The
Committee agreed that point 4 of Item 38/19 of the 27 June 2019
minutes be removed as it duplicated point 2.
54/19
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.
Written questions
from the public can be submitted no later than seven days prior to
the published date of the annual or any ordinary public meeting,
for which a written response will be circulated to Panel Members
and the questioner.
The PCC published a refreshed
Police and Crime Plan in May 2018 for the period 2018 to 2020. This
built on the previous plan issued in 2016. The refresh was informed
by emerging crime trends, consultation, scrutiny of current force
performance and meetings and visits with Surrey Police, public and
partners.
David Munro, Surrey Police and
Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Damian Markland, Head of Policy
and Commissioning, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
(OPCC)
Key
points raised in the discussion:
The Surrey Police and
Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report and
highlightedthe new
Enterprise Resource Planning system (known as Equip) and informed
Members that a detailed update on this item would be presented to
Members at the next Informal meeting.
In response to Member
queries:
The PCC explained
that it was positive that 9 out of 11 districts and boroughs had
supported and funded the domestic abuse service and that he would
continue working with the other 2. They would not be named and
shamed as theHead of Policy and
Commissioning(OPCC) informed
the Panel that some boroughs and districts had given direct funding
whilst others provided non-financial support such as
accommodation.
The Head of Policy
and Commissioning(OPCC) responded to the
concern around domestic abuse by explaining that there had been
changes to the way that it was commissioned. As of April 2020 there
would be a formally commissioned service, contractually based
providing a clear access point for borough and district councils to
support.
The PCC agreed with
Members’ concerns that the figures on anti-social behaviour
were not moving in the right direction. In Appendix A the ‘%
of public from survey believing that the police deal with
anti-social behaviour and crimes that matter in their area’
had declined and was almost down a third. The PCC explained the
period of turbulence Surrey Police had been through following the
adoption of the policing in the neighbourhood system. It was in
place a month after the PCC began his term and its destabilising
impact had now been realised three years later. It had to be done
as the previous model was not affordable. He was pleased this has
now been got over and there was a sea change in Surrey Police
through engagement with communities and noted positively the
current good relationship with the districts and
boroughs.
The PCC hoped that
public perception and confidence would increase from around 70% -
which was a high number - due to the extra 104 police officers, the
doubling of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) who had a
critical role in tacking anti-social behaviour, extra one youth
intervention officers per borough and the ongoing work on
unauthorised encampments.
A Member however
commented the 10% drop in public confidence since 2015/16. He noted
several cases in his borough of Runnymede where the police had
failed to deal with anti-social behaviour including unauthorised
encampments. The PCC was happy to meet with that Member on his
particular problems.
In response the PCC,
explained that Surrey Police now had the procedures and officers on
the ground to deal with unauthorised encampments but there were
still no transit sites in Surrey compared to Sussex and a complete
section of the act dealing with unauthorised encampments was not
operative in Surrey. He urged district, borough and county
...
view the full minutes text for item 56/19
On 1 April 2019 Surrey Police
opened its new Victim and Witness Care Unit, based out of Guildford
Police Station. This professionally trained team has been
established by the OPCC and Surrey Police to help victims of crime
cope and, as far as possible, recover from their experience,
putting in place care plans tailored to the needs of the
individual.
Damian Markland - Head of
Policy & Commissioning, Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner
Key
points raised in the discussion:
The PCC informed the Committee that this was a bold
new venture that started 18 months ago and required a large amount
of work in order to give better care to victims.
TheHead of Policy &
Commissioning(OPCC) introduced the report
and explained that Surrey OPCC received £1.4 million from the
Ministry of Justice a year to be used for range services for
victims; this was a combination of third sector providers which
offered specialist services and more generalist services through a
safety net for victims of crime.
