Agenda item

This report introduces the draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 for comment from the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.

 

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Johanna Burne - Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)

Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Lisa Herrington - Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC)

 

Key points raised in the discussion:

 

1.    The PCC noted than an enormous amount of work went into producing the detailed draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 (the draft Plan), following a series of consultations by the OPCC with members of the public, and community groups - of which there had been over thirty meetings.

2.    The PCC explained that the draft Plan was worked on in consultation with the Chief Constable of Surrey Police and his office, it is a draft Plan that the Force felt it could deliver and the PCC noted that she was aiming to publish the draft Plan in the coming weeks.

3.    The Chairman was disappointed that the Chief Constable’s foreword was not included in the draft Plan as that would have reassured the Panel that he supported the draft Plan.

-       In response, the PCC explained that the decision was taken not to include the Chief Constable’s foreword within the draft Plan as it would be included in the final published Plan pending the Panel’s comments, but that he has been engaged in the Plan’s development throughout and was supportive of this draft.

4.    A Panel member noted that the draft Plan and priorities chosen broadly seemed reasonable as it was difficult not to disagree with the content as the draft Plan omitted measurables in which to assess the draft Plan’s successes or failures.

-       The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) responded to the comment on not including measurables in the draft Plan noting that a Force balanced scorecard would be developed which would include a joint set of measurables for the Force and PCC.

-       The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) responded that there were no targets on crime recording set in the draft Plan as these could result in perverse incentives. For example, in some crimes there was historically underreporting, for example in areas such as domestic violence, rape and anti-social behaviour. The aim was to increase reporting in these areas which may in turn lead to increased numbers of crimes. The Force balanced scorecard would show the direction the Force was going in in terms of crime recording and would be provided at the next Panel meeting.

5.    The Panel member commented that comparing the draft Plan with the previous Plan 2016-2021, Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) was a good addition, however noted absences of previous priorities concerning rural crime and value for money - he queried why those areas were no longer priorities.

-       In response, the PCC noted that she had considered a sixth priority regarding value for money but it was not included as a separate priority as ensuring value for money was an important tenet that ran throughout the draft Plan and the five priorities.

-       The PCC explained that rural crime was covered in the draft Plan but it was not one of the five priorities as rural crime is not a separate crime category and she highlighted the work of the rural crime team.

-       The PCC explained that similarly, there was not a priority on young people as rather than singling out demographic groups or geographies, the draft Plan would tackle issues that affected all in Surrey.

-       The DPCC explained that the concerns raised by rural communities were similar to those raised by the wider community, speaking with the National Farmer’s Union (NFU) yesterday she highlighted that rural crime was not a separate priority as it ran throughout the draft Plan, segregating it would be detrimental to rural communities.

-       The DPCC explained that the draft Plan was an evolving document and rural communities would provide feedback on any gaps. She highlighted that there was a rural Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) in place in every borough which would provide a single point of contact and facilitate greater communication between rural communities and the police. The OPCC was continuing to work with the rural crime team to understand where improvements can be made and to take on board national best practice.

6.    The Panel member whilst not requesting for climate change be a specific priority within the draft Plan, commented that including no mention of climate change in the draft Plan was odd in light of the Force’s notable carbon footprint.

-       The PCC noted that whilst climate change was not a specific priority in the draft Plan it was a large priority within the Building the Future programme and there were exciting initiatives in relation to the redevelopment of Mount Browne which she would include in future updates on the Building the Future programme.

7.    The Panel member highlighted that incursions by the travelling community was flagged as major issue in the draft Plan’s consultation, he noted that the plan in Tandridge was to have a transit site and asked whether the PCC was doing enough to promote that site publicly.

-       The PCC explained that lots of work was underway by the Force and Surrey County Council around traveller incursions, she was in discussions with several of Surrey’s MPs regarding fostering better relations with travelling communities; she would take the point away.

8.    The Panel member noted the refence in the draft Plan of working with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) to remove the case backlogs and wondered whether the draft Plan should more strongly reference the PCC’s role and work in terms of lobbying the Government and CJS.

