Councillors and committees

Agenda item

POLICE AND CRIME PLAN 2018-2020 – PROGRESS

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.

Minutes:

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:

 

  1. 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:

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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:

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

Supporting documents: