Agenda item

To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals for ‘Stage 2 Transfer’.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (the Act) which creates PCCs also sets out a second ‘Stage 2’ transfer which refers to the subsequent movement of certain staff, property, rights and liabilities from the PCC to the chief constable. The stage 2 transfer is designed to allow elected PCCs the freedom to make their own local arrangements about how their functions and those of the police force will be discharged in future.

The Chairman of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel explained that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act set out a second “Stage 2” transfer which referred to the subsequent movement of certain staff, property, rights and liabilities from the Police and Crime Commissioner to the Chief Constable. The purpose of the transfer was to allow Commissioners the freedom to design their own local arrangements to allow efficient discharge of both theirs and the Police’s functions.

The Commissioner provided the Panel with a short introduction to his Stage 2 proposals, as detailed in the agenda papers, and made the following key points:

·         The Commissioner felt that to ensure the six People’s Priorities were being delivered by Surrey Police and for him to fully exercise his role of holding the Chief Constable to account then the Chief Constable would need control of ICT, buildings, vehicles and staff.

·         The Commissioner’s plans were to transfer most of the control and responsibility of the previous Police Authority to the Chief Constable.

·         The Commissioner stated that his involvement with the media was significantly greater than the Police Authority, as he needed to recognise and respond to statements being made. He stated that he would require a greater communications budget than the Police Authority held, which would be paid for out of the Surrey Police budget.

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 felt that Section 38 of the Act, in relation to contracts, gave him enough powers to hold the Chief Constable to account, if required. The Panel were concerned that moving the responsibility to the Chief Constable would lead to the Commissioner learning of decisions too late to reverse them. The Commissioner stated that as he remained a signatory on contracts he would be aware of decisions being made and that he, and his staff, were in regular contact with the Chief Constable’s office and were now much better cited than previously.

·         Stage 2 transfer proposals across the country were different, but the Commissioner felt his proposals were appropriate for Surrey. If it was deemed to not be satisfactory in the future, Commissioners would be  able to request a different set up from the Home Secretary, however the Commissioner stated that it would incur a legal bill which he was keen to minimise.

·         The Panel raised concerns that many of the responsibilities of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner would now be under the Chief Constable. The Commissioner stated his Deputy would continue to oversee these areas of work in order to scrutinise the work of Surrey Police and assist him to hold the Chief Constable to account.

·         The Police and Crime Commissioner’s Chief Executive stated that most Police Staff would not notice a change from 1 April, when they become an employee of the Chief Constable and not the Police and Crime Commissioner. This was due to payslips coming from Surrey Police and not the Police Authority. Whilst TUPE would not be applied in this case, the principles of TUPE would and they were communicating with staff regarding the changes; through letters and the Surrey Police intranet. The Commissioner confirmed he was in regular conversations with Trade Unions regarding the transfer of staff and that he was keen to ensure the structures put in place would be the most effective for Surrey residents.

·         The Commissioner would continue to monitor the budget of Surrey Police very carefully and there was little risk it would be overspent by a large amount as the Chief Constable was given a finite budget to control.

·         The Police and Crime Commissioner saw his role as to ensure the six Peoples Priorities were being delivered effectively by Surrey Police, not to dictate how this was achieved.

RESOLVED: That

1.    The report be noted.