Witnesses:
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
highlighted the 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 the Head 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
councillors to push for the transit sites and in response Members
stated that funding must also come from Surrey Police.
- The PCC clarified
that the ‘changes in powers’ over unauthorised
encampments sought, was in response to a drafting error where the
police could move travellers on public land but not on highway
verges.
- The PCC shared the
Panel’s dismay that the Positive Outcome rate for high harm
offences had gone down in Appendix A and noted that Surrey Police
was near the bottom of the national league for this due to
disclosure issues. Various other reasons were mentioned including a
lack of resources and a difficulty in hiring detectives. Surrey
Police was putting all focus and resources possible into resolving
this issue; and more high harm investigators were being recruited
as part of the 104 extra police and a problem solving unit was
formed.
- A Member raised the
issue of the Surrey Road Casualty 2018 figures which showed a drop
in number of those ‘killed’, the ‘slight
injured’ and ‘all casualties’ from previous
years; and whether his Community Speed Watch (CSW) scheme reduced
those numbers. He also asked the PCC if he could explain the huge
change on the ratio of those ‘seriously injured’
between 2016 and 2018.
- In response the PCC
stated that he could not explain the ratio change, but he was
hoping to put some of the extra officers from the 20,000 confirmed
by the government into road policing. There was a current
successful campaign to warn people of the danger and criminality of
using mobile phones, decreased offences. The CSW scheme was
difficult to assess, but there had been a slowing down of cars and
it engendered a sense of community between residents.
- The PCC noted local
communities’ concerns over the lack enforcement of speed
cameras, but prioritising this would mean other areas would go down
the scale. Drive SMART was also a good initiative between Surrey
County Council - notably Councillor Povey and the Cabinet Member
for Highways, Matt Furniss and Surrey Police - but needed to be
revitalised and called for the Panel’s help. New technology
needed to be utilised and he was pressing for an average speed
camera programme.
- The PCC agreed to
provide an appendix page in the future to clarify the terms such
as Cuckooing Project, catalyst, dovetail,
SHIPP and fearless worker to be accessible to the Panel and the
public. The Chairman stated
that proof reading of reports was also necessary due to many
grammatical errors.
- It was also pointed
out to the Panel that there was an error whereby the
Surrey High Intensity Partnership Programme
(SHIPP) cost down from approximately £176,000
to just £116.
- The error of the
number of serious sexual offences figures from 677 to 324 in Appendix B should have been 624 to reflect the
percentage change amount was also highlighted. The PCC explained
that the low Positive Outcome rate on serious sexual offences was
due to problems of disclosure. The inquiry on the disclosure review
would be made public shortly and reported to the Panel.
- The PCC explained
that the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS)
was a legal scheme where the Chief Constable was
allowed to delegate closely defined powers to others such as the
Joint Enforcement Teams (JETs). Parking powers were not included
and the PCC had spoken to the Home Office on this. The PCC would
speak to the Member on the Guildford JET.
- In response to a
Member query, the PCC explained that Project Fearless was an
initiative under Crime Stoppers encouraging young people to use
anonymously online and through telephone calls to report crimes. A
case worker funded by the OPCC went round schools to promote the
Project.
- The Vice-Chairman
praised the Borough Commander for Woking on the work done on Woking
station with 35 people arrested with 26 linked to county lines. The
PCC was at the event and commented on its success and hoped that
this initiative could be reproduced elsewhere.
- The Head of Policy
and Commissioning stated that ‘fraud navigators’ fell
within Operation Signature led by Sussex Police. Fraud navigators
supported the process of compiling the details of numerous
vulnerable individuals to fraud and led on preventative work and
cybercrime training. They would be based in the Victim and Witness
Care Unit.
- The PCC explained
that the number that Surrey Police would be allocated of the 20,000
extra police nationally ‘to make our streets safer’
– which would include detectives - had not been released.
Based on the figures alone of 20,000 new police, it would mean a
16% uplift in police officers over 3 years nationally. That could
mean approximately an additional 100 police a year for three years
for Surrey. The majority of new police would go to national law
enforcement agencies and the Metropolitan Police for
example.
- There would be
adequate resources to train those extra police and there would not
be any relaxation of the recruitment process although it needed to
be rationalised as outlined by the Government’s investigation
into 43 forces with different recruitment processes. There was
two-way movement between Surrey and Sussex Police but the lower
retention rate in Surrey Police needed to be addressed.
RESOLVED:
That the Police and Crime Panel noted the progress made against
the Police and Crime Plan 2018-2020.
Actions/further information to be provided:
- R38/19 –The PCC to provide an
appendix explaining the acronyms and
specialist language used in the reports in order to be accessible
to the Panel and the public.
- R39/19 - The PCC
explained that the inquiry on the disclosure review on serious
sexual offences would be made public shortly and reported to the
Panel.