Agenda item

This report sets out the progress made towards achieving the 2021-2025 Police and Crime Plan. 

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

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

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Nathan Rees, Communications Manager – OPCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report, noting that the plan was still in its infancy and there was a meeting with Surrey Police next week regarding the plan. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and the Force were working to make the plan and the outcomes more accessible for the public. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) highlighted that the plan had been welcomed by the Force and it was considered a co-owned plan. It had been noted by the Force that the plan had been much more consulted than in previous years. It was also easier to understand, as each section was broken down into actions for each partner.

2. A Panel Member noted that the report contained a lot of detail for the public to understand and asked what the PCC was doing to make it accessible. The PCC emphasised that the report provided to Panel Members was produced specifically for the Panel. The PCC agreed that communication with the public was vital and the OPCC worked closely with the Force on this. For example, in the context of reducing violence against women and girls (VAWG), it was essential for the public to understand reporting. A new Head of Performance was starting in May, and they had discussed creating an accessible dashboard on the website. It would include the headline statistics, with the option to delve into more detail if desired. The PCC acknowledged that there was a lot of work that the public were not aware of and that better campaigning on certain issues, such as fraud, was needed.

3. A Panel Member asked what support was being provided for victims of crime, because their residents believed that there was little support. The Panel Member asked for baseline information on this. The PCC explained that in their conversations with the Chief Constable she highlighted things that were not happening and that she was unhappy with. Victims wanted to be communicated with and kept up to date. The Deputy Chief Constable was completing a review into three areas, one of which was supporting victims of crime. The PCC added that they could provide some further information on this area, but that she was unable to comment on individual cases.

4. A Panel Member asked for further information on the recruitment of more specialist workers for children experiencing domestic abuse and sexual violence. The PCC explained that this was a piece of OPCC commissioned work, in collaboration with a range of partners. This included providing domestic abuse refuges with the resources to recruit specialists and working with the charity RASAC (Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre). The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) could provide more detail. The Panel Member noted that their borough did not have sufficient refuge provision. The PCC explained that an individual would seek refuge elsewhere in the county or another area for safety, so that they were not in their own immediate area. The PCC highlighted the importance of the county council working on these issues as well.

5. A Panel Member asked whether the analysis on Safer Streets could be shared once available to enable councillors to support the work. The Chief Executive (CEX) explained that the work that went into the Safer Streets bid was done collaboratively with district and borough councils. The DPCC clarified that the analysis from the ‘Call It Out’ survey and the national Streetsafe tool (as distinct from ‘Safer Streets’) could be shared.

6. A Panel Member noted that there was no narrative in the report regarding the increase in the number of recorded serious sexual offences and recorded hate crimes and sought assurance that this was because more people were willing to report these crimes than previously. The Panel Member emphasised the importance of including crimes involving fraud, as people were often unaware of how much of this type of crime occurred. The PCC explained that it was important to have the right mix of policing and skills to tackle different types of crime. It was difficult to analyse the rising types of crime, due to the impact of the pandemic. The PCC agreed that people were reporting certain crimes more and that this was a positive thing. These issues were discussed with the Chief Constable at the governance meetings.

7. Regarding school exclusions a Panel Member asked about alternative provision provided for young people who received exclusions, to prevent them potentially turning to crime. The PCC responded that this should not be a policing issue. The DPCC explained that she could highlight the options in place for those excluded after the meeting. The DPCC had worked with the High Sheriff on this issue and shared that Surrey was doing well comparatively with other counties. The target set was for no children to be excluded and the incoming High Sheriff shared the passion for maintaining that target. The DPCC noted that there was a report by Royal Holloway University on school exclusions in Surrey.

8. A Panel Member queried whether the burglary figures included in the report referred to retail, commercial or domestic. The PCC would confirm following the meeting.

9. A Panel Member shared a resident experience regarding their business whereby the Force provided little support, despite having evidence of a crime, and asked what work was done with the business community. The PCC explained that they did work closely with the business community and had regular meetings. Issues related to the business community had been raised with the Chief Constable recently and the PCC was happy to share the response.

10. The Chairman queried why all residential burglaries could not be investigated and noted that less than 3% detection rate was poor. The PCC explained that the outcome rate in January was 3.7% for Surrey, and this was raised with the Chief Constable at the first public governance meeting. That number has since improved and updated figures would come to the Panel meeting in June. The Force were reviewing all of the burglary reports they had received to check that they had been dealt with correctly.

11. A Panel Member enquired into the work to address anti-social behaviour. The PCC clarified that this was one of the areas of focus set out by the Home Office and therefore, the bid for Safer Streets funding had to address this area. The OPCC was bidding for money from the Home Office to support district and borough councils with issues they were struggling with. The DPCC added that Hampshire OPCC had established a task force who met when required and would ask their PCC for funding to tackle an issue. This has been successful and the DPCC was investigating whether this could be established in Surrey.