-       The PCC explained that whilst she was chair of the Criminal Justice Board in Surrey, members of that Board had no direct accountability to the PCC.  She had spoken with the Secretary of State for Justice, and noted frustration in relation to Insulate Britain where the police were criticised for not doing their job despite making arrests, when the issue was the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not charging - she had raised the issue with the head of the CPS for the region.

-       The PCC emphasised that addressing the court backlogs was a multi-agency approach that the OPCC were working on to ensure the right outcomes were had for victims.

9.    A Panel member referring to the fourth priority to ‘strengthen relationships between Surrey Police and Surrey residents’, noted that until three years ago there was a fairly regular attendance by a local police officer at parish council meetings and Residents’ Association meetings, that had been beneficial and he had raised the matter with the previous PCC. He asked the PCC to look into the Force encouraging the return of local police officers speaking at parish council meetings, subject to operational requirements. 

-       The PCC recognised the need to balance local police officer attendance at parish council meetings with operational requirements, she had been to a number of meetings at parish councils alongside the DPCC and local police officers.

10.   The Panel member highlighted that more should be done to publicise the benefits of Neighbourhood Watch schemes as active schemes worked well.

-       The PCC noted that she was supporter of Neighbourhood Watch schemes and recognised that more needed to be done to promote them, noting an example of a local Neighbourhood Watch coordinator who could not find a replacement to her role and accepted a further year, making it her eighteenth year.

-       In a later comment, a Panel member noted that the Neighbourhood Watch schemes were a good tool and they should be encouraged and promoted.

11.   The Panel member referring to the fifth priority ‘Ensuring safer Surrey roads’, highlighted the policy undertaken by Kent Police to deal with anti-social drivers through powers to confiscate their vehicles and asked why Surrey did not have such a policy.

-       The PCC responded that anti-social driving was an operational issue. Highlighting the issue around E(electric)-scooters, there was some discretion for Force Borough Commanders to address this issue locally, for example Surrey Heath had a list where the approach was to educate those caught first time on e-scooters and afterwards to enforce as they were currently illegal. She needed to get a steer from each Borough Commander on what was happening in each area to understand the overall force view.

12.   The Panel member noted that tackling speeding was referred to as one of the ways to reduce serious road collisions, he highlighted that more effort was needed on speeding enforcement.

-       The PCC noted the importance of supporting the Safe Drive Stay Alive workshops run by the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) and Surrey County Council, alongside the DPCC she was excited to support those workshops more.

-       The PCC noted that she regularly speaks with Surrey County Council on speeding, noting that it required a multi-agency approach, speed cameras were not always the answer as in some cases road furniture was a solution.

13.   The Panel member noted that at the last informal Panel meeting, the Chief Constable had promised more information on the Force’s Roads Policing Unit (RPU) and was keen to get that response.

14.   The Chairman noted with concern that in sharing the RPU with Sussex Police, Surrey Police would not be able to honour the objective to reduce deaths on roads and serious collisions contained in the fifth priority.

-     The PCC recognised the issues raised around roads policing and noted that the head of the RPU was keen to present to the Panel in the future.

-     A Panel member in a later comment noted that Brighton was a road incident hotspot in Sussex, he queried how much time Surrey’s police officers spent in assisting road incidents in Sussex.

15.   A Panel member recognised that preventing VAWG in Surrey was a priority and welcomed the PCC’s offer to speak at the upcoming Zonta Guildford rally; however she noted a concern over the layout within the first priority ‘Preventing violence against women and girls in Surrey’ where ‘To support men and boys’ is a sub-section suggesting that violence against men and boys were not as important. The Panel member asked the PCC to explain how the priority as written, the Force supported non-binary individuals as the Force’s attention should be spread equally across all parts of community.

-       The PCC stressed that sexual violence was a gendered crime, tackling VAWG would be possibly included in the upcoming Strategic Policing Review, it was a Government priority and had not been taken seriously for a long time. The first priority on preventing VAWG did not mean that the Force would not work hard to ensure that crime against any group was not taken seriously, the services commissioned by the OPCC were open to all.

