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.
Councillor John Robini, Chairman of
the Surrey Police and Crime Panel
The Chairman noted
that he was pleased regarding the attendance at the induction
session for the Panel Members and the enthusiasm shown during the
full Panel pre-meeting. The Chairman looked forward to working with
the new officers and new Panel Members. It was noted that there was
a vacancy of an Independent Member on the Panel, as well as a
vacancy on the Complaints Sub-Committee.
Each year the OPCC
produces an annual report setting out the work of the ICV scheme,
and this is being presented to the Police and Crime Panel for
information.
The ICV Scheme
Manager provided an overview of this statutory scheme, explaining
that its purpose was to provide reassurance to the community around
the welfare of detainees in police custody. The ICV Scheme Manager
explained that Surrey had three custody suites which were each
visited around five times a month, and the scheme had an average of
41 volunteers. The visits were unannounced, and the visitors’
entry could not be delayed by the Force. The ICV Scheme Manager
hoped that the scheme in Surrey would be awarded Platinum status by
the Independent Custody Visiting Association this year.
A Panel Member
queried whether the four outstanding recommendations from the 2015
His Majesty's
Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
(HMICFRS) inspection were still relevant and how the PCC had
checked on the progress of these recommendations. The ICV Scheme
Manager explained that the OPCC was involved in action tracking
meetings and proactively addressing the recommendations from
HMICFRS. The outstanding recommendations had since been addressed,
were in progress, or were no longer relevant.
A Panel Member asked
about plans to encourage greater diversity among volunteers and any
barriers to those from the Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME)
community becoming a volunteer. The ICV Scheme Manager informed the
Panel that there was a limit on the number of volunteers required
in the scheme. The current demographic of volunteers did broadly
represent the demographic within Surrey, but it did not represent
the demographic of the custody population. The ICV Scheme Manager
would like there to be greater diversity and was working with the
Force’s Diversity Lead to try to raise the profile of the
scheme.
A Panel Member
questioned why issues such as a lack of curtains or screens in the
medical room were not picked up by the volunteers. The ICV Scheme
Manager explained that these were removed during the pandemic due
to a risk of infection. ICVs were not permitted in the medical
rooms, to preserve privacy for detainees. The criteria of the
visits for ICVs compared to HMICFRS was different, however, this
would be picked up in future. The Panel Member noted that
disposable curtains were available. The ICV Scheme Manager took the
suggestion on board.
A Panel Member asked
about the process of achieving Platinum status and the tangible
benefits. The ICV Scheme Manager was confident that the Scheme in
Surrey could achieve Platinum status; it was just about evidencing
the work already occurring. It would create a morale boost for the
volunteers and show nationally that Surrey was running a strong
scheme.
A Panel Member asked
about the involvement of volunteers in the production of the
report. The ICV Scheme Manager shared that the volunteers would be
asked for any feedback that they would like to be included in the
report. The Panel Member also enquired about the concerns around a
breach of Section 40 of ...
view the full minutes text for item 56/22
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.
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (Office of the Police and
Crime Commissioner)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Chief Finance
Officer outlined that the major change since the last report
presented was the government-announced pay award for police
officers. This added £3.3 million to the overall cost for
each year. The Home Office had provided a grant of £1.8
million to offset some of that cost. The grant was allocated on the
same basis as the formula grant, of which Surrey received the
lowest share in the country.
A Panel Member asked
about the likely situation of continued pay increases beyond 2% and
whether this could result in discussions on the holding of a
Council tax referendum. The Chief Finance Officer responded that
the level of police officer pay was set centrally by the Pay Review
Body and agreed by central government and was not subject to local
judgement. The Government had implied that any percentage increase
that was above the percentage included in Force budgets would be
covered by additional funding, as had been the case in the current
year (2022). The Government could also impose pay restraints on the
public sector which would limit costs, thus, the need for a
referendum was unlikely. In the past, the Force considered having a
referendum but discounted it due to the significant cost of holding
one.
A Panel Member asked
about the impact of reductions in police staff and which roles were
likely to be cut. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the
Force was unable to make police officers redundant and it was
likely that the Government would say that the increase of officers
achieved through Uplift would need to be maintained. Therefore,
savings would need to be found within police staff. Currently, the
Force was running a high vacancy rate as they were struggling to
recruit, particularly in areas such as IT where they were unable to
match the pay of the private sector. The Force would try to
minimise the impact of any staff savings by changing ways of
working for example.
