Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Woodhatch Place, Reigate, Surrey

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

Items
No. Item

62/21

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

    • Share this item

    The Chairman to report apologies for absence.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from Councillor Keith Witham and Councillor Fiona White in advance of the meeting. Councillor John Furey and Councillor Bernie Spoor were unable to attend due to the protest activity on the M25 and sent their apologies.  

63/21

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 30 JUNE 2021 pdf icon PDF 403 KB

64/21

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    • Share this item

    All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter

    (i)            Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or

    (ii)           Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting

    NOTES:

    ·         Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

    ·         As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

    ·         Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

     

65/21

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (8 September 2021).

     

    Note:

    A written response will be circulated to Panel Members and the questioner.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    None received.

     

66/21

BUILDING THE FUTURE UPDATE pdf icon PDF 226 KB

    • Share this item

    This report seeks to provide more detail on the progress to date of the Building the Future (BTF) programme as well as the context to the decision to initiate the strategic assessment which will see three options explored for the future HQ. The Programme Director, Maureen Cherry and Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp have been invited to the Panel’s meeting to provide Panel members with technical or operational details. 

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

    Nev Kemp - Deputy Chief Constable (Senior Responsible Officer for the Building the Future Programme), Surrey Police

    Maureen Cherry - Building the Future Programme Director, Surrey Police

    Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1.    The Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (PCC) explained that she had taken office as the Building the Future Programme review by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Administration concluded and that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC) and Surrey Police had been transparent with the information provided to the Panel; and would continue to do so via regular updates on the Programme and the current Strategic Estates Assessment that was underway.

    2.    The PCC welcomed the Deputy Chief Constable (Surrey Police) and the Building the Future Programme Director (Surrey Police) to present the item.

    3.    The Deputy Chief Constable (Surrey Police) highlighted that:

    ·         The Programme was initiated in 2016 and the high-level strategic business case was approved in April 2017.

    ·         Following the purchase of the Leatherhead site the strategic business case was updated in October 2018 and the Programme Director was formally appointed in February 2020.

    ·         The delivery of the Programme followed the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Works which consisted of eight stages.

    ·         The Programme and finances were on track as noted in the review undertaken a year ago by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA).

    Councillor John Robini joined the meeting at 10.56 am

    ·         The three main elements to the Programme’s scope as at October 2019 were:

    -       Neighbourhood Policing Base: required in Reigate and Banstead to ensure that there would be no reduction in police provision as a result of the sale of Reigate Police Station.

    -       Agile Working Project: accelerated as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and had benefitted productivity.  

    -       Disposals Project: whereby a number of buildings and estates were disposed of, originally four into one, later becoming five into one; the separate pieces of work taking place in parallel were not joined up: Operational Estate, Housing Stock and Vacant Estate.

    ·           The Programme along with the Surrey Police Estates Strategy and the Surrey Police Housing Strategy were later aligned in early 2021 to ensure efficiency, value for money and a comprehensive estate that served the needs of Surrey Police and in turn Surrey’s residents.

    ·           Stage 2 with a robust cost plan was completed in March 2021, the Building the Future (BTF) Board approved the move to Stage 3 and following that move it was an opportune moment to carry out a review - undertaken by CIPFA.

    ·           A recommendation had been made to the previous PCC that the CIPFA review in March 2021 should be conducted due to several key reasons:

    -       The financial position of Surrey Police and the country was different compared to 2016 due to the pandemic, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66/21

67/21

POLICE AND CRIME PLAN DEVELOPMENT pdf icon PDF 133 KB

    • Share this item

    One of the main responsibilities of a Police & Crime Commissioner is to set out a Police and Crime Plan to cover their current tenure and until the end of the financial year after the next election. The Plan should be set as soon as is practicable after an election, at the latest before the end of the financial year after election, that is March 2022.

     

    PCC Lisa Townsend wishes to make sure that the Plan she sets is the right one for Surrey and is reflective of as wide a range of views as possible. As part of this she is carrying out extensive consultation, assisted by her Deputy. The Plan also needs to reflect operational demands and the professional opinion of the Chief Constable.

     

    The consultation and timescales for publishing the Plan are set out in the report.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

    Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

    Alison Bolton - Chief Executive, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.    The PCC highlighted that the development of a Police and Crime Plan was one of the main responsibilities of PCCs, the new Plan was currently in development and under phase one of the consultation Panel members should have been invited to provide their views; phase two would be a survey open to all of Surrey’s residents and stakeholders.