-       The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) explained that all commissioned services were open, free and accessible to all victims of crime irrespective of gender. Staff delivering the commissioned services were trained in gendered and trauma informed practice. Identifying as non-binary was self-defined and as with all victims of crime, the approach of staff was to listen to victims and respond to their needs.

-       A Panel member in a later comment sought to understand the numbers involved concerning preventing VAWG, asking how many incidences of violence are experienced by women and girls compared to men and boys, as it was vital to ensure that all feel safer.

16.      A Panel member welcomed the inclusion of the first priority on ‘Preventing violence against women and girls in Surrey’, however noted overlaps between that priority and the second priority ‘Protecting people from harm in Surrey’ - where the second priority could include the first - equally the third priority ‘Working with Surrey Communities so that they feel safe’ and fourth priority ‘Strengthen relationships between Surrey Police and Surrey residents’ looked similar; although he recognised that it was more beneficial to have overlaps than gaps.

17.      The Panel member referring to the first priority, queried why there was a particular reference to working with the CJS to tackle the backlog in court cases, expecting that objective should apply to all five priorities.

18.      The Panel member noted that professionalism was mentioned in some areas, but it was not clear that it applied to all objectives in the draft Plan.

19.      The Panel member noted that in representing a rural area he welcomed the inclusion of the objective within priority three, ‘To tackle rural crime’.

20.      The Panel member noticed that there was a difference in the language in the objectives within the five priorities: ‘ensure’, ‘support’, ‘reduce’ and ‘tackle’; for example the wording was to ‘reduce’ acquisitive crime in comparison to ‘tackle’ rural crime.

-       The PCC noted the comment on the difference in wording used.

-       The Chairman highlighted that the draft Plan contained many verbs, omitting outcomes in relation to arresting or prosecuting, there is no mention of the Chief Constable’s focus on improving positive outcomes; the PCC noted the comment.

21.      The Panel member noted that whilst it was a four-year plan, within priority one the objective to ‘review and understand the current provision of services to male victims’ was only the first step in the four-year plan.

22.      The Panel member noted the difficult work undertaken by the Probation Service, he assumed that the objective ‘to reduce reoffending’ in priority two does include support for the Probation Service as it played a key role.

23.      The Panel member referring to priority four and the objective ‘to give communities a visible police presence’ through directing increased resources to areas of greatest need; sought assurance that Mole Valley would not miss out.

-       The PCC provided assurance that Mole Valley would not lose out.

-       The Chairman noted that a possible future question to be raised by the Panel would concern the resource allocation for each borough and district in Surrey.

24.      The Panel member noted that within priority four the objective ‘to ensure that all communities in Surrey feel safe’ did not specifically reference the concerns of the BAME and LGBTQ+ communities in terms of the outcomes for them.

25.      Under the ‘Arrangements for holding the Chief Constable to account’, the Panel member in noting the focus on ‘Equality and Diversity’, suggested a change to the PCC’s statement from ‘I am committed to seeing how workforce diversity in Surrey Police can be improved’ to ‘I am committed to improve workforce diversity in Surrey Police’. 

26.      A Panel member welcomed the overall draft Plan but noted the light approach taken with some areas requiring deeper thought. Referring to priority three and the objective ‘To reduce anti-social behaviour’, with the OPCC to ‘Ensure victims and the community have easy access to the Community Trigger process’, the Panel member highlighted that even within the Panel many Panel members did not know what the process was. Having been involved in five Community Trigger processes in the last few years he noted disappointment that the process was not open to the resident concerned nor their ward councillor. He questioned how the PCC would increase accessibility to the Community Trigger process if it was not well known. One should start with evaluating why it was not well known, how many Community Trigger processes had been undertaken and that resident and ward councillor representation should be allowed where necessary.

-       The PCC recognised that the importance of the Community Trigger process, noting that she has signed the ASB (Anti-Social Behaviour) Pledge committing to putting victims first. It was noted however, that Community Triggers were the responsibility of the district and borough councils.