A Panel Member
enquired about the likelihood of the Force issuing a Section 114
notice and the impact if that took place. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that the Surrey was no worse position than any other
Force in the country. No Force had issued a Section 114 notice
before, however, it was a tool that was available if required. If
actioned, all non-essential expenditure would stop but day-to-day
policing itself would not be impacted.
A Panel Member asked
whether more than one scenario had been considered. The Chief
Finance Officer reassured the Panel that five different scenarios
had been considered and the one presented in the report was a
reasonable mid-point. In the spending review, the Government had
promised extra funding for the police, but it was unknown currently
how this funding would be divided. Therefore, no additional funding
had been included. The Panel Member queried the recruitment freeze
for Police Community Support ...
view the full minutes text for item 57/22
This report details the
Force’s recruitment, workforce plan and retention strategy.
The following information details how many officers have been
recruited to date under the national uplift programme and
projections for the rest of the financial year.
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of
the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (Office of the Police and
Crime Commissioner)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Head of
Performance and Governance noted that the Force was on target to
meet the end of financial year officer uplift target. Although,
there were some challenges with the recruitment market. Attrition
rates had stabilised and there was work happening with the Force
around proactively retaining police staff and police
officers.
The Chairman asked
about the proportion of police officer apprentices who completed
the degree and stayed to work in Surrey following graduating. The
Head of Performance and Governance explained that the Force-wide
average for those dropping out was 9.7%. For student officers with
two years of service or less, that figure was 16%. This could be
broken down further into the police constable degree apprenticeship
programme (attrition rate of 21%) and degree holders entry
programme (attrition rate of 11%). The Force were being proactive
to better support new recruits. Often those who dropped out did so
because they underestimated the level of academic work involved and
therefore, the Force are trying to better explain this element to
those considering joining through this pathway.
A Panel Member asked
what work the Force was doing to improve career development
opportunities. The Head of Performance and Governance explained
that there was a dedicated gold group that looked at retention. The
public sector was limited in terms of decisions it could make
around pay and rewards. However, the Force was revising performance
assessments and career development opportunities. It was suggested
that the Panel discussed the matter with the Chief Constable at
their scheduled meeting, as he would be better placed to provide
more detail.
A Panel Member asked
what the current officer vacancy rate was and asked what other
Forces were offering that Surrey was not. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that staff were leaving for the private sector, rather
than other Forces. The Head of Performance and Governance shared
that there was a 6% vacancy rate for police staff built into the
budget but the actual vacancy rate was significantly greater due to
recruitment issues.
A Panel Member
queried whether the vacancy rate was due to a lack of recruitment
or savings that needed to be made, and how planned savings could
impact staff workforce levels. The Chief Finance Officer explained
that it was due to staff leaving for increased pay, and they were
struggling to replace them. The current actual vacancy rate may
cover a substantial amount of the savings required; however, the
gaps were in the wrong areas of the business. The Force might
consider increasing the pay of the posts that are difficult to fill
in order to attract people, but this had affordability
implications.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of
the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The PCC informed the
Panel that the Force did not receive any inadequate ratings in the
inspection and the Force was rated outstanding for preventing crime
and antisocial behaviour. All of the issues raised in the report
were already being looked at.
A Panel Member asked
whether the findings were in line with the views of the public and
to what extent the PCC felt her Plan needed to change to reflect
the Inspectorate’s recommendations. The PCC responded that
the Plan was a living document, and it was regularly revisited with
the Chief Constable. The public’s perception was influenced
by their immediate experiences as well as the wider media. The PCC
hoped that the report did not include anything that the public
would strongly disagree with, especially regarding the outstanding
areas.
A Panel Member noted
that a lack of police officer visibility is the most common issue
raised by residents and queried whether preventing crime and
antisocial behaviour could be maintained if the PCSOs were not
being replaced this financial year. The PCC clarified that there
would be no reduction of officers on the ground, as they were being
replaced by fully warranted officers. The PCC added that there was
no real evidence to suggest that officers on the streets prevented
more crime.
