Agenda item

For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

Note:

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Friday 22 November 2024).

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (PCC)

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

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

To note for the minutes, Commissioner’s questions and responses can be found in the supplementary agenda.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. Written responses to questions were provided to members by the OPCC. Regarding Commissioner’s question 1 from Cllr Mike Smith, the PCC added that there was a significant focus on improving Grade 1 and Grade 2 incident responses in Surrey Police, adding that there had been an extensive data-led review, the results of which would be implemented on 9^th December 2024. There was also internal analysis and comparison with other Forces, they said. For Grade 1, the time limit was increasing from 15 to 20 minutes, aligning with Sussex Police and reducing confusion for collaborative teams including the Roads Policing Unit - the performance target has also been raised to 80%. Regarding Grade 2, the PCC clarified that analysis showed that the criteria used for both Grade 2 and Grade 3 were being handled as Grade 2 incidents by Surrey Police, inflating the pool of Grade 2 incidents. Therefore, Grade 2 had been separated from a new Grade 3 classification, which is now set at a 24-hour response time, matching Sussex Police. The Grade 2 response time is set at 1 to 24 hours with a target of 80%. The PCC also noted that Grade 3 incidents include the use of Scheduled Appointment Vehicles since implementation on 14 October 2024, a measure that has received positive feedback from divisions, and referred to the new embedded Chief Inspector Silver role in the Command Room, due to start imminently. Surrey Police has also been making good use of the ‘Suspicious Activity Portal’, which allowed the public to upload CCTV footage to aid in police investigations, they said.

Cllr James Baker returned to the room at 12.25pm

2. In follow-up to Commissioner’s question 2, Cllr Richard Wilson asked if there had been a change in policy, noting that the PCC had previously stated she was not in favour of the facility for DISC to report directly into Surrey Police’s Niche system, and that people should instead dial 999 or 101. The PCC answered there was not a change in policy and that she did have concerns around this topic. She noted that multiple reporting systems could create more risk. In reference to the Cllr Wilson’s question to whether its availability could be brought forward, the PCC stated this was not possible because the Force and partners had to ensure it was done correctly and were reducing the risk as much as possible.

3. Cllr Richard Wilson asked for clarification that the concern was not around a large increase in reporting of shoplifting which could reflect negatively on the figures. The PCC confirmed this was not the concern. The concerns were around victims not getting the response needed due to multiple channels of reporting and confusion this could cause for people using the system.

4. In follow-up to Commissioner’s question 4, Cllr Paul Kennedy asked if there had been any change in the PCC’s thinking around the Police and Crime Plan. Cllr Kennedy also asked if the Surrey Youth Commission report’s recommendations could influence the Police and Crime Plan. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) explained that the Surrey Youth Commission’s report that Cllr Kennedy would have seen was the previous year’s report and the majority of what was in this had been delivered. The new Surrey Youth Commission report would soon be launched but was not expected to significantly influence the new Police and Crime Plan, they said. The PCC added that the Plan was still undergoing consultation, and no final decisions had yet been taken.

5. Cllr Kennedy raised a concern regarding bringing the draft Police and Crime Plan to the Panel’s February 2025 meeting due to precept discussion also taking place at that meeting. The PCC stated that she felt it would be wrong to rush the Police and Crime Plan.

6. In reference to the first item on the agenda, a member asked if the delays in court hearings were all due to decreased funding of the criminal justice system over the past decade, or if there were any other factors involved. The PCC noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had a significant impact on court delays, and that people were also leaving and not joining the criminal bar. There are a multitude of reasons, they said, including the need for better funding, but did not feel it was fair to blame the current or previous governments alone for the current position.

7. In follow-up to Commissioner’s question 5 regarding ANPR funding, Cllr Paul Kennedy raised that councillors at Mole Valley District Council had been asked to support CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) bids for ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). Cllr Kennedy outlined that a concern among councillors was around a lack of transparency on who should pay for ANPR, which also has a broader and more national benefit. The PCC referred to a 10pm to 6am shift she undertook with the Mole Valley response team where they were locating and following a vehicle, and no issues were found finding the vehicle using ANPR. The DPCC added there were a lot of other things ANPR could be used for that had a more local impact.

The Chief Finance Officer noted that emergency services were not included as a statutory benefactor for funding from the CIL and Section 106 regimes. The PCC had written to the minister asking for this to be considered in the Planning Bill going through Parliament, in order to give emergency services the right to call upon CIL funding.