Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  A key responsibility of a Police & Crime Commissioner is to set out a Police and Crime Plan to cover their current tenure and until the end of the financial year after the next election. The Plan should be set as soon as is practicable after an election, at the latest before the end of the financial year after election, that is March 2025.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)

Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC)

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Chairman provided the background of the report. The PCC gave a brief introduction, noting that consultation was ongoing.

2. A member noted that the report referred to “…a period of refinement and maintenance” that reframed some issues of the previous plan while maintaining the same foundations. The member asked if there were other areas being descoped or removed from the Plan to allow this change. The PCC explained that some areas, since the last Police and Crime Plan (Plan), had become ‘business as usual’ for the Force, and therefore did not need as much focus. The first Plan was reviewed in Summer 2024 to review any possible areas for change.

3. The member asked how impartiality and fairness would be ensured through the consultation process. For example, if political proportionality was guaranteed when consulting with political representatives and if there was a risk that the consultation could constitute an ‘echo chamber’ of similar views. The PCC explained that she viewed the consultation as apolitical. Everyone in Surrey had an opportunity to contribute. The public survey and wider engagement events would ensure everyone in Surrey had the opportunity to contribute, should they wish.
4. A member asked how the focus of the Plan was expected to change due to the methodology, and if the PCC could commit to altering the plan significantly to reflect stakeholder feedback. The PCC explained that her Office (OPCC) awaited the results of the wider consultation. The public consultation would follow. She did not possess set expectations on the feedback. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that the methodology was a structural mechanism to collect and interpret data, to ensure the building of the Plan was based on a firm foundation. When the Panel would be given the final draft Plan, a breakdown of how the methodology operated and translated into the Plan would also be provided.

5. A member noted the report’s reference that “…preliminary findings will be shared with focus group participants for feedback and confirmation” and queried if this group of participants would be a sub-set of those consulted in earlier rounds of consultation.The Head of Performance and Governance explained that after each focus group, the OPCC returned to participants with a transcript of the discussion for checking. An electronic form was also sent to participants, so they could clarify their statements and the OPCC’s interpretations of them.

6. A member asked how the views offered in the more ‘informal’ Community Engagement events in September to December 2024 would be incorporated into the new Plan if the same statistical methods were not applied. The PCC noted that the first ‘informal’ Community Engagement meeting took place in Guildford on 23 September 2024. Consideration was given to recording and producing a transcript of these sessions, but this would need consent of those attending. A written record of themes that arose in the meetings would instead be taken, to identify trends, which would inform the Plan. Community Engagement sessions were less to inform the Plan and were instead to inform and encourage people to take part in the consultation. It was also an opportunity to speak to the Chief Constable and Borough Commander.

7. The member asked if the PCC could provide the absolute values for the numbers of participants involved in the focus groups and surveys as well as each response category.  The PCC confirmed this could be shared after the consultation and draft Plan was complete.
8. A member queried how robust the internal review process was and if there was a peer review. The member raised that apart from management and rehabilitation of offenders, the PEEL reports found performance had deteriorated across the board. The member suggested that this performance could be linked with the performance against objectives in the Plan, as well as synchronising the Plan with the Chief Constable’s plan and national policing priorities. The PCC noted that everyone in the commissioning team and the OPCC reviewed the Plan. These teams were non-political and had experience of writing and delivering plans - the PCC also consulted with the Force on the Plan. The Head of Performance and Governance added there were different layers to the consultation. There was an internal review with officers in the OPCC and the Force. Focus groups were being reviewed and were thematically based, such as with groups from commissioned services and the business community. A public consultation would also be launched. There was a desk-based exercise where areas such as the Force Control Strategy, national directives and HMICFRS inspections were reviewed. The PCC noted that the current Plan is the most widely consulted Plan that Surrey has ever had, and the OPCC was going further with the new Plan. The Head of Performance and Governance noted the continuity brought by the PCC’s re-election when building and refining the Plan, as it allowed for more detailed discussions with stakeholders.

9. The member asked how much of the analytical review would be shared with the public and the Panel, along with the draft Plan. The member noted that when the current Plan was released 3 years ago there was a lot of consultation that lead up to its development, but he felt that the draft plan was not consulted on, as such. The member asked if the way this was conducted would change. The Head of Performance and Governance clarified that the Panel would receive the draft Police and Crime Plan, and an analytical summary of the data, how it was interpreted and why it led to the formation of the Plan’s policies. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer raised that when the draft Police and Crime Plan came to the Panel, it was not an additional stage of consultation, it was for the Panel to review, but there was still opportunity for the draft Plan to change. When the current Plan was brought to the Panel in draft, the member had raised the view that there was not enough focus given to rural crime, which was subsequently amended in the Plan. There was an element of time pressure to the plan, with lots of consultation in a relatively short period, but the Chief Executive was satisfied that the consultation was robust.

10. The PCC raised that the duty of the PCC was to consult, but it was not set out how to consult, how widely and who with. The PCC did not want to rush the Plan, and wanted to ensure it was done right.

11. The Head of Performance and Governance noted that the survey had been developed. The temptation was to make the survey long and detailed, but equally that this would likely deter enough people from completing the survey, so a balance was needed. It was agreed to share the survey with the Panel.

12. The Chairman raised a suggestion of forming of a sub-committee within the Panel, noting the need to look at the results of the consultation and methodology.

13. A member asked if invites for the focus group sessions referred to in the report had been distributed, given the process was set to end in October 2024. The member also asked if councillors would be invited to these sessions given that they, and Councils, were identified as a stakeholder group in the report. The PCC explained that the focus groups were ongoing. Councillor sessions were still being worked on. Council Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) were already invited to the sessions. It would not be feasible to meet personally with all Surrey councillors. Online feedback and smaller one-to-one groups would be used to engage with councillors.

14. The Chairman requested that if there was a focus group session in a Panel member’s area, they were invited. The PCC explained it was not geographical in this way but encouraged all Panel members to attend the community engagement meetings and invite their constituents.

15. A member asked if there had been engagement with local councils to try to ensure the dates and locations of the community engagement meetings were suitable. The PCC highlighted the difficulties of finding a date that suited the diaries of herself, the Chief Constable and the Borough Commanders. The meetings also needed to be in a specific area, on an evening and in an appropriate venue. Given this, the dates had not been checked with each council. However, the was a second opportunity with an online session in January 2025.

The Committee NOTED the report.

Actions/requests for further information:

• OPCC to provide the absolute values for the number of participants involved in the focus groups and surveys, as well as for each response category once the consultation is completed.
• The Head of Performance and Governance to share the consultation survey with Panel members.