Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  This report is intended to provide an update on recruitment, retention, misconduct, vetting and wider organisational challenges facing Surrey Police.

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 this report.

2. In reference to Surrey Police now employing more officers than ever before, due to exceeding the government officer recruitment uplift target, a member asked what impact this had on Surrey Police Group’s finance, given the £18m of savings required over the next four years.The PCC explained that the previous government offered two incentives to Forces to recruit above uplift. The Force took advantage of both offers in 2023/24 and 2024/25. 10 people applied in the first year, and a further 12 people in 2024/25 - for each officer recruited above the uplift in 2024/25, the government provided a grant of £48,000, and it was assumed that the additional officers would continue to be funded separately, not under the wider Force budget. She noted that, if this ceased to be the case, officer numbers may need to be reduced through natural wastage and until it returned to the uplift figure, clarifying that all Forces lobbied the previous government to recognise the cost of funding. Uplift officers increased overtime, as officers moved up the pay scale, which was a challenge, she added. This had so far not been recognised in funding allocations and was a growing pressure. The OPCC was waiting to see if this would be reflected in the spending review later in 2024, but the PCC was not hopeful. The Chief Finance Officer added that he was on the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) Finance Committee which had put in their submission that the rising cost of the uplift needed to be recognised and adequately funded. However, public finances were tight.

3. The member asked if there was any indication on this from the new government. The PCC reiterated that the spending review was awaited, along with more detail from the government. Police Chief Constables had been told to not expect more money.

4. The Chairman asked if Surrey was still lobbying for different funding formulas so that Surrey received a fair amount. The PCC confirmed this was the case and stated that any change in the funding formula would not necessarily benefit Surrey, despite this being the assumption due to Surrey’s position.

5. A member asked for clarity on how the PCC expected government plans for 13,000 new neighbourhood police, PCSOs and special constables across the UK would affect the Force and be implemented. The PCC explained that the OPCC and the Force were still waiting for clarity on this. It was a manifesto commitment, so the OPCC was expecting it, and early discussions with Home Office indicated it would be a mixture of officers, the PCC added. Chief Constables had been told to not expect any extra funding, which would be a potential challenge, and it was believed it would be a combination of new PCSOs and Officers. Although recruiting for PCSOs was a challenge in Surrey, the Force was now 18 PCSOs short of establishment, which was a better position, and the Force was continuing to try different methods of recruitment. The Commissioner noted that the NPCC Finance Committee had stated that that if Forces nationally were to meet the pledge of 13,000 Officers/PCSOs, more funding would be needed and that the committee had spoken about some of the PCSOs and Officers being re-deployed from other areas, which was a concern for the PCC as it may involve moving Officers away from specialist services.

6. The member asked if the PCC could provide any insight into the reasons suspected to be behind the higher and slightly increasing rate of officer attrition in the Force. The PCC explained there were several factors, including a competitive job market, with better salaries available elsewhere. Policing was not generally that flexible, for example, some roles could not involve working from home, and Surrey Police had to contend with the Metropolitan Police’s recruitment campaigns, which tended to offer higher salaries or benefits. She noted that Surrey was an expensive county, particularly for young people and due to national pay scales, it was often cheaper to leave Surrey and go to a different force. Policing was not for everybody, which some applicants did not realise until experiencing the job. Work was going into HR and recruitment teams in trying to be open, explicit and setting expectations on what was expected from applicants, she added, as well as into ensuring that there are early conversations with people who were considering leaving the Force or if a manager noticed an employee was not satisfied with the work. When the Force was recruiting high numbers of officers quickly, increased attrition was a challenge, she said.

7. The member raised that the report referred to the new enhanced scrutiny arrangements for local policing bodies and PCCs with respect to misconduct hearings, including meetings with hearing Chairs. The member asked what impact the PCC envisaged these changes would have, and if the PCC believed there was a way that the Panel could be updated on strategic issues or themes that arose from this. The PCC explained it was anticipated that all Forces nationally would see an increase in misconduct hearings. The Force was doing work in rooting out all kinds of behaviour that was considered inappropriate, which would lead to a corresponding increase in appeals. These processes are supported by the OPCC through the recruitment of legally qualified Chairs and independent panel members. The provision of training and ensuring compliance was managed by the OPCC. The OPCC had been working to ensure better and more efficient working relationships, particularly with neighbouring OPCCs. She explained how this allowed the OPCC to deal with any increases in demand and the ability to borrow from other OPCCs and vice versa. The data associated with misconduct cases is confidential, but the OPCC would provide updates on strategic issues as part of the standing workforce planning update.

8. Regarding the report’s statement that the proportion of officers and staff facing misconduct hearings was small in comparison to the 4000 staff, although the Force conducted 47% more hearings this year than in 2022/23, a member asked how the Panel could be certain that the Force was not simply failing to detect a greater number of instances of misconduct. The PCC noted that no vetting or misconduct process would be perfect, but time and effort went into ensuring the Force’s local processes were as robust as possible. The PCC felt process was better now than previously. The OPCC played a larger role in the oversight of misconduct hearings than previously, both in terms of the PCC’s role and bringing in new staff to oversee this, and that had a close working relationship with the organisations such as the Professional Standards Department and the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). The PCC speaks regularly to the PFEW to understand their concerns. The PCC was pleased to see an increase in misconduct hearings as it meant reporting and detection mechanisms were more robust. The last report detailing the Force’s misconduct clarified that most misconduct proceedings were because a colleague had reported another colleague. The PCC felt this was reassuring, as it showed police officers were feeling enabled and confident to report.

9. A member raised that the PFEW Pay and Morale Survey found concerning levels of dissatisfaction among Surrey officers, including with pay, and a large number confessed a desire to leave the service within two years. The member asked how dissatisfaction with compensation could be reconciled with the Medium-Term Financial Forecast. The PCC noted it was a challenge and police pay was set nationally by the Pay Review Body. Once the government had reviewed the body’s findings and decided on the increase officers would receive, the Force was obliged to comply with the recommendation. In the current year, the government provide additional funding to help fund the cost of the pay rise above 2.5%. Going forward, she said, the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) included annual rises of 2.5%, assuming that if a larger increase was agreed by the government following the Pay Review Board, it would be funded. There were lots of reasons why people left the police force, including better or more convenient opportunities, as well as pay, she added. The Chief Finance Officer stated that the pay was set by the government, and the assumption was that any rise above 2.5% would be funded. If it were not funded, it would add pressure on the MTFP.

10. A member asked how officer numbers were expected to change over the PCC’s term in office, how financial penalties for low officer numbers would be averted, and what the assumption was around uplift penalties. The PCC explained there was a lot of uncertainty around government policy in this area and that officer numbers were therefore not able to be forecasted with certainty beyond 2024/24. For the current year, the Force was required to obtain their uplift baseline, which was 2,253 officers, as well as the additional 22 that was agreed to recruit post-uplift. The PCC clarified that the Force believe they are on track to meet the target but were waiting for the government to reveal the funding arrangements. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed there were financial penalties if the target for uplift arrangements were not met - uplift arrangements are put in place for each year, and therefore Surrey Police Group only knew the arrangements for 2024/25. It was the responsibility of the government what arrangements would be put in place for the uplift in future years. Until this was revealed, predictions could not be made with certainty.

11. The member raised that it would still be a decision around how resources were used to maintain, increase or decrease officer numbers. In reference to the last PCC election, the member noted that the ballot papers bore the description “more police, safer streets” by the Commissioner’s name -the member asked if voters should take this as a commitment that the number of officers would increase during the PCC’s term.The PCC stated that the number of officers had increased and was still increasing and expressed commitment to do everything possible to ensure this. In terms of operational resources, it was for the Chief Constable to decide where operational resources were best deployed.

12. A member referred to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s updated guidance for the Prevent duty, which would require all organisations to take positive and reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. The member queried how confident the PCC was that the Force would meet this objective. The member noted it was good to see the initiatives, in relation to tackling misogyny and victim blaming on page 79 of the agenda and asked if there was any evidence that it was having a positive effect on attrition rates. The member also asked if there was similar work in relation to ethnic minorities and LGBT+ officers and staff. Regarding updates on the Prevent duty, the PCC noted it was an important announcement and that it had likely duplicated work and previous announcements that came from other organisations. Therefore, the PCC did not believe Surrey Police were going to be required to do anything differently to meet it. In terms of attrition and misogyny, the Force had increased female applicants to police officer and detective positions, - Surrey Police looks quite different now to how it did in the past. The PCC remarked that, as the world moved on, policing was traditionally behind, but Surrey Police was moving in the right direction, and that the Chief Constable’s vision was to have a workforce that was diverse, inclusive and equal, and a workforce that understood why this was important. The PCC was seeing this happening under the current Chief Constable and noted that the Force had agreed an equality, diversity and inclusion policy. There were several dedicated forums that considered equality issues, which included the Disability Advisory Group, the Race Advisory Group, the LQBTQ+ Advisory Group, as well as dedicated Liaison Officers within the Force for people experiencing issues. These were well-signposted. The Force and Deputy Chief Constable had taken a real interest in leading the Gold Group around this area. Pulse surveys and wider HR feedback mechanisms were designed to capture this data.

13. The member referred to a statement from a senior member of the Surrey Police prior to the riots that Surrey Police was an anti-racist organisation and asked if the PCC endorsed this statement. The PCC replied she would not endorse a statement without seeing it.

14. A member asked if an officer resigned during a misconduct case, whether the case would be subject to the same thoroughness of investigation. The PCC confirmed that a resignation did not end the process of the investigation.

The Panel NOTED the report.

Actions/requests for further information:

·         The PCC/OPCC to provide updates on the strategic issues regarding the enhanced scrutiny arrangements around misconduct hearings, as part of the standing workforce planning update item.