The
minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2022 were agreed as a
true record of the meeting.
17/22
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.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC
Nathan Rees, Communications Manager – OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Police and Crime
Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report, noting that the plan was
still in its infancy and there was a meeting with Surrey Police
next week regarding the plan. The Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner (OPCC) and the Force were working to make the plan and
the outcomes more accessible for the public. The Deputy Police and
Crime Commissioner (DPCC) highlighted that the plan had been
welcomed by the Force and it was considered a co-owned plan. It had
been noted by the Force that the plan had been much more consulted
than in previous years. It was also easier to understand, as each
section was broken down into actions for each partner.
A Panel Member noted
that the report contained a lot of detail for the public to
understand and asked what the PCC was doing to make it accessible.
The PCC emphasised that the report provided to Panel Members was
produced specifically for the Panel. The PCC agreed that
communication with the public was vital and the OPCC worked closely
with the Force on this. For example, in the context of reducing
violence against women and girls (VAWG), it was essential for the
public to understand reporting. A new Head of Performance was
starting in May, and they had discussed creating an accessible
dashboard on the website. It would include the headline statistics,
with the option to delve into more detail if desired. The PCC
acknowledged that there was a lot of work that the public were not
aware of and that better campaigning on certain issues, such as
fraud, was needed.
A Panel Member asked
what support was being provided for victims of crime, because their
residents believed that there was little support. The Panel Member
asked for baseline information on this. The PCC explained that in
their conversations with the Chief Constable she highlighted things
that were not happening and that she was unhappy with. Victims
wanted to be communicated with and kept up to date. The Deputy
Chief Constable was completing a review into three areas, one of
which was supporting victims of crime. The PCC added that they
could provide some further information on this area, but that she
was unable to comment on individual cases.
A Panel Member asked
for further information on the recruitment of more specialist
workers for children experiencing domestic abuse and sexual
violence. The PCC explained that this was a piece of OPCC
commissioned work, in collaboration with a range of partners. This
included providing domestic abuse refuges with the resources to
recruit specialists and working with the charity RASAC (Rape and
Sexual Abuse Support Centre). The Head of Policy and Commissioning
(OPCC) could provide more detail. The Panel Member noted that their
borough did not have sufficient refuge ...
view the full minutes text for item 19/22
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member
queried when the right to review complaints switched to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The Chief
Executive explained that the police complaints regulations were
complex and clarified that the OPCC could only review complaints
which fell under Schedule 3 (Otherwise by Investigation). The IPCC
only reviewed the most serious of complaints. The Chairman asked
who conducted the reviews and the PCC explained that Complaints
Review Manager did, but both she and the Chief Executive had
oversight of these.
A Panel Member
queried the rationale behind the proposed extension to the target
timescale and asked if the figures up to March 2022 were available
for Surrey. The PCC could share the figures after the meeting. The
PCC explained that the OPCC operated independently to the Force,
therefore, when a member of public submitted a complaint, this went
to the Complaints Review Manager. There was no statutory deadline
in which reviews needed to be completed. The Chief Executive added
that there was only one individual doing this, and some of the
complaints were complex. The Complaints Review Manager had
increased his hours and Surrey OPCC still completed the process
faster than any other OPCC in south-east. It was about providing
the complainant with a reasonable expectation and if the workload
decreased, then the timescale would be reviewed.
Actions/requests for further information:
R14/22– The OPCC to provide the average time taken
to progress complaints reviews in the first and second halves of
FY2021/22.
