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.
The
Chairman noted the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner elections
and reminded attendees that there should be no political point
scoring in the Panel session.
Lisa
Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime
Commissioner
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance
Key points
raised during the discussion:
Regarding the PEEL inspection finding that ‘the force
doesn’t always identify repeat and vulnerable
victims’, a Member asked if the Force could use
best-practice from other Forces to establish the right questions to
ask when calls were received. The Commissioner explained that on
the 22 February 2023, Surrey Police had upgraded to a new command
and control system called SmartSTORM. This had brought several
benefits, such as identifying repeat callers. In December 2023, the
contact question set was changed, to ensure operators were
identifying repeat callers. This was being dip-checked by the
Quality Control Team to ensure compliance.
A
Member asked about the new deployment and grading system and
whether the Force was revising down its ambition and targets to
improve its chance of compliance. The Commissioner explained that
once the final model had been agreed, the OPCC would provide
further detail. The main change to the model was more gradings to
allow for a more nuanced service. Currently, there was a disparity
in attendance times between the different grades. Grade 1
deployment required attendance as fast as possible, Grade 2 within
60 minutes, and Grade 3 within 72 hours. The new model would move
from four deployment types to six.
A
Member noted the concern of HM Inspector Roy Wilsher that call
performance for both 999 and 101 answering times had deteriorated
despite being highlighted as ‘areas for improvement’
(AFIs) in the last inspection report. The Commissioner
responded that staffing data for the call contact centre had
previously been shared with the panel and the challenges of staff
attrition were well noted. The contact centre was now back to over
establishment and was in a place of service stabilisation. A recent
update on contact centre performance highlighted that at the
busiest times, 999 and 101 call performance was now well within the
national target. The Commissioner was confident that performance
improvements would be sustained.
A
Member asked about the call abandonment rate for 101 calls in March
2023, which had a 12-minute average waiting time. The Head of
Performance and Governance explained that the abandonment rate for
December 2023 stood at 17.3%, which was a historic low. They had
high call-back success rates, at 99.2%. The Member asked if the
messages that encourage people to use alternative digital reporting
channels, adding to waiting times. The Head of Performance and
Governance explained that the Force would continue to explore how
to deal with channel shifting and was aware of the impact it had on
wait times and call abandonment rates.
Regarding concerns raised around how the Force recorded
anti-social behaviour (ASB), a Member asked if the Commissioner was
surprised or disappointed by the result that “the force is
failing to record ...
view the full minutes text for item 6/24
This report sets out the financial performance of
the Surrey Police Group (i.e., OPCC and Force combined) as at the
30th November 2023 with a forecast to the
31st March 2024.
Lisa
Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer, and Treasurer
(OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
A
Member asked if there had been any change to the assessed risk of
Surrey issuing a section 114. The Chief Finance Officer explained
that the risk was low for Surrey Police. The Force would have to
make significant savings, which would be achievable when compared
with the overall budget, but it might result in operational
impacts.
A
Member asked where the majority of the £1.9 million overspend
in overtime, which offset the projected underspend in staff
salaries (£1.7 million), was occurring and if the OPCC was
expecting this trend to continue in 2024/25. The Chief Finance
Officer explained that it was a challenge for the Force. Overtime
had risen both for police staff and police officers. For officers
it was in areas such as specialist crime, firearms officers, and
custody officers, who had supported Operation Safeguard. For Staff,
the largest element of overtime was in contact services, due to
vacancies. The overtime in contact was expected to reduce because
the team was now over establishment. Police officer overtime was
expected to continue as those officers had specialist skills and
there were shortages in investigative officers and detectives. The
Deputy Chief Constable chairs an overtime working group looking at
ways to reduce overtime, taking into account the cost and wellbeing
of officers.
A
member asked if answers could be provided to written questions
submitted in the context of the Panel’s Finance Sub-group.
Regarding revenue generation, the member asked what accounted for
the largest element of unexpected income. The Chief Finance Officer
explained it was Operation Safeguard, which involved prisoners
being put in custody facilities after sentencing before being moved
to a prison because of prison overcrowding. Operation safeguard had
now ended. A further £0.7 million was income for seconding
officers to regional units and around £0.5 million was income
was to do with interest rates being higher than anticipated and the
sale of vehicles.
Action iv:
The Chief Finance Officer to provide answers to questions provided
from a member of panel and finance sub-group.
