Agenda and minutes
PDF 396 KBVenue: Woodhatch Place, Reigate, Surrey
Contact: Julie Armstrong, Scrutiny Officer
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Ellen Nicholson and Cllr Julia McShane. |
|
|
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: None received. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 26 SEPTEMBER 2022
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2022 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2022 were agreed as a true record of the meeting. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (XXX).
Note: A written response will be circulated to Panel Members and the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS
For the Chairman to provide any updates and comments to the Panel Additional documents: Minutes: Witness: Councillor John Robini, Chairman of Surrey Police and Crime Panel |
|
|
APPOINTMENT OF CO-OPTED INDEPENDENT MEMBER
The purpose of this paper is to set out the process that has been followed in order to select a co-opted independent member onto the Surrey Police and Crime Panel and to recommend appointment to the position.
Additional documents: Minutes: 1. The item was deferred due to unforeseen procedural issues. |
|
|
SURREY POLICE GROUP UNAUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD TO 31 AUGUST 2022
This report sets out the financial performance of the Surrey Police Group (i.e., OPCC and Chief Constable combined) as at the 31 August 2022 with a forecast to the 31 March 2022.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witness: Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) clarified typographical errors in the report, explaining that there was an underspend of £2.2 million at the end of August which was largely related to staffing. There were a large number of vacancies with police staff and the timing of recruitment of uplift police officers. The Force were unable to attract candidates in specialist areas, such as IT, due to being unable to compete with private sector salaries. A number of capital schemes had been delayed, such as IT schemes, which contributed to the projected underspend. In the recent budget announcement the Government confirmed that the spending review, which was announced in 2021, would be honoured, however, any additional funding would go to fund police officer uplift. No new funding was announced to cover inflation and the referendum limit of £10 for the precept was not increased. Surrey had approximately £20 million of reserves, and it was likely to remain around that figure by the end of 22/23 financial year. The level of reserves was towards the lower end when compared with other Forces.
2. A Panel Member enquired if the value of the Leatherhead site was included in the capital figures. The CFO explained that the table in paragraph five showed the capital expenditure for the year and the Leatherhead site was purchased a few years ago and so was on the balance sheet as an asset. The Panel Member asked about the increase in expected funding gap for 2023/4 compared to 2022/23 and 2024/25. The CFO explained that it included an assessment of inflation and wage increases. It had been assumed that inflation would fall back and a wage cap would be established in later years although this may have to be revised.
3. A Panel Member questioned whether the CFO was comfortable with the level of reserves. The CFO explained that he would like to have more reserves, however, this was not possible in the current financial envelope as there was not enough surplus resources. There was a balance to be struck between a having a good level of reserves whilst not needing to making cuts to services to maintain or increase them.
4. A Panel Member asked whether the Force was likely to be in the same situation next year in terms of struggling to recruit staff and therefore have an underspend. The CFO explained that the savings at the moment through vacancies were unplanned rather than being part of a strategic plan these savings were not sufficient to cover the funding gap and the Force would need to reduce staff numbers with a targeted approach. The Panel Member queried whether the Panel could expect to see a detailed analysis of staffing reductions in the budget paper. The CFO shared that it was a legal requirement to present a balanced budget and any reductions in staff would be included in the ... view the full minutes text for item 74/22 |
|
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the findings of Surrey Police’s “Call it Out” survey’ and how the resulting data is being used to inform local activity. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner) Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Head of Performance and Governance introduced the report, explaining that the survey was launched in the period following the murder of Sarah Everard when women were sharing their experiences online. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and the Force had other sources of data to track residents’ perception of safety as well, but the survey was useful in providing a snapshot for that current point of time.
2. The Chairman asked about the number of detectives in the rape investigation team, the percentage of posts filled in the sexual offences team, and how many more rape cases were making it to court since the increase in detectives. The Head of Performance and Governance would provide those figures following the meeting. In terms of the team, vacancy rates were quite high as it was a competitive recruitment market. The Force had utilised agency staff to fill capacity, but this was not a sustainable position and was monitored closely. The OPCC supported people through the criminal justice process, ensuring they had access to high quality victim and witness care. The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) added that it was known that victims of rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse often withdrew support for prosecution and that supporting people whilst they awaited their case to be heard was essential, especially with current court delays. However, the position in Surrey was better compared to some neighbouring areas.
3. A Panel Member asked about the use of the StreetSafe tool in Surrey. The Head of Performance and Governance shared that the tool provided granular insight into where issues took place. Initially there was a large uptake and it had decreased since. The OPCC was working with the Force to try to re-advertise the tool again. They had used the data for work with victims and to support bids to government for additional commissioning funding.
4. In response to a question on who had responsibility for streetlighting, the PCC confirmed it was Surrey County Council. The PCC stated that there was often a misconception that the decision rested with the Police, but they had no direct control over lighting, though may be consulted. A Panel Member added that the Council introduced a policy to turn off some streetlights in residential roads and residents could request for decisions to be reconsidered. If the Force supported residents’ requests, then the lights would be turned back on. The Panel Member would raise the issue again with the Leader of the Council from a county-wide perspective. The PCC shared that the Force would not disagree with residents if they wanted the lights turned on and said that any police consultation should not cause delay. Cllr Satvinder Buttar jointed the meeting at 11:10am.
5. Responding to a question on plans to repeat the survey and comparable figures from ... view the full minutes text for item 75/22 |
|
|
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN PROGRESS
This report sets out the progress made towards achieving the 2021-2025 Police and Crime Plan, published in December last year. The report outlines key areas of progress and sets out proposals to ensure the public have greater access to key performance data concerning both the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and Surrey Police. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Bolton, Chief Executive (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner) Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Head of Performance and Governance shared the performance hub to the Panel, noting that it was due to be launched in early December 2022. An early access version could be circulated to the Panel.