Anupdate report detailing the
Force’s recruitment and retention strategy including the
allocation of officers by district, borough, county-wide and other
teams; the allocation of newly recruited officers as a result of
the national uplift programme to recruit 20,000 officers; details
of how many officers are in training and how many are on
patrol.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Ellie
Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The PCC referenced
her letter to the Chairman (Annex 1) regarding some Panel Members
who had shared information regarding the number of Police Community
Support Officers (PCSOs) and expressed that this was unhelpful for
members of the Force concerned about redundancies. The PCC
explained that the misrepresentation could lead the public to
believe that their community would be less safe. The Chairman
confirmed that the letter had been shared with all Panel Members
and queried the distinction between front-line police officers and
PCSOs. The PCC confirmed that the current Borough set up of both
police officers and PCSOs in each area was being maintained. The
Force had taken the opportunity to replace 22 PSCOs with fully
warranted officers, as these positions had become vacant, in order
to improve operational effectiveness in neighbourhood teams. The
PCC expressed her concern that the replacement of PCSOs was being
incorrectly linked to the budget of the OPCC in tweets by Panel
Members.
A Panel Member noted
the difference between establishment numbers and actual numbers of
PCSOs, as well as the associated savings related to staffing
included at the previous meeting. The Panel Member also queried the
reduction in PCSOs compared with previous figures provided. The PCC
explained that there was difference due to the number of Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs). The Chief Executive added that the Force was
over establishment at one stage, with the current number of FTE
PCSOs being 118.42. The report requested was about the allocation
of police officers, in future, information could be provided on
police staff.
A Panel Member
queried the routes into the Force, especially with regards to
obtaining a university degree during the probation period. The PCC
explained that there were a number of routes, and each Force took a
different view from the guidance provided by the College of
Policing. A degree was not required to enter policing; however, a
degree would need to be obtained during training in order to become
fully qualified. The DPCC explained that there would be some who
would leave during their probation because they would not pass it.
The DPCC noted that quality candidates were entering policing
through this route, however, she shared concerns about whether this
route could discourage some candidates to apply. This was a
relatively new route, and it would continue to be
monitored.
This reportupdates the Panel on the steps taken by the
Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable to account regarding
Surrey Police’s culture and conduct and the steps taken by
the Force to address cultural and conduct issues.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member noted
that statistically there was over one case per officer and some
officers would have several cases against them. The PCC explained
that there was a low threshold to record a complaint against an
officer, which meant that the case numbers were higher. It was
better to have a lower threshold for making a
complaint.
A Panel Member
questioned whether there were a large number of complaints reported
by a small number of the population. The PCC explained that the
OPCC did not have access to that information, however, the
Professional Standards Department (PSD) had been doing work on
repeat complainants who took up a disproportionate amount of time.
The Chief Executive added that the PCC had regular meetings with
the PSD and could probe any outliers and look at general
trends.
A Panel Member asked
about the support provided to those who reported inappropriate
behaviour of their colleagues. The PCC agreed that this was an
important issue which had been raised with the Chief Constable.
There had been a lot of work around VAWG, domestic abuse and
misogyny within the Force. It was crucial to stop these behaviours
before they turned into a conduct issue. The PCC explained that
there has been a cultural campaign around ‘call it
out’, whereby colleagues were encouraged to call out
behaviour, and if they did not feel comfortable, there was a system
to anonymously raise an issue. There was a real effort in policing
to break the cycle seen by a small number of officers in the
country. The OPCC and the Force had discussed introducing external
oversight in this area.
A Panel Member asked
about whether staff surveys on culture could be introduced. The PCC
explained that surveys were done frequently by the Force, however,
not all employees would feel comfortable answering a survey issued
by the same organisation. The Panel Member queried whether there
was a significant difference in the distribution for complaints
upheld and asked about the time taken to investigate complaints.
The PCC explained that she met with the Police Federation and
UNISON to discuss those issues. There had been recent issues with
delays which had been addressed. Some complaints had been escalated
when they arguably should not have been, but it was also important
to be robust when investigating complaints. The PCC did not have
the figures to hand regarding the distribution and suggested that
this could be raised at the informal meeting with the Chief
Constable.
A Panel Member
queried the timing of retirement for those facing a misconduct
case. The PCC responded that the organisation could not stop
someone from leaving. Where it was a serious and criminal
allegation, this would be pursued. It was also possible to write to
the Home Office regarding forfeiture of some of an officer’s
pension, in some circumstances.