    2.    The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (DPCC):

    ·         Explained that in phase one she had hosted twenty-five focus group style sessions to gather the views of schools - further sessions were to come - councillors and subject matter experts, as well as view gathering when out and about meeting residents and stakeholders.

    ·         Urged Panel members to complete the tailored survey link regarding phase one of the consultation.

    ·         Noted that some clear themes had emerged which she did not delve into so as not to pre-empt the data driven analysis led by the OPCC, the themes would feed into phase two which would be a broader public consultation piece and she welcomed Panel members’ support in terms of sharing that consultation survey once ready widely across Surrey.

    ·         Noted the timeline with the draft Plan to be provided to Panel members in mid-November in advance of the November Panel meeting, with the aim to publish the Plan by early December.

    3.    A Panel member sought assurance whether the Police and Crime Plan (2016-2021) produced by the previous PCC remained a valid document whilst the new Police and Crime Plan was being drafted - particularly in the event of its publication being delayed to 2022.

    -       The PCC explained that the Police and Crime Plan (2016-2020, extended to 2021) remained in place until a new Plan is published, she was required in law to publish the new Plan by the end of March 2022, and noted that it was on track to be published this December.

    4.    A Panel member asked whether an evaluation of the current Plan and its impact would be undertaken as part of the development of the new Plan, and whether incremental changes were being looked at or the new Plan would start from a clean slate.

    -       The PCC responded that all options were being considered. 

    -       The Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that as part of the development of the new Plan, the performance against the existing Plan would be reviewed to ensure the priorities set by the PCC are relevant, in addition to the consultation work, other documents would be considered such as reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the Strategic Policing Requirement, and information from the Chief Constable.

    5.    A Panel member noted that he was pleased that the work was progressing well but noted that proposed timings often  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67/21

68/21

MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (MTFP) UPDATE 2021/22 TO 2025/26 pdf icon PDF 473 KB

    • Share this item

    Each year, as part of the budget setting process, a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) is prepared in order to show that the Force is financially sustainable in the medium term.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1.    The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) highlighted that:

    ·         The report outlined an initial attempt at a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) forecast based on the current budget with assumptions of two percent for inflation, that funding would stay level and the Council Tax increase was capped at two percent meaning that an increasing gap would develop as costs were increasing and revenues were static.

    ·         The MTFP forecast highlighted that the Force needed to take action on where it could be more efficient, a review on efficiencies had started for each individual department to ensure savings going forward particularly if the Government settlement 2022/23 was inadequate.  

    ·         The PCC was working with other PCCs to press upon the Government the importance of policing and adequate funding to cover pay increases and to re-visit the funding formula; which was unlikely until the end of forecast.

    ·         As more information became available, the forecast would be reviewed and would be discussed further with the Panel’s Finance Sub-Group in the budget setting time.

    2.    A Panel member noted that Surrey Police had made many cuts previously in relation to reviewing its bureaucracy, he could not see that substantial savings could be made due to previous cuts over many years and asked what savings figure was expected.

    -       The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that in terms of the gross budget, £6 million in savings was needed for one year against a spend of £250 million. Police officer numbers could not be reduced due to the Government’s Operation Uplift.

    -       The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that any reduction in personnel would fall on police staff which would impact the service the police could deliver and instead collaboration opportunities and procurement could provide savings.  

    -       The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) recognised that Surrey Police had made significant savings over last five years plus, so making any further savings going forward would be difficult and it was a wider public sector issue.

    3.    The Vice-Chairman noted that unless the funding available increased, there was a risk going forward in terms of the review of the funding formula and the funding allocation; whereby prosperous areas such as Surrey would continue to be allocated less and residents would have to pay more via their Council Tax. He sought views on how the issue could be pressed upon the Government.

    -       The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that Surrey was viewed as a prosperous area with low deprivation and that affected the funding it received from the Government.

    -       The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that the case made for increased funding was that Surrey had crime travelling in and out from London, Surrey had two airports and a lot of traffic, the inadequate funding of Surrey Police was a long-standing issue and had lobbied the Government over many years to which the PCC would continue to do.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68/21

69/21

SURREY POLICE RECRUITMENT AND WORKFORCE PLANNING UPDATE pdf icon PDF 154 KB

    • Share this item

    The Panel has asked for an update report (twice-yearly) 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:

     

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.    The Chairman highlighted the following corrections to the report:

    ·         Page 46: regarding the July 2020 PC Intake last Column on the “Commencement of Next Stage”, the figure should be “all remaining 34 Officers” and not “38”.

    ·         Page 46: regarding the Oct 2020 Detective Intake last column, the sentence should read “This cohort received Independent Patrol status as of 03/05/2021”, not “will receive”.