2. A Panel Member asked about the recruitment of a Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Policy and Commissioning Officer and how this would differ from the DPCC’s role. The Chief Executive explained that the PCC and DPCC were supported by a team of staff in the Office to deliver against their statutory responsibilities. The Office has brought in over £1 million of funding for VAWG and consequently, this produced more work, including implementation of services, contract management and reviewing delivery. This post would complete that work.
3. A Panel Member asked whether the average speed camera scheme in Pirbright Bends had succeeded in reducing drivers’ speed. The Panel Member representative for Surrey County Council explained that the average speed cameras were not yet operational. Surrey Highways first needed to make a legal order and there were some technical issues to navigate.
4. In response to a question on 101 waiting times, the PCC stated she was applying pressure for these to improve. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that the Home Office data demonstrated that the Force’s 999 response times were among the best in the country and as a result, the focus on emergency calls came at the expense of 101 response times. The Force were attempting to channel shift callers to digital contact methods which led to an increase in abandonment rates. The OPCC was working closely with the Force to gauge public perception and understanding of the 101 service. The Panel Member raised that some residents view the live chat as a less legitimate contact method. The Head of Performance and Governance recognised that it was important to change the mindset around live chat and digital contact methods.
5. A Panel Member asked whether the performance hub measured against the same objectives as included the Police and Crime Plan. The Head of Performance and Governance explained there was qualitative information as well as quantitative and that data was based around the Plan’s priorities, with a selection of policing measures used to demonstrate progress. There was still scope for refinement and feedback was welcomed.
RESOLVED: 1. In the Commissioner’s progress reports on the Police and Crime Plan, the Panel recommends that for each objective, relevant KPIs are included to evidence what progress has been delivered. |
|
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the ‘5-year Surrey public place CCTV strategy’ which was set out in 2018, current CCTV provision across the county and Surrey Police’s position on the future of public place CCTV.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Surrey Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. A Panel Member asked about the PCC’s view on the effectiveness of CCTV in crime reduction, prosecutions and locating missing persons. The PCC explained that in some cases, the evidence did not back up the usefulness of CCTV. Ring doorbell footage was often more useful for a recent missing person case. It was noted that in areas with a night-time economy, CCTV was still seen as beneficial. However, it was made challenging as District and Borough Councils took different views on CCTV and its provision.
2. In response to a question on the new CCTV Strategy, the PCC explained that this was a decision for each of the District and Borough Council Leaders. The Force would not take a lead on this work going forward and encouraged the Panel Member to ask the Chief Constable about it. A Panel Member added that the District and Borough Councils needed a policy from the Force. The PCC emphasised that CCTV had been devolved to District and Borough Councils and whilst the Force would work with local councils, it was not appropriate for them to lead on CCTV.
3. A Panel Member asked about the responsibility of CCTV on highways and the use of personal CCTV in rural areas. The DPCC explained that Automatic Number Plate Recognition was used actively by the Force. They had also been trialling mobile CCTV units. The Force had a good relationship with farmers and landowners in rural parts of the county.
Actions/requests for further information: 1. R25/22 – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to reshare the funding formula for financial support from Surrey Police for CCTV.
RESOLVED: 1. The Panel recommends the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey takes a lead on renewing the county’s CCTV strategy, in partnership with local authorities, and publishes the renewed strategy within the next three months. |
|
|
SURREY PCP BUDGET MID-YEAR CLAIM 2022
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 purpose of this paper is to report on the use of the grant in 2022 (April 2022 - September 2022), as noted in the Panel’s mid-year claim submission to the Home Office submitted by the 28 October 2022 deadline. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion: |
|
|
PERFORMANCE MEETINGS
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. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points raised in the discussion:
|
|
|
PCC FORWARD PLAN AND KEY DECISIONS
This report provides information on the key decisions taken by the PCC from September 2022 to present and sets out details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2022/23. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Alison Bolton, Chief Executive (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: |
|
|
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 (15 September 2022).
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Surrey Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of Police and Crime Commissioner)
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. One question was received from Cllr John Furey and no supplementary questions were asked.
2. One question was received from Cllr Keith Witham. The Panel Member clarified that his question was in reference to local roads and explained that he would be grateful for any further support. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) assured the Panel that she was against road racing. The DPCC was not aware of those specific cases, however, offered to look at them outside of the meeting.
3. One question was received from Cllr Mick Gillman. The Panel Member noted that residents would disagree that the Force did act quickly and appropriately. The PCC explained that the Force had to ensure that the police officers were kept safe when getting protestors down from the gantry. Sometimes the protestors would play dead which made it more difficult to remove them at pace. Road closures were an issue for National Highways. The PCC emphasised that she fully supported Surrey Police’s approach to the protests and felt that they had dealt with the issue well.
4. Two questions were received from Cllr Paul Kennedy. A Panel Member queried when the response inspection to the inspection results would be published. The Head of Performance and Governance shared that there was a formal 56-day return which was likely to be available in late December. The response to the Casey report was expected in two weeks. A Panel Member asked whether there were any remaining backlogs of the service level agreements. The PCC responded she would check with the Force.
Actions/requests for further information: 1. R26/22 – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to confirm whether there are any remaining backlogs of the service level agreements. |
|
|
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
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. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion: None. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
To review the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion: None. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on Friday, 3 February 2023. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel noted that its next public meeting would be held on Friday, 3 February 2023. |