A Panel Member asked
about 101 call abandonment and the response time when using the
digital 101 service. The Head of Performance and Governance
explained that this was a complicated area, as there was an uplift
in call abandonment due to users switching to the digital service.
There were points in the day where the response time was much
faster and much slower. Data on this could be provided in
conjunction with an existing action on this area.
A Panel Member
enquired as to whether officers had undergone training around
registered sex offenders yet. The Head of Performance and
Governance explained that this was a multi-force report, therefore,
not all points were specific to Surrey. Overall, it was felt that
Surrey Police were managing these responsibilities well. The Head
of Performance and Governance would find out if the training had
occurred yet.
Actions/requests for further information:
R20/22– The Head of Performance and Governance to
find out whether police officers had undergone training regarding
managing registered sex offenders.
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 2021/22 (April 2021 -
March 2022).
A Panel Member asked
whether the Panel normally used all of its budget, whether this was
a risk of the grant being reduced if the Panel failed to use all of
it, and how the spending compared to pre-pandemic. The Scrutiny
Business Manager explained that the grant was not expected to
reduce, as it had remained at the same level for a number of years.
There was a reduction of spending during the pandemic, with the
grant spend increasing in the recent year (2021 – 2022). It
was likely that this increase would continue for the current year
(2022 – 2023).
Paul Evans, Director of Law and Governance (Surrey County
Council)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member noted
that in most Local Authorities the OPCC attempted to resolve a
complaint in the first instance and asked whether there was any
more which could be done by the OPCC prior to a complaint reaching
the Panel. A Panel Member also noted that in Kent, one of the
remedies was for an officer of the OPCC to write a letter of
explanation to a complainant and queried whether this remedy could
be used in Surrey if desired. The Director confirmed that the
protocol does not exclude asking an officer of the OPCC writing a
letter of explanation, but that informal resolution of a complaint
could only be done by the Panel.
The Panel Member
questioned whether the OPCC was unable to publish a record of the
outcome of a complaint, unless in exceptional circumstances, like
is the case for the Panel. The Director explained that the Panel
was able to decide whether the Panel published an outcome of a
complaint. The protocol only covered the decision of the Panel, not
involved third parties. However, the PCC agreed in the PCC Code of
Conduct not to publish any confidential material. The Panel cannot
control the complainant publishing the outcome of their
complaint.
RESOLVED:
The Panel unanimously
agreed the revised Surrey Police and Crime Panel PCC and DPCC
Complaints Protocol.
The Panel noted the
Complaints Sub-Committee Terms of Reference.
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
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of
the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Head of
Performance and Governance noted that the OPCC was trying to
involve residents more in their statutory responsibilities to hold
the Chief Constable to account and monitor performance.
The Chairman
requested that in the future reports, updates on each area that
were discussed could be included, rather than just listing the
topics. The Head of Performance and Governance noted this comment
and agreed to provide greater context in future reports, whilst
retaining a level of discretion for the private meetings between
the PCC and the Chief Constable.
This report provides information on the key
decisions taken by the PCC from June 2022 to present and sets out
details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2022/23.
Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of
the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member noted
that the OPCC had recently been awarded a grant of £387,000.
The Head of Performance and Governance shared that the grant was
awarded from a bid for supporting victims of sexual assault and
domestic abuse. Data on this was included in the annual report. A
Panel Member asked whether any of the grant would be used to
support women’s refuges. The Head of Performance and
Governance explained that predominantly the funding for refuges was
the County Council’s responsibility, however, the OPCC
supplemented their funding for this, through the provision of
in-refuge services.
Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for
Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Panel Member
congratulated the PCC on behalf of the Panel for her Office which
won two of the five Home Office/Police Tilley awards and thanked
her for supporting the projects.
A Panel Member asked
whether the PCC could investigate the consistency of the approach
taken across the county for unauthorised encampments. The PCC
explained that the Force worked closely with local authorities when
an unauthorised encampment occurred and the County Council
continued to look into the provision of a transit site. There was a
running issue around traveller encampments. The guidelines were
recently issued around the new laws. The area was still complicated
though. The PCC shared that Inspector Dean was willing to produce a
report on this area and to provide a briefing to the
Panel.
Actions/requests for further information:
R21/22– The Panel support officers to liaise with
the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to organise a
report and briefing on unauthorised encampments.
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.
PDF 471 KB