The
Member asked for confirmation that while the headline underspend
was £1.1 million, the actual underspend was £3.2
million because reserves that were expected to be used were not.
The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Force had managed to
deliver some of the efficiencies, that were to be due in 2024/25,
earlier. This meant the Force had not needed to use all the cost of
change reserve as originally anticipated. This reduction in use of
the reserves was a one-off benefit as the money would be put be
used for further transformation and cost of change activities to
drive savings for future years. The Member asked how much of the
income received was budgeted for and if any provision was made for
mutual aid. The Chief Finance Officer explained that there was
provision £19m in the budget for grants and
income.
The Police
and Crime Panel is required to consider
and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s
Proposed Precept for 2024/25. The purpose of this item is to allow
the Commissioner to outline her proposals in more detail and answer
any questions that Panel Members might have.
Nathan Rees, Head of Communications and Engagement
(OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
A
Member asked for clarification on the key findings of the public
consultation. The Head of Communication (OPCC) explained that 41%
supported the £13 precept increase, 11% supported a £12
increase, 2% supported a £11 increase, 7% supported a
£10 increase and 39% supported an increase under £10.
Overall, 61% of respondents supported a precept rise of £10
or above.
A
Member asked how many police staff posts the Force would cut if a
lower precept was implemented. The Chief Finance Officer explained
that the Force would be looking at other ways to make efficiencies
and savings before reducing staff. A precise figure could not be
provided but each £1 on council tax represented around
£0.5 million, which represented around 12 staff
posts.
A
Member queried if it was expected that most Police and Crime
Commissioners would be recommending the £13 precept increase.
The Commissioner explained that the government had assumed in its
funding allocation announcement that all Forces would increase by
the maximum amount of £13. The Commissioner’s
understanding following discussions with other Commissioners was
that they would be seeking the £13 precept increase, apart
from in Wales who were seeking more.
A
Member asked about the 2024/25 proposed revenue budget increase of
7.3% on the current year, which was above inflation and above the
pay rise. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the largest
element of the increase was the result of the 7% pay rise and
increase in pension employer contributions. The Member asked about
the £7.1 million of savings required from the revenue budget
in 2025/26. The Chief Finance Officer explained that there were
plans to address the savings required in 2025/26 including via
transformational reviews in criminal justice, rationalising
evidence stores and work to streamline paper-based processes. It
would be a challenge and there was a risk that savings could be
pushed into future years. The Chief Finance Officer explained that
an impact on services in 2025/26 was a possibility but work was
being done to minimise this. This could also me impacted by a
change, such as receiving a larger grant, but the prediction could
only be based on the current estimates.
A
Member queried the current anticipated underspend, and historic
underspends against the budget and suggested this cast doubt on
whether the full precept increase was needed. The Chief Finance
Officer explained that underspends were generally a one-off and had
arisen out of specific circumstances. In 2022/23 it was the phasing
of recruitment, particularly for uplift officers whereas in the
current year it was more to do with additional income. The factors
driving the underspends were not considered to be recurrent and
hence could not be assumed for future years. Unfortunately, due to
the capping rules it was not possible to make up any shortfall in
funding ...
view the full minutes text for item 8/24
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.
This report
provides information on the key decisions taken by the PCC from
November 2023 to present and sets out
details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for
2024.
Lisa
Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Alison Bolton, The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer
(OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
A
Member asked if the OPCC was just a recipient of the Joint
Neighbourhood survey or if it was jointly contracted. The Head of
Performance and Governance explained that the survey was jointly
contracted by Surrey County Council and Surrey Police, and both
pull their respective pieces of data out of it.
A
Member asked if there was currently a backlog with vetting and what
percentage of vetting completions the Force was currently at. The
Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that the levels of backlog the
Force had a few months ago had been reduced. There was a backlog
but there were no delays of the same level.
A
Member asked if the Commissioner was satisfied that the
distribution of ANPR cameras was effective to support the
objectives in the Commissioner’s plan. The Commissioner
believed that what was in place was effective, but there would
always be room to do more and the OPCC would always support more
resources and measures.
Action vi:
The Chief Executive (OPCC) to provide the details of the vetting
backlog.
12/24
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
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 Police and Crime Panel.
The
next Panel meeting will be held in June 2024. The April session to be cancelled as it falls
within the pre-election period for Police and Crime Commissioner
elections.
PDF 221 KB