Agenda item

To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s draft Annual Report.

The Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel explained that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 required the Police and Crime Commissioner to share with the Panel his Annual Report for comment prior to its publication.

The Chairman stated that the purpose of this item was for Members of the Panel to question the Commissioner on the content of the Annual Report, to discuss areas of concern and to suggest ammendments to the Report before its publication.

The Commissioner provided the Panel with a short introduction to his Annual Report stating that the report covered the period of the previous Police Authority and his own time as Police and Crime Commissioner. Additionally, he confirmed there were a couple of figures he would like clarification on before its publication, including the numbers of those charged for dealing drugs and the number of burglaries committed in Surrey.

The Chairman thanked the Commissioner for his introduction and invited questions from Panel Members. During the following question and answer session, the following points were clarified:

·         The Commissioner remained in favour of the qualitative approach outlined in his Police and Crime Plan. He stated that policing should be about quality and not driving to fulfil targets. However, the figures in the Annual Report gave a benchmark which he would request the Chief Constable to better in future years, including a reduction in offences and an increase in detection rates.

·         Members raised concerns that some of the statements in the Annual Report meant that there was no way of judging whether the Commissioner’s policies had been successful as they were not quantifiable.

·         The Panel queried the Commissioner’s wish to see more senior officers working away from the Police head quarters at Mount Browne. He confirmed he would like to see this although it was an operational matter and the Chief Constable would be the one who decided where her officers were positioned. He confirmed, however, that the Chief Constable had begun a review on the location of senior officers.

·         Members raised concerns that they had seen fewer police officers on the street and queried whether this was part of cost saving plans. The Commissioner stated that visibility was an important aspect of his plan, and that to-date there had been no change to the establishment of neighbourhood policing and his aim to seize more criminal assets would assist in funding neighbourhood policing and Surrey Police as there would have to be cuts in the future.

·         The Commissioner informed the Panel that last year Surrey Police had seized £750,000 of criminal assets, and this year had initiated the process to seize nearly £3 million of confiscated assets. He had begun conversation with the Leaders and Chief Executives of Surrey’s Districts and Boroughs to raise awareness of the work being undertaken to seize criminal assets.

·         The Panel queried whether the Commissioner felt his office would continue to cost less than the previous Police Authority. He confirmed that in the last tax year his office was able to make £250,000 of savings which had been distributed as grants for community safety projects.

·         The Commissioner stated he would continue to work with the press to build partnerships by utilising his public position and his experience of being a media pundit.

·         Members stated that they were still interested in contributing towards the development of the mystery shopper aspect of the Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan, which the Commissioner confirmed was currently being considered and the Panel would receive an update report at the next meeting.

·         Panel Members raised concerns that a zero tolerance approach may not be effective in some areas of Surrey and queried whether the Commissioner had an alternative approach in these areas. The Commissioner stated that zero tolerance was about taking back Surrey for its residents and that he felt it would be an effective policy across all of Surrey.

·         Due to the previous success of zero tolerance in some areas, including New York, Panel Members queried whether in future there would be a decrease in pressure on Surrey Police. The Commissioner confirmed that a zero tolerance approach had been effective during his time as a Police Officer, and that while he knew approaches to tackling low burglary detection rates he was not in a position to tell the Chief Constable which approach her police officers should take.

·         The Panel raised the issue that Assistant Commissioners had not been included in the budget agreed and queried where the funding was coming from. The Commissioner stated the appointments were temporary, and that the £25,000 funding for their positions was coming from the £250,000 saving made by his office.

·         The Commissioner stated that he had identified two areas where he wanted to make progress quickly – victims and equality – and had recruited those he felt had the experience and skills to tackle the roles effectively, with Shiraz Mirza engaging with minority groups and Jane Anderson looking into the experience of the victim in the criminal justice system.

·         The Commissioner confirmed that there was no data in the Annual Report which would enable residents to compare Surrey Police’s performance against other Forces, but that this information was available on Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary website and a link would be added to the final version of the Annual Report.

·         Members of the Panel raised the omission of any policies to engage with young people and felt this was an important area which needed to be considered by the Commissioner in the future. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he had recently set up Twitter and Facebook accounts for his office and for himself to use to engage with young people, and that this was an area which his Deputy focussed on.

·         The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner told the Panel that the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had recently given out £50,000 of grants of which 80% went to youth groups and that he was working closely with youth groups across Surrey. In addition, he had been looking at rolling out the Junior Citizenship Scheme across Surrey to engage better with young people. Details of the grants would be forwarded to the Police and Crime Panel to view.

·         Local Policing Boards were discussed as Panel Members queried whose responsibility the set up of these were and the progress to-date. The Commissioner informed the Panel that these Boards would be important as they would enable resident’s concerns to be fed up to him, and these would help inform future policy. The Boards were to be set up by local councils and the respective Borough Inspectors, and the Commissioner was hopeful these would be successful in the near future.

RESOLVED: That

1.    A letter be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner, confirming the Panel’s support and making the following recommendations:

a)    That the Annual Report be updated to reflect the Police and Crime Commissioner’s wish to ensure that his Office remains more cost-effective to run than the former Police Authority.

b)    That the Annual Report be updated to better explain how Police baseline data will be used to monitor progress against the Police and Crime Plan.

c)    That the Annual Report be updated to inform residents how they can compare Surrey Police’s performance with other force areas.

d)    That the Commissioner keep the Panel informed of any grants made available to local community groups.