    2.      A Panel member noted that each of Surrey’s District and Borough Councils and their residents would be interested to know how many police officers were allocated across each of the Districts and Boroughs.

    -       The PCC explained that the allocation of police officers to each District and Borough in Surrey was not uniform, the uplift of police officers was not equally divided by eleven as it was used to ensure that Surrey Police could service the public as a whole across the county. The issues faced across each District and Borough differed, and when there is a major incident it was vital to ensure that resources across Surrey could be channelled.

    -       The PCC would consider the point and suggested that the operational issue be raised with the Chief Constable at the informal Panel meeting in October.

    3.      A Panel member queried whether the recruitment plan included police staff.

    -       The PCC explained that the report was specific to the uplift which concerned uniformed police officers as opposed to police staff.

    4.   The Chairman asked whether the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship (PCDA) and the Degree Holder Entry Programme (DHEP) were the only current entry routes to the police.

    -     In response, the PCC confirmed that those were the only two entry routes at present. She explained that the matter was under discussion amongst Conservative PCCs across the country, she recognised the importance of other entry routes such as via the military and would continue to speak to the Minister of State for Crime and Policing, and the Home Secretary.

    -     The Chairman noted that it would be helpful for Panel members to be provided with historical information about the two entry routes, such as the applicant rate, appointment figures, retention rate and the demographics of applicants.

    -     The PCC responded that recruitment via the two channels resulted in a young cohort with advantages and disadvantages, she was happy to provide a future update on the historical figures concerning the two entry routes.

     

    RESOLVED:

    That the Panel noted the Surrey Police plans for recruitment and workforce planning.

     

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

    1.      R26/21 - The PCC will consider the Panel member comment around providing a breakdown of the police officer allocation to each of Surrey’s Districts and Boroughs, noting the difficulty as the allocation was not uniform nor static.

    -     Panel members will consider raising the operational issue at the informal Panel meeting with the Chief Constable in October.

    2.    R27/21 - The Panel will be provided with historical information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69/21

70/21

COLLABORATION REPORT pdf icon PDF 252 KB

    • Share this item

    The Panel has requested a report on collaborative arrangements for Surrey Police, both with other police forces and with blue-light services. The report also includes information on PCC’s legal responsibilities in respect of collaboration and how the PCC measures the effectiveness of the arrangements in place. 

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

    Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.      The PCC explained that collaboration was vital for police forces across the country, and that it was important for collaboration to be constantly reviewed; a number of different forms of collaboration were outlined in the report.

    2.      The Chairman welcomed the report as it detailed the extent of collaboration in relation to Surrey Police, he noted that the Panel also collaborated with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel.

    3.      The Chairman noted that over time the Panel would consider the benefits and disbenefits of collaboration concerning Surrey Police, and he asked the PCC whether collaboration should be further extended regionally.

    -       In response the PCC noted that part of her role was to keep collaborative arrangements under review, as such arrangements provided opportunities to increase efficiencies through formal arrangements such as with Sussex Police and informal collaboration with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC).

    -       The PCC noted that the protest activity on the M25 that morning was an example of the importance of collaboration as both Surrey and Hertfordshire were affected; she had spoken to Hertfordshire’s PCC on the issue.

    4.      A Panel member welcomed the report and outline of the benefits and disbenefits of collaboration, noting that local authorities were undertaking parallel discussions on collaboration. He queried what the extent of collaboration was with the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police:

    -     In response, the PCC explained the two-way relationship between Surrey Police and the Metropolitan Police, particularly in the north of the county where crime moves between London and Surrey, also noting the support provided by the Metropolitan Police on Monday regarding protest activity.

    -       The DPCC explained that she had attended a shift with Surrey Police officers where British Transport Police officers attended to support a job featuring a railway issue, noting that there was good and natural collaboration when needed.

    -       The Chairman noted that the British Transport Police collaborated with all police forces.

    -       The Panel member further noted that it would be helpful for Panel members to be informed of how the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police operated collaboratively with Surrey Police. 

    -       The PCC suggested that the Panel might want to raise the operational issue at the informal Panel meeting with the Chief Constable in October.

    5.    The Panel member further sought information on the informal collaboration arrangements with local authorities.

    -       The PCC responded that in terms of local authority collaboration, the PCC explained that she worked closely with Surrey’s council leaders through regular council leader meetings and discussions, to ensure the safety and wellbeing of Surrey’s residents.