This report sets out
the Commissioner’s draft Succession Plan, to be followed in
the event of a vacancy in the role of PCC or the PCC’s
incapacitation.
This report updates the Panel on the work
being undertaken to determine the next steps in the development of
an ERP solution for both Surrey and Sussex Police.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer and Treasurer –
OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member asked
whether any of the £1.5 million spent so far on the ERP
project could be recovered. The Chief Finance Officer explained
that some assets were acquired as part of the termination and that
these were still being assessed to see if they could be used. A
proportion of the money would be recovered through use on new
systems; however, a proportion would be written off.
A Panel Member asked
which option would be chosen. The PCC explained that they were
waiting for a recommendation from the Force.
This report provides an update on the
performance meetings between the PCC and the Chief Constable that
have been held and what has been discussed in order to demonstrate
that arrangements for good governance and scrutiny are in
place.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member asked
about the CCTV projects. The PCC clarified that one was the
Force’s own plan, and one was a piece of work with Surrey
Leaders Group regarding joined up working between the district and
borough councils. These projects were running in
parallel.
A Panel Member asked
what the current budget was for CCTV and whether there was an
opportunity to review the CCTV plan. The PCC explained that she did
not know what the current budget was and suspected that it was not
confirmed at this stage. The PCC noted that the budget setting for
the Force was a matter for the Chief Constable. The Panel Member
suggested that the Force should work with the modern and effective
CCTV that already existed in the county and invest appropriately.
The PCC responded that this was an issue that was spoken about at
Community Safety Partnership meetings and noted the importance of
Surrey Leaders engaging. The PCC agreed that CCTV did need to be
modern, and some systems were outdated A Panel Member added that at
the previous meeting the Panel were informed that there was
£800,000 in the revenue budget for the whole of the county
for CCTV and none in the capital budget for CCTV.
The Chairman stated
that the statistics did not show any improvement in performance, in
terms of better outcomes or reduced offences. The Chairman asked if
there was any information that came out of the PCC’s meeting
with the Chief Constable on 7 April 2022 that could be shared with
the Panel. The PCC explained that the issues raised were around 101
and burglary. There had been an increase in solve rates,
particularly in two divisions, and best practice was being
shared.
This report provides information on the
key decisions taken by the PCC from February 2022 to present and
sets out details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for
2022/2023.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Nathan Rees, Communications Manager – OPCC
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The PCC noted that
the forward plan needed to be updated, as this version was out of
date, and the Chairman asked for the new version to be shared with
the Panel when it was.
A Panel Member asked
whether the Panel could receive a written briefing on the Community
Safety Fund and asked how the annual report would be published for
residents. The Communications Manager explained that it would be
published on their website and hard copies would be
available.
Actions/requests for further information:
R15/22– The OPCC to share the updated version of the
forward work plan once available.
R16/22– The OPCC to provide a written briefing on
the Community Safety Fund once available.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member asked
a question about the College of Policing’s advice regarding
non-criminal hate incidents (NCHIs). The PCC declared that she had
been reported for at least one NCHI herself. It was important that
they were very clear with their judgement. The PCC explained that
they were awaiting new guidance from the College of Policing. The
PCC had raised this issue with Ministers at the Home Office. The
PCC stated that as they were non-crimes, the Force should not be
involved.
Actions/requests for further information:
R17/22– The OPCC to provide a full written response
to the question submitted by Mr Philip Walker.
To note complaints against the Police and
Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner
received since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Chairman asked
the PCC if she had written to the three complainants with a letter
of explanation as recommended by the Complaints Sub-Committee. The
PCC responded that she had not written the letter and did not
intend to. The PCC asked for the Panel to publish her response to
the initial complaints on their website. The Chairman understood
that it was only a recommendation and noted that the last PCC did,
on one occasion, choose not follow the Panel’s recommendation
either. The Chairman suggested that the PCC published her response
on the OPCC website, as it would not be published on the
Panel’s website.
PDF 394 KB