Historically, the independent charity Victim Support
provided this service but as the contract had come to an end after
four years, victim care was brought in-house to Guildford as the
new Victim and Witness Care Unit. It was not primarily about saving
money but to provide a single point of contact and support for
victims and creating a better understanding of victim and witness
support within Surrey Police.
There would be a six month post-implementation
review on the successes and challenges of the Unit through the
joint Surrey/Sussex Police Change Delivery Team; which would be
shared shortly to the Panel. The Unit was working well with the
largest challenge being the duplication of cases on the IT system,
and an accessibility issue by volunteers to the police IT
system.
In response to a Member query, theHead of Policy & Commissioning(OPCC) stated that there was currently no skewing
along geographical lines posing difficulty for victims on the
eastern side of Surrey County. Initial support would be offered
from the Unit’s base in Guildford through text messaging,
calls and online help; and long-term support offered though the
mobile base of volunteers and paid staff spread across the
county.
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report and it was
noted that for further information members of the Police and Crime
Panel could visit: victimandwitnesscare.org.uk
Actions/Further information to be provided:
R40/19– The results of
thesix month post-implementation review on
the successes and challenges of the Unit would be shared shortly to
the Panel.
In response
to the Chairman’s query on the meaning of ‘Niche
flags’, the PCC responded that it was a statistically useful
police IT system which categorised crime more accurately including
rural crime.
A Member
queried whether the rural crime system had an effect to reduce
rural crime and whether residents in rural areas felt supported.
The PCC responded that an update on the strategy’s results
would be provided and that anecdotally people felt re-assured and
welcomed greater Surrey Police engagement in rural
areas.
Members
were concerned with the issue of mounted police and the training
costs of the horses and their insurance. The PCC explained that
they were fully insured and being privately owned the training
costs of the horses were significantly reduced.
Councillor Andrew Povey left at 11.30am
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel
noted the report.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
R41/19-The PCC to provide an update on the
strategy’s results.
The PCC paid tribute to the volunteers who ran the
Independent Custody Visiting Scheme.
The Chairman highlighted that there was feedback
from the Independent Custody Visitors but no feedback had been
reported from ‘detained persons’. In response, the PCC
stated that there was feedback available reported by the ICVs and
was largely positive.
The Vice-Chairman queried more visits were held on
Wednesday rather than the assumption of Friday/Saturday
eveningof more people in custody. The PCC
explained that generally the distribution of visits was good with
monitoring done suite by suite and that he wanted the volunteers to
do more visits out of hours if possible.
In response to the Chairman’s question over
the recruitment of ICVs, the PCC informed the Panel that there was
regular and successful recruitment campaigns primarily online based
and the majority of recruitment was by word of mouth. It was
reported that the retention rate was also good.
The attached report details how
the PCC seeks to engage with the Surrey public through face-to-face
meetings and events, communications and consultation.
The PCC introduced the report and remarked that the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), himself and the
Chief Constable of Surrey Police held a series of successful
community engagement sessions in all 11 boroughs and districts in
summer. He hoped to repeat these in January around the time of
consultation on the precept. The PCC reported that these events
were very useful with a good turnout and interesting questions
asked by members of the public.
In response to the Chairman’s query, the PCC
recalled anecdotal comments from when he went out on shift with
Neighbourhood Policing Teams and Street Angel teams. It was noted
that there was an enthusiasm and a depth of commitment by those
teams to the task and a frustration on not being able to help even
more due to a lack of resources.
The PCC responded to a Member question, that a wider
and more formal survey on public opinion would be useful rather
than the sole focus on precept consultation. The PCC would look
into it, but stated that it would be costly and time intensive,
there was however constant daily engagement between the police and
residents. There was also a large amount of free-standing views at
4,000 on general opinions not just around the precept.
In response to the Vice-Chairman’s query on
the groups the PCC consulted with, he stated that he
went round as may groups as possible – not just through the
police text messaging service ‘In the Know’ - such as
this Panel, stakeholders, borough and district councils and he had
a close link to the Chambers of Commerce and Federation of
Small Businesses.
