely openness in the deliberations of the Panel in determining its recommendation regarding the proposed appointment, it is felt that, on balance, this is outweighed by other factors in favour of maintaining the exemption, namely enabling a full discussion regarding the merits of the proposed appointment. Additional documents: Minutes:
One Panel Member noted that the report for item 21 contained no commercially sensitive information and requested that this item be considered in public, given the strong public interest in the matter.
Another Panel Member agreed that the paper for item 21 contained no inherently sensitive material but felt it would be better for the discussion to be held in private in case any exempt material was discussed - to which the Chairman supported.
Following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED:
That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
|
|
|
BUILDING THE FUTURE UPDATE
The purpose of this report is to update the Panel on key aspects of delivery for the strategic change programme ‘Building the Future’ (BTF) since the Panel’s last meeting in June 2020.
Report to follow
Confidential: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Part 2 report was discussed.
Councillor John Furey left the meeting at 1.13 pm
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the Part 2 report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
R19/21 -The Panel will be notified when the information contained in the Part 2 report is to be put into the public domain, receiving a detailed report within the standing item of Building the Future - Update at a future Panel, including the results of the strategic assessment.
The meeting was adjourned for a comfort break at 1.17 pm
The meeting was resumed at 1.29 pm
|
|
The Panel will hold a closed session in Part 2 to agree its recommendation to the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner.
Confidential: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
Note:
See Item 19 - Confirmation Hearing
Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel deliberated over the questions and responses provided and then voted, recommending that Miss Vesey-Thompson should not be appointed to the position of DPCC.
(Prior to the vote, the Chairman asked if there was any request for a recorded vote. No Panel member requested it - three Panel members are required to request a recorded vote - see 3.7 of the Panel’s Constitution)
A summary of Panel members’ concerns and reasons for not recommending the appointment would be provided in the Panel’s formal letter of response for consideration by the PCC by the next working day in line with the below point from the Panel’s Confirmation Hearing Protocol:
3.3 The Panel is invited to question the candidate in order to confirm they have the necessary professional competence and personal independence to carry out the role.
RESOLVED:
R20/21 - The Panel will formally write to the PCC with its recommendation noting the concerns raised in the discussion (see Annexes B and C).
That the Surrey Police and Crime Panel recommends that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey does not appoint the proposed candidate, Miss Vesey-Thompson, to the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey.
The Panel recommended that a period of five working days should elapse before its recommendation was made public.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY OF PART 2 ITEMS
To consider whether the item considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and public. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
The Panel agreed that no confidential information within the items considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and Public.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 15 September 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel noted that its next public meeting would be held on 15 September 2021 at Woodhatch Place, Reigate.
|