    -       A further Panel member asked whether a summary could be provided to Panel members via an email or within a second report on the wider collaborative arrangements such as with local authorities in Surrey, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70/21

71/21

FEEDBACK ON PERFORMANCE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF CONSTABLE pdf icon PDF 145 KB

    • Share this item

    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.  Lisa Townsend 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.  This is supplemented by workshops and one to one discussions between the PCC and Chief Constable, and other senior officers, when required.

     

    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 Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.      The PCC noted that the report outlined the agenda items covered in the last private performance meeting and that the next public performance meeting was on 21 September 2021 - the recording would be uploaded on the OPCC’s website.

    2.      The Chairman asked if it would be possible for the OPCC to circulate the agenda for the upcoming performance meetings to Panel members.

    -       The PCC noted that the OPCC would be happy to share the relevant information from the OPCC’s website.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

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

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    1.      R30/21 - The OPCC will share the relevant information such as the agenda on the upcoming performance meetings as included on the OPCC’s website.

     

72/21

PCC DECISIONS AND FORWARD PLAN pdf icon PDF 351 KB

    • Share this item

    This report provides information on the formal decisions taken by the PCC from June 2021 to the present and details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2021/2022.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

    Alison Bolton - Chief Executive (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.      A Panel member referring to Appendix A - OPCC Decision Log 2021, queried what decision number 31: ‘Use of OPCC Reserve’ related to.

    -        In response, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that all reserves were under the control of the PCC so required a formal decision which was published on the OPCC website. Decision number 31 related to the use of the reserve to pay for the DPCC, an additional amount for property advice and for an analyst that the OPCC appointed who was focused on gathering data for grant applications.

    -        The Panel member further asked for a breakdown of the £150,000 spend amount regarding decision number 31: ‘Use of OPCC Reserve’.

    -        The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) responded that the detail on the decision was published on the OPCC’s website.

    2.    The Panel member referred to Appendix B - OPCC Forward Plan, noting that having compared the OPCC Forward Plan provided in the September agenda against that provided in the June agenda, he noted that decisions that he expected to see in Appendix A - OPCC Decision Log 2021 concerned the Concordat with the Chief Constable, the PCC to Approve Expenses schemes and the appointment of the DPCC - the publication of the Annual Report and approval of the Draft Financial Statements for 2020/21 were not included as he deduced that those were simply reports rather than decisions.

    -       The Chief Executive (OPCC) responded that since the agenda item was published, the OPCC Forward Plan had been updated. She explained that the PCC is obliged to make public key decisions, the appointment of the DPCC was in the public domain via the Panel’s June minutes, so where that was the case the OPCC did not always publish a separate decision number, however going forward she would look at providing a definitive OPCC Decision Log.

    -       The Panel member suggested that going forward to ensure completeness the OPCC Forward Plan should identify any key decisions which would then be included in the OPCC Decision Log.

    -       The Chairman asked if an email could be circulated from the OPCC regarding what decisions are deemed ‘key’, such as those taken by the PCC as opposed to an officer.

    -       The Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that the OPCC Forward Plan informed the work of the Office as a whole and not just ‘key decisions’ to be taken by the PCC.  She would look at the way it was presented going forward.

     

     

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the Panel noted the report.

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    1.    R31/21 - The Chief Executive (OPCC) will look at the way both the OPCC Forward Plan and the OPCC Decision Log were presented to the Panel going forward, providing an explanation to Panel members on which decisions and why are deemed as ‘key’; to ensure that key decisions identified on the OPCC Forward Plan are included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72/21

73/21

COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION TIME pdf icon PDF 254 KB

    • Share this item

    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 (9 September 2021).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    See Annex A - Submitted Questions and Responses

    Witnesses:

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

    1.    Councillor Paul Kennedy (Mole Valley District Council):

    Thanked the PCC for her response and welcomed the PCC’s previous visit to Fetcham and upcoming visit to Bookham.

    Regarding the timing of review of the existing Surrey Police CCTV Strategy, he asked when the PCC would be able to share the outcome of the review with Surrey’s District and Borough Councils; asking whether the outcome could be shared before the end of the year.

     

    In response, the PCC noted that:

    ·         She was not aware of a specific timeline for the review of the Surrey Police CCTV Strategy and so would look into the matter.

    ·         The use of CCTV remained a long-standing issue and proposed that the Panel may want to look at in more detail going forward.

    ·         She had discussed CCTV with other PCCs across the country and where it worked best was where local council leaders formulated a joint CCTV plan.