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel noted the report.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
R42/19-The PCC would look into a possible wider
survey of topics to gather greater public opinion on the
police.
The PCC introduced the report and expressed
frustration that CCTV in Surrey was not a rationalised process
unlike in Sussex with a more consistent service through good
partnerships between Sussex Police and borough and district
councils.
Despite the budgetary pressures, the PCC pledged not
to reduce funding for CCTV whilst he was in office.
In response to Members’ concerns over Surrey
Police’s long-term financial commitment on CCTV enabling
future financial planning by eastern borough and district councils,
the PCC noted the forward joint strategy. He also reported that he
had not picked up specific issues with east Surrey, CCTV was being
monitored at Reigate police station for the
foreseeable.
In response to a Member question, the PCC stated
that CCTV as an evidence gathering tool had decreased in its
importance of live recording as mobile phones and dash cams had
filled this role but it was still useful as a reassurance
tool.
A Member recalled that Surrey Highways used the live
feed from the CCTV network and whether Surrey County Council was
aware of Surrey Police’s plans over the change of CCTV
strategy. The PCC commented that the council were fully involved in
this and he would check the specific point on the live feed being
used in road side cameras.
A Member thanked the PCC for putting money back into
CCTV but questioned the low funding offered by Surrey Police.
Runnymede received £30,000 a year for CCTV access from Surrey
Police, but it had cost Runnymede Borough Council over £1.8
million to establish which meant the borough had to recover the
costs elsewhere.
A Member stated that mobile phones were not always
the best placed item to capture crime and queried whether Surrey
Police could collaborate more greatly with Sussex Police to ensure
best practice. In response the PCC remarked that there was
currently good collaboration between both forces.
The PCC recalled that Surrey Police had no powers to
require district and borough councils to give ownership of CCTV up,
Woking for example chose to keep ownership. This resulted in
fragmented funding on CCTV, with Surrey Police proposing a county
wide procurement programme over many obsolete CCTV systems. The PCC
suggested that borough and district councillors on the Panel should
take this matter back to their respective councils.
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel
noted the report.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
R43/19-The PCC
would check the specific point on the live feed being used in road
side cameras.
R44/19-The
PCC suggested that borough and district councillors on the Panel
should take the matter of CCTV ownership back to their respective
councils.
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.
Lisa Herrington, Chief
Executive, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
(OPCC)
David Munro, Surrey
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
Ian Perkin, Treasurer,
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Member questioned howthe
reduction in the Levels of Victim Contact compliance was compatible
with the new Victim and Witness Care Unit. The Chief Executive
(OPCC) explained that the Victim Contact compliance was done by
investigating officers separately to the Victim and Witness Care
Unit which was a mandatory requirement as part of the
Victims’ Code.
In response to a Member question concerning the
lessened role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Surrey the
PCC stated that the CPS was very under resourced. There was however
a good relationship between Surrey Police and the local CPS in
Kent, Surrey and Sussex as a result of ‘embedded
officers’ which were police who sat with the local CPS for
joint collaboration over cases.
The Vice-Chairman queried the amount of the50% of all cash forfeitures recovered fromtheProceeds of Crime Act
(POCA) 2002 that went to Surrey Police andhighlighted the error on page 68: that 18/75% should be 18.75 %
of confiscation orders fulfilled by Surrey Police. The PCC stated that POCA was a success which brought in a large
amount of money to the police with a recent
successfulbitcoin fraud
crackdown.
In response to the Vice-Chairman’s query, the
PCC would report at a later date with more detail on the issue
ofSurrey Fire and Rescue receiving hate
crime reports.
In response to a Member’s concern over the
lack of long-term success on Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME)
representation with the target of 9% being missed by half, the PCC
remarked that Surrey Police had stepped up its positive action
programme. This ensured that all candidates regardless of their
background received the same access to training and mentoring
through the selection process. Surrey Police needed to work with
the BAME community to remove cultural disadvantages and it was also
important to recruit more women and LGBT individuals.