12. The Chairman noted that the statistics on the non-emergency police phone number 101 appeared to be getting worse and the digital form of contact was not making it easier for residents. The PCC explained that residents were using 101 as well traditional forms, rather than moving to digital. The 101 service was a standing item on the meetings with the Chief Constable. Changes were planned for 101, as this was a national issue.

13. A Panel Member suggested that there should not be an agenda for the public governance meetings, and they should rely on residents to provide their questions. The Panel Member also expressed that rural crime was a niche issue only affecting a minority of residents. The PCC explained that some of the agenda items did come from residents sharing what they would like to be raised at the meetings. The Communications Manager stated that they tried to theme meetings, but this did not stop residents asking questions on other topics. If a question was not answered, the individual could contact the OPCC to receive an answer afterwards.

14. A Panel Member enquired about the plan to improve the 101 service, as well the engagement work of the OPCC now that in-person meetings could happen again. The PCC explained that they had been working with district and borough councils regarding 101. Residents needed to understand the use of 101 and the digital service was not the answer on its own. There had been a lot of staff absences over the pandemic in contact centres, but this was starting to improve. The PCC explained that they were reluctant to discourage anyone to call in and emphasised to call 999 if in doubt, and they could deescalate the issue if necessary. The PCC for Kent has completed a piece of work on best practice. In-person meetings had started to happen, and the PCC explained they would like to do more, including a summer or autumn roadshow. The PCC was looking at introducing a surgery for residents to raise issues. The Communications Manager explained that as not everyone was able to attend in-person meetings, a mixture of options was required to gain the perspective of harder to reach communities.

15. A Panel Member emphasised the importance to focus on rural crime and asked about any progress on unauthorised encampments. The PCC explained that there was not a recent update, however, she was receiving a briefing from the Force on this the next day which she can share with the Panel at the next meeting. 

16. A Panel Member asked whether the Force used powers of confiscating vehicles of anti-social drivers. The DPCC apologised that she had not yet provided this information to the Panel Member. These were powers from Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, and they were used in Surrey. The DPCC explained that a warning would be issued first, and that they find that there was a lot of impact from those as it was applied to both the car and the driver. These warnings were sometimes more impactful than a speeding fine. The PCC encouraged Panel Members to participate as Community Speed Watch volunteers.

17. A Panel Member raised the issues of speeding and noise from motorbikes. The PCC explained that one of the ways to reduce road deaths was by reducing speeding. If a residential road suffered from speeding, then you should speak to the county council to see if any measures could be taken. The local police teams had to prioritise issues, but the PCC emphasised that they did take speeding seriously. There was a campaign called Safe Drive Stay Alive by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, in conjunction with the OPCC and the Force. The PCC explained that she was not sure what the laws were on the noise of exhausts. There was a limit to what the Force could do if they did not breach a law.

18. A Panel Member asked whether the Safe Drive Stay Alive campaign could be broadcasted more widely, especially for use by parents. The DPCC explained that they were targeted at sixth form age and was concerned that it could be less impactful if it was shared more widely. The DPCC would look into having a separate version of resources for parents.

19. A Panel Member noted that drivers were not being persuaded to keep to speed limits and asked about the approach to tackle this. The Panel Member also enquired about the support for victims of road collisions. The PCC explained that it was about community engagement and ensuring that the Force were communicating with victims.

20. A Panel Member suggested introducing a unified speed limit of 30mph to provide consistency on roads where the speed limit varied. The PCC responded that she had discussed bringing down the speed limits on some roads with officers and the Chief Constable. A Panel Member added that the county council were looking at a wider scheme around reducing speed limits on rural roads, as control of speed was often about consistency. 

Actions/requests for further information:

1. R8/22 – The Head of Policy and Commissioning to provide further information on the recruitment of more specialist workers for children experiencing domestic abuse and sexual violence.

2. R10/22 – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to share the analysis on Call It Out survey and the national Streetsafe tool.

3. R11/22 – The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner to provide information on the other options available for young people who have been excluded from school.

4. R12/22 – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to confirm which type of burglary the figures referred to.

5. R13/22 – The Support Officer to organise a briefing from the Force on the new Vanguard Road Safety Team.

RESOLVED:

The Surrey Police and Crime Panel recommends that –

1. That future Police and Crime Plan progress reports to the Panel contain the key actions taken since the last update, and those to be taken, in relation to each subheading of each Plan priority.

2. That all of the measures reported to the Performance and Accountability Board be included in future Police and Crime Plan Progress reports, and the same descriptions used.