    ·         The challenge for Surrey Police concerning CCTV was that there was not a uniform CCTV plan amongst Surrey’s District and Borough Councils, formulating one with input from the Panel would help inform Surrey Police and its CCTV Strategy.

     

    -       A Panel member referred to the following sentence in the PCC’s response “about how Surrey Police are taking advantage of new tools and ways to gather information”, and asked to what extent that involved artificial intelligence (AI) such as facial recognition technology and ‘predictive policing’ through algorithms. He welcomed transparency on such tools and information gathering, considering the issue of biased algorithms for example.

    -       In response, the PCC noted that the Chief Constable was keen for both Surrey and British policing to be at the forefront of global policing in using the best technology in the right way, the Chief Constable had raised the issue of surveillance technology with the Prime Minister recently and suggested that the issue is raised with the Chief Constable at the informal Panel meeting in October as it concerned operational matters.  

    -       A Panel member asked whether the PCC would like to put a formal action on Panel members to seek collaboration from Surrey’s District and Borough Councils on a joint CCTV plan across the county.

    -        In response the PCC welcomed Panel members’ support on the issue.

    -        The Chairman noted an action for the Panel to consider scrutinising how CCTV could be used effectively in Surrey; looking at the different approaches to CCTV across Surrey’s Boroughs and Districts and other counties.

    -        A Panel member noted the importance of Panel members taking a lead on the issue within Surrey’s District and Borough Councils but emphasised that the PCC needed to take a lead on the matter too.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    The Panel raised issues and queries concerning Crime and Policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    1.      R32/21 - The PCC will look into whether there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73/21

74/21

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 120 KB

    • Share this item

    To note complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner received since the last meeting of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager, Surrey County Council (SCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.    The Committee Manager (SCC) explained that since the last Panel meeting, one collated complaint composed of thirty-seven complaints had been received as detailed in Appendix A.

    2.    The Committee Manager (SCC) explained she was seeking legal advice on the handling of the complaint in order assess how the multiple complaints on the same issue were to be brought to the Sub-Committee; details on the action taken would be provided at the next public Panel meeting in November.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    The Panel noted the report and Appendix A: that one (collated) complaint since the last Panel meeting had been received and would be referred to the Complaints Sub-Committee.

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    None.

     

     

75/21

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME pdf icon PDF 18 KB

    • Share this item

    To review the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

    Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.    Referring to R9/21 which had been marked as complete,a Panel member noted that the action was in two parts and the second part had not been answered; whereby the PCC was to confirm whether she would give a similar response to her predecessor regarding an increase in 20 mph speed limit areas in Surrey.  

    -       The PCC responded that she had not seen the previous PCC’s response, and was conscious that the response was said during purdah.

    2.      Referring to R14/21, the Chairman reminded Panel members to share and publicise the Panel’s Annual Report 2020-21 to their respective Borough and District Councils, and local areas; and to report back on the matter.

    3.      Referring to R17/21, the Chairman sought a nomination to fill the outstanding vacancy on the Finance Sub-Group.

    -     A Panel member suggested that it would be helpful in terms of political balance to have a Conservative Panel member join the Finance Sub-Group.

    -     In response, Councillor Valerie White filled the vacancy.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    The Panel noted the Actions & Recommendations Tracker and the Forward Work Programme.

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    None.

     

     

76/21

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

    • Share this item

    Recommendation: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED:

    That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

     

77/21

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (EQUIP) PROGRAMME

    • Share this item

    The Enterprise Resourcing Planning (ERP) (Equip) Programme is a standing item, updates under Part 2 to be provided where appropriate.

     

    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:

     

    Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

     

    Key points raised in the discussion:

     

    1.      The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) provided a Part 2 verbal update on the Enterprise Resource Planning (EQUIP) Programme, outlining its purposeand its future.

    2.      The Chairman suggested the removal of the ERP (Equip) Programme as a standing item under Part 2, the Panel agreed, and the item would be kept under review receiving future Panel updates as and when there was substantial information to report.

     

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the Panel noted the Part 2 verbal update.

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    1.      R35/21 - The ERP (Equip) Programme will be removed as a standing item under Part 2 but will remain under review in the Forward Work Programme with future Panel updates to be brought as and when there is substantial information to report.

     

78/21

PUBLICITY OF PART 2 ITEMS

    • Share this item

    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 item(s) considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and Public.

     

79/21

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    The next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 24 November 2021.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Panel noted that its next public meeting would be held on 24 November 2021 at Woodhatch Place, Reigate.

     

    The Chairman reminded the Panel that the private informal meeting for Panel Members with the Chief Constable will take place on 27 October 2021.