-       A Panel member in a later comment welcomed any simplification of the Community Trigger process; to which the PCC agreed.

27.   The Panel member referring to priority four and the objective ‘To ensure that all communities in Surrey feel safe’ and concerning accessible communications to Surrey’s residents, noted that holding meetings on Facebook was a powerful tool and if used by all boroughs and districts would boost engagement - noting a recent example of the Runnymede Joint Committee Q&A session which had over one thousand views, over one hundred watching the whole meeting and eight questions.

-     The PCC recognised that Facebook was a powerful tool, the OPCC’s communications team were in discussion with the Force about using Facebook for Performance Meetings between the PCC and the Chief Constable.

28.   A Panel member referring to the third priority, noting that an extension to feeling safe was to improve wellbeing, the majority of improving wellbeing was not the police’s responsibility but that of the local council.

-       The PCC recognised that and noted the work of the Surrey-wide Health and Wellbeing Board, improving wellbeing was a joint responsibility between Surrey County Council, the eleven borough and district councils and the health services.

29.   The Panel member highlighted that from page 47 onwards, the word partner only appeared three times. He noted that too much reliance was placed on the Joint Enforcement Teams (JETs) and pseudo-JETs. The draft Plan should emphasise working more with local authorities particularly on anti-social behaviour on areas outside of the police’s remit.

30.   A Panel member noted a concern around the upcoming Council Tax bill as councillors face critiques from residents, residents’ views must be taken on board and noted that the priorities resulting from the PCC’s surveys of interested partners and residents were anti-social behaviour and a greater visibility of the police which were not any of the five priorities.

-     The PCC responded that police visibility worked throughout the draft Plan and it was important as was anti-social behaviour - however anti-social behaviour was not solely a matter for the police, tackling it required a multi-agency approach.

31.  A Panel member referring to priority four, noted interest in the objective to engage with children and young people, having held school debates and youth councillor surgeries, he welcomed the youth engagement officers and asked to liaise with the OPCC on youth engagement and the work of those officers.

-       The DPCC explained that there had been a reassessment of how the Force engages with schools in relation to the Force’s leads for school liaison. Once that reassessment process had concluded, the OPCC and force would have a greater understanding of how officers worked across the county, the intention was to move away from youth engagement officers delivering presentations during assemblies, to engaging with pupils informally during lunch time; she was happy to liaise with the Panel member outside of the meeting.

32.   Regarding priority four and the objective ‘To give communities a visible police presence’, A Panel member referred to previous Surrey police panel meetings which had stopped because of cuts despite being well attended. He asked whether the PCC in discussion with the Chief Constable had sought to re-introduce such meetings in order to gather greater resident feedback.

-       The PCC explained that force had been using Facebook Live more with meetings well attended, she was not sure on those previous Surrey police panel meetings and would look into the matter, noting that resourcing was an important consideration.

33.   The Chairman highlighted the key areas raised by Panel members and noted that a letter summarising the Panel’s comments on the draft Plan would be sent to the PCC; he thanked the PCC for producing the draft Plan noting its different style to the previous Plan.

34.   The PCC thanked the Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) and the OPCC for working on the draft Plan; she thanked the DPCC for her work on leading the large amount of focus groups gathering views on the priorities to be included in the draft Plan. 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    The Police and Crime Panel reviewed and commented on the Draft Plan.

2.    Panel members’ comments on the draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 would be captured in a letter of response to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey for her to have regard to in preparing the Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 (see Annexes C and D).

Actions/further information to be provided:

 

1.    R38/21 - Following its development, the new Force balanced scorecard will be provided at the next Panel meeting.

2.    R39/21 - The Panel to consider the PCC’s offer for the head of the Roads Policing Unit (RPU) to present to the Panel.

3.    R40/21 - The PCC to look into the previous Surrey police panel meetings.

4.    R41/21 - The letter of response collating Panel members’ comments will be drafted and sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey to have regard to.