Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  This paper provides an update to the Surrey Police and Crime Panel as to the Casues for Concern, Areas for Inprovement and Recommendations identified for Surrey Police in the PEEL Report.

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 outlined the purpose of the report. The PCC provided a brief introduction to the report and highlighted the work done on the ability to answer emergency calls quickly enough, noting that the Chief Constable informs her that Surrey Police was the fastest improving Force in the country on this measure.

2. A member asked if there was a link between the latest PEEL inspection report finding that the Force required improvement on data recording, and the Information Commissioner ordering Surrey Police to address backlogs in its responses to information requests. The PCC did not believe there was, as it was done separately in different teams, but suggested members could ask the Chief Constable at the Panel’s meeting with him in October.

3. Regarding the report’s reference to a new shift pattern being introduced in the call handling centre from September 2024, a member asked how the introduction of this measure featured into the plan for call response times, given the advances that had already been attained. The PCC noted she was pleased with performance improvements in 101 and 999 calls, and it was important to maintain this, and that revised shift patterns were being explored to ensure performance could be maintained. There were lots of measures being reviewed across the Force to ensure that where there were areas of improvement, it was improved, and where areas were improved, it would be maintained, she added, stating that she felt the workforce was integral to this.

4. In reference to page 63 of the report, a member noted that the compliance against published response times for Grade 1 and Grade 2, despite an improvement from 2023, remained below the March 2022 level. The member asked how confident the PCC was that improvement in this area could be achieved. The PCC explained that the Force was making good progress, but were not there yet, which was important to recognise, and that the Chief Constable has highlighted it as an area he wants to improve. She stated that it was important to be transparent about the data, and that the Force was looking at the grading system as whole to allow for a more refined target. The Commissioner clarified that the grading system produced some unintended consequences, such as how the broad parameters for a Grade 2 response could make it seem that the Force had not attended something in time, when it may be that officers had spoken to a member of the public and agreed another time to arrive that suited the resident, meaning that it would appear that the Force had missed its Grade 2 target. The PCC encouraged the Panel to ask the Chief Constable about this at its next with him.

5. The Head of Performance and Governance added that particularly with domestic abuse cases, it was found that the best approach in terms of integrity and getting the best victim statement was to give the victim some time, as opposed to officers arriving straight away, provided there was not an immediate risk to a victim or complainant. In domestic abuse cases classified as Grade 2, the officer or contact centre may agree with the victim at the time to meet with them later, get resources in place and ensure access to support services, they said. However, this was not considered when measuring the Force’s response time for Grade 2, as this started at the point of report. He noted that the new grading structure would try to provide more granularity around this.

6. The Vice-Chair asked if detail of the performance management measures, training programme and longer-term sustainable model being implemented for AFI (area for improvement) 1 concerning the handling of sexual offences and their recording could be provided. The PCC explained this was a large piece of work and suggested the Panel could look at it as a separate item for another panel meeting.

7. Regarding AFI 4, on Stop and Search and Use of Force, a member noted that these could be useful tools when used in the right way, but if misapplied it could lead to damage to the public perception of the Force. The member asked how the outcomes of the community engagement sessions with members of the public would impact Force behaviour and policies, and how the Force would know when it had satisfied this AFI. The PCC noted the importance of stop and search but that it had been used as a ‘political football’, and that the Force has lots of experience and expertise using community feedback on stop and search, which informed the approach to operational policing more generally. Historically, stop and search included a community scrutiny panel, where volunteers reviewed instances of stop and search and provided feedback. She also clarified that the OPCC had been working closely with the Force over the past year to refine the process, and that a staff member in the OPCC helping with the analytics had specific experience as an academic working with MOPAC (The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) on this issue and produced a report on it. The Panel were informed that the Force was introducing a RAG rating system to formalise the way the data was captured and that the OPCC was working with the Force to review the recruitment process for this, to ensure as many people as possible can participate. In reference to her participation in many residents’ and community engagement meetings, the PCC was not aware anyone had raised issues around stop and search here. Therefore, the PCC expressed more confidence in the Force and the OPCC working with them to ensure there was a proper scrutiny panel who were the right people to look at stop and search rather than community engagement meetings, which were less formal.

8. Regarding how the Force would know AFI 4 had been met, the Head of Performance and Governance clarified the internal process. When there were AFIs from HMICFRS, they were overseen by the Strategic Planning team, who work with Surrey Police to ensure that updates are provided. The Strategic Planning team have an ongoing dialogue with HMICFRS inspectors and provided updates on what was done to address issues raised. Through this ongoing communication, eventually a point was reached where HMICFRS was satisfied that issues addressed were met.