In response to the Chairman’s query on
stalking and harassment, the PCC explained it was a severely
underreported crime now with its own ‘Niche flag’. That
‘compliance in crime data integrity’ meant that volumes
were recorded, ensured through better categorisation and
encouragement for victims to report it.
The Chairman raised the issue of the Capital
Programme and why Surrey Police only ‘appear’ to be
getting this under controland whether the
new finance tool called Host Analytics would resolve
this. In response, theTreasurer
(OPCC) statedthat there wasa
caution of underspending within Surrey Police as past schemes did
not take into consideration the additional costs from planning
difficulties for example. Greater encouragement to use the funds
available was necessary rather than a constant rolling over into
the next year.
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel noted the update on the
PCC’s Performance Meetings.
A Member remarked that earlier this year there was a
report by theAll-Party Parliamentary Group
(APPG) on Knife Crimewhich linked the
reduction in the amount of activities available for young people-
through cuts in grant provisions - with knife crime. In response
the PCC noted that knife crime in Surrey was low, however the fear
of being stabbed by young people in Surrey was second on their
anxiety rating behind mental health. He reported that there was not
a major correlation between knife crime and closing youth services,
but education in schools was important.
The PCC also pointed out that preventative work was
essential as although knife crime was more prevalent in London, it
travelled out of the capital to counties such as Surrey. He also
informed the Panel that he had pushed for a portion of the
Governments’ £100 million of ‘Surge’
funding - of which the majority went to urban areas, London and the
West Midlands for example- to tackle knife crime to be allocated to
Surrey.
Members were also informed that Surrey Police was
running a knife amnesty campaign that week where anyone carrying a
knife could surrender it anonymously to police stations. This
included: Woking, Guildford and Reigate, to which Members were
concerned as it was a long way to travel for those on the outskirts
of Surrey. The campaign recognised that there was a higher
correlation between knife carrying and being stabbed, the PCC
commented that he had made a video the day before the Panel to
widely publicise it.
A Member raised the issue of the decreasing positive
outcome rate of ‘high harm’ crimes and asked what the
category consisted of. The PCC stated that it included a number of
categories. In response, a Member stated that those categories
should be included in an updatedAppendix B:
Crime Measures Requested by the Panel, on both the Levels of
Crimeand Positives Outcomes. The PCC
recalled that he had six-weekly performance meetings with the Chief
Constable where ‘high harm’ crime was taken seriously
and he would look into expanding Appendix B in a future report to
the Panel.
Concerning the average time to answer 101 calls, a
Member noted that many in his borough of Runnymede felt it
worthless without any follow up. In response, PCC confirmed that
there were statistics available on the nature of the calls; these
would be reported by borough if available at the next Informal
meeting. The PCC extended an invitation to the whole Panel to visit
the Surrey Police Contact Centre, he also informed the Member that
all 101 calls were recorded and he would follow-up specific calls
and cases he may have.
The PCC commented that half of all calls to 101 were
not police matters. There had been an improvement of 101 use and
handling over the last three years- made a priority by the Chief
Constable and PC- with a ...
view the full minutes text for item 63/19
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.
R35/19:The Chairman
reiterated that the matter of Transit Sites was an ongoing matter
with District and Borough Councils to feedback.
R34/19:This item was
completed with a document on Collaboration Agreements provided in
the agenda. Members questioned the large amount of national
agreements detailed and the PCC commented that he signed the
first-ever Surrey-wide formal concordat with the Leader of Surrey
County Council Tim Oliver and the Chief Constable.
Members were informed that there were still two
vacancies on the Complaints sub-committee.
RESOLVED:
The
Panel noted the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work
Programme.
66/19
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
Panel to note that the next
meeting is scheduled for 27 November 2019.
PDF 109 KB