Agenda item

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.  

This report provides an update on how the plan has been met to date.  The current plan has been extended to May 2021, with a renewed emphasis from the PCC on three areas in 2020/21.

Witnesses:

David Munro - Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The PCC highlighted that:

·         The ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ which remained at 13% was a concern. Although not bad compared with nationally and better than Sussex Police’s positive outcome rate, improvement was needed and he was optimistic that the rate would increase noting that he was satisfied with the enormous amount of work going on in Surrey Police and the extra resources going in. He added that delays in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had created a backlog in cases.

·         In addition to supporting the DriveSmart programme as noted in his response to the public question, he commended the Community Speed Watch scheme and noted that work was underway to start to formalise Surrey Police’s support for HGV Watch - in which volunteers kept a lookout for HGV's in restricted weight limit roads - and its roll out across the county.

·         Surrey Police had received over £500,000 from the Government’s Safer Streets Fund, which had been invested in housing blocks in Stanwell North, with the doubling of national funding on offer as a result of the recent Sarah Everard case.

·         The Magistrates and Crown Courts in Surrey and Sussex were hit badly by Covid-19, and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC) had been working with the local teams, the CPS and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to try and get back to normality. Whilst the throughput was back to normal levels, the backlog remained. His view that people were waiting too long for justice was shared by his PCC colleagues, noting dissatisfaction with the Government's slow and unimaginative reaction to addressing the delays and that no extra funding had been provided.  

2.    A Panel memberhighlighted:

·         The appalling positive outcome rate forhigh harm offences highlighting Appendix A: Police and Crime Plan Performance Measuresin which the ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ had dropped throughout the PCC’s tenure from 26.5% from the 2015/16 baseline to 13% 2020/21; he further asked how women in Surrey could feel confident in Surrey Police.

·         Appendix B: Crime Measures Requested by the Panel - Latest Data in which the ‘Positive Outcomes’ for Serious Sexual offences was 7.1% in 2020/21. He noted that the PCC throughout his tenure had done nothing to persuade the Chief Constable and Surrey Police to improve upon those rates. 

-     In response, the PCC recognised that the rates were not good enough but disagreed with the use of ‘appalling’ as he noted that regarding the actual numbers of offences that had been solved, the numbers were not dissimilar year on year. What had changed however, was the increase in the number of reported offences particularly Serious Sexual offences.

-     He noted that during his tenure as PCC he had:

-       firstly, provided Surrey Police with as much money as possible through the precept increase which he scrutinised the spending of. He was satisfied that Surrey Police had put in an enormous number of measures to improve the positive outcome rate for high harm offences and had confidence in the force to concentrate more on that area.

-       secondly, he noted that over the last five years of his tenure as PCC and indeed five years prior to that, Surrey Police as with all other forces had been underfunded by the Government and through no fault of its own it had moved from a proactive to a reactive force due to the lack of resources. He welcomed the increase in new recruits and was confident that over time the positive outcome rates would improve. 

-       He noted that women in Surrey could feel very confident in Surrey Police which treated serious sexual offences against both women and men with the utmost seriousness. Nationally, more women had the courage to report Serious Sexual offences which affected the positive outcome rate due to resourcing, however the increase in the precept and the PCC Commissioning Budget – Community Safety Grants and Victim Services of over £600,000 to support victims through the Victim and Witness Care Unit, would increase resourcing and lead to improvement.

3.    A Panel member referred back to the ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ in Appendix A which remained at 13%. He noted that of the four offences, domestic abuse usually has a high positive outcome rate as often the perpetrator is known to the victim; that meant that the other three offences must have a very poor positive outcome rates and so he asked for a breakdown of the figures relating to all four offences.

-        In response, the PCC explained that it was not as simple concerning domestic violence as often such offences are hidden and it is extremely difficult to get evidence.

-        Following the clarification by the Chairman on the question due to poor audio, the PCC was happy to provide the breakdownof the four grouped offences and the Chief Constable’s plans to address those.

4.    A Panel member noted that:

·           He grew tired of the Government being blamed for everything as it did not run Surrey Police, he noted that it was the PCC’s responsibility to hold the Chief Constable to account and to make the best use out of his budget.

·           The PCC had not addressed the rising levels of crime nor the positive outcome rates particularly for high harm crime. Rising levels of crime were the barometers that the PCC should have responded to, if they were getting lower because the crime detection rate was lower, then the PCC needed to understand the reasons why and act on it.

·           Although not responsible for Surrey Police’s operational activities, the PCC was elected to represent the needs of Surrey’s communities.

-     In response, the PCC reiterated the decade of underfunding and resourcing of the police by the Government and so it had been a reactive force.

-     The PCC however welcomed the recent reversal by Government through Operation Uplift and commended the Minister for Policing who was an excellent advocate of police to Her Majesty's Treasury.

-     The PCC noted that he did represent the needs of Surrey’s communities, highlighting that he was not satisfied with the level of the positive outcome rates, but welcomed that extra resources coming in and Surrey Police’s plans to improve the solve rates across all crimes. Recruitment would take time as indicated in a later report and he was confident that Surrey Police was up for the challenge to address the solve rates and he would continue to scrutinise progress made.

-     The PCC noted that through the precept increases he had provided as much funding to Surrey Police as he could which was a burden on Surrey taxpayers. Whilst actual resources in real terms were back to 2010 levels, funding from the Government through central taxation had decreased by 30% in real terms over the last ten years.

5.    The Vice-Chairman referred to page 34 welcoming the reinvigoration of the DriveSmart programme and the new HGV Watch scheme which should make Surrey’s roads safer.

-     In response, the PCC gave credit to the Surrey County Council, particularly to the Deputy Leader, who he noted that with support from the Leader he had been working jointly to reinvigorate Councillor Povey's DriveSmart programme.

6.    The Vice-Chairman referred to page 32 regarding Victim Navigators in relation to fraud and cybercrime and asked for more detail on their role.  

-     In response, the PCC explained that the Victim Navigators would provide support to victims by helping them along their journey by explaining the procedures.

-     He noted that specific to that role, Victim Navigators would betrained officers in relation to fraud and cybercrime so would be able to offer their professional expertise to help victims.

-     He commented that he had grave doubts on whether the national model to support victims of cybercrime and fraud was the right one as criminals were operating nationally and internationally so there should be a stronger focus by the Government on the matter.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted the progress made against the Police and Crime Plan 2018-2021.

Actions/further information to be provided:

R4/21 - The PCC will liaise with Surrey Police to provide the breakdown of the ‘Positive Outcome Rate for crimes against vulnerable people (sexual offences, domestic abuse, child abuse and hate crime)’ and the Chief Constable’s plans to address those.