9. A member asked how the Crime Improvement Plan would achieve better outcomes for victims of crime, and what would occur in each of the three phases of the plan. The PCC explained that the AFI in the HMICFRS report was specifically related to outcomes for types of crimes and not support offered to victims more generally. In terms of Surrey Police’s compliance with the Victims’ Code of Practice, HMICFRS found that the Force had effective measures in place. Victims of crime are taken seriously and the OPCC looked closely at this area, they noted. The PCC shared that she has recently taken over the role of the national victims’ portfolio - the overarching aim of the three phases was to bring the proportion of victim-based crimes, assigned specific crime outcomes, more in-line with the national averages. She clarified that there was not a large discrepancy between Surrey Police and other Forces, but HMICFRS inspectors did note that Surrey Police was using more out of court disposals and encountering more evidential difficulties, which was an important part of the work.

10. The Head of Performance and Governance added that there would be checking of the existing processes to ensure officers know which powers to use and when to use them appropriately.

11. The member raised that the Force had a ‘3-pillar strategy’ for tackling discriminatory behaviour and asked if the Force sought advice from government or specialist VCSF/third-sector organisations for this. They also asked about how the behaviour of the organisation would be ‘tracked.’ The PCC stated that she did not know who the Force specifically used but noted that police forces put a lot of effort into this area nationally, such as through the National Police Chief’s Council. There was a lot of experience for the Force to draw from, in addition to internal experience. Feedback would be tracked through various channels including a staff feedback mechanism and pulse surveys. The PCC encouraged the Panel to ask the Chief Constable about this area at the Panel’s next meeting, as it was an area he had put a lot of effort into.

12. The Head of Performance and Governance noted the Force’s ability to bring organisations from the voluntary sector into some of the governance processes. For example, when he was looking after victim services, the Force often had representatives from some domestic abuse and rape and sexual assault provider services on boards, and at times jointly chairing the boards with police officers and those responsible for delivering internally.

13. Regarding AFI 7, around the Force’s need to do more to understand the workforce’s wellbeing needs and tailor accordingly, a member felt this AFI linked to problems the Force had with areas like officer and staff retention. The member referred to a previous answer from the PCC, that the workforce was integral to improvement. The member quoted from the Surrey PEEL assessment 2023-25 report that ‘the force told us that it hasn’t completed a force well-being survey in three years. And it hasn’t completed the Bluelight self-assessment to understand what affects good or poor well-being’. The member noted there had been a survey of the police staff, but asked if the OPCC knew if what was raised in the PEEL assessment was addressed. The Head of Performance and Governance outlined that the Chief Constable could provide more information on this and that the Force had put a lot of effort into improving this process, such as through pulse surveys. They noted that there are now more opportunities to feedback issues, such as workloads and discrimination, and there were other internal pieces of work looking specifically at issues of discrimination, such as the Race Action Plan and other boards that oversaw workplace discrimination-based issues.

14. The PCC highlighted point 10 of the Chief Constable’s ‘Our Plan’ which spoke specifically about staff and officer wellbeing, stating that this is an area that the PCC also wanted to look at with the Chief Constable, noting admiration for those that did shift work. The Chief Constable and herself were going to meet with Surrey University shortly to hopefully help to develop a pilot around shift work. The PCC noted the importance of ensuring the workforce could live a long and healthy life beyond policing.

15. The member quoted from the Surrey PEEL assessment 2023-25 report that ‘during our fieldwork, we learnt that police staff investigators do not have access to police radios, unlike police officers. Police staff investigators must use mobile phones to ring 999 if they need back-up. This makes police staff investigators more vulnerable which negatively affects well-being’. The member asked if the OPCC was aware of this and if it had been dealt with.The Chairman raised it would be a question for the Chief Constable.

16. The Chairman thanked the PCC for promoting the welfare of the workforce and those doing shift work. The PCC highlighted the impact shift work had on families, and that society should be doing more to support all shift workers.

The Panel NOTED the report.

Actions/requests for further information:

• To clarify: How will AFI 1 (force is too often failing to record sexual offences, particularly sexual assault, and rape crimes) and detail of the performance management measures, training programme and longer-term sustainable model being implemented for this be updated on for the Panel? Will this be a future report?

The Chairman paused the meeting at 12.59pm

The Chairman resumed the meeting at1.10pm