Agenda item

To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed update to the Police and Crime Plan.

Note:

In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), before issuing or varying a Police and Crime Plan, a Police and Crime Commissioner must:

(a)        Prepare a draft of the plan or variation;

(b)        Consult the relevant chief constable in preparing the draft plan or variation;

(c)        Send the draft plan or variation to the relevant police and crime panel;

(d)        Have regard to any report or recommendations made by the panel in

relation to the draft plan or variation;

(e)        Give the panel a response to any such report or recommendations;

(f)         Publish any such response.

The Chairman explained that the Commissioner had notified the Panel that he wished to update his Police and Crime Plan and, in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, the Panel had a duty to consider the proposed changes.

·         Members expressed concern that the Assistant Commissioner for Victims had not attended a Panel meeting since June 2013 and requested that she attend the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.

·         The Panel enquired whether the cost of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) was still less than the previous Police Authority, as the report provided to the Panel stated that ‘the budget was comparable’. The Commissioner confirmed that his aspiration had always been to not increase the budget to more than the Police Authority, though it was important to recognise that the Police Authority was largely a scrutiny body whereas his role was wider in remit with far more engagement work involved. He informed the Panel that he had become the national lead for Victim Support for PCC’s which required funding from his office until he received government funding for this role. He confirmed that the OPCC did everything possible to keep costs to a minimum. The PCC’s Chief Finance Officer reiterated that it was not possible to make a direct comparison due to the responsibilities being largely different, however he would provide the Panel with details of the costs of the Police Authority and OPCC.

·         Members queried how much public resources were going into raising awareness of the chronic underfunding of Surrey Police and who the PCC was working with to address the issue. The Commissioner stated that he felt that cooperation was necessary, and to that end he had written to the Police Minister, the Home Office, the Treasury and all Surrey MPs to make them aware of his concerns. He had since been invited to take part in a review of the funding formula by the Police Minister. Furthermore, he had spoken to the Leader and Deputy Leader of Surrey County Council, and 70% of Surrey MPs, and had submitted a copy of the Commissioners commissioned Oxford Economics report to MPs and the Home Office.

·         The Panel enquired when someone would be held account for the failings of the Project Siren IT project. The Panel was informed that the Commissioner was still awaiting the final independent audit report, which he would share with the Panel once he received it. Furthermore he confirmed he would continue to share the outcome of the audit into Project Siren with the Panel once available. The Commissioner notified the Panel that a new IT system had been implemented which worked with Sussex’s system.

·         Members questioned whether the Commissioner still felt that having no numerical targets in his Police and Crime Plan was effective. The PCC stated that he wanted to see qualitative improvements within Surrey Police and that numerical targets were not the right approach to achieve this.

·         Members raised concerns regarding allocation of Community Safety funding as it appeared there was duplication across Surrey. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner stated that he was disappointed that many Community Safety Partnerships did not apply for funding last year and hoped that this would change in the next round of funding. However, all the funding had been distributed for this year. He confirmed that there was a large amount of duplication across Surrey, and that he was working with the High Sherriff to cut down the volume of duplication. The feedback he had received so far had been that the application form had been made simpler which he hoped would encourage applications.

·         The Panel were informed that the new post of Communications Officer was to do more engagement work, rather than the previous reactive work. It was the intention that the role would enable  the Commissioner to communicate better with the public, with improvements to the website, Facebook and Twitter. It was hoped that better communication would enable the Commissioner to influence organisations better.

Resolved:

·         That the amendments to the Police and Crime Plan be noted.

·         That the Commissioner provide the Panel with the total annual cost of running his Office and how this compares, in pure financial terms, to the former Police Authority.

·         That the Commissioner to share the outcome of the audit into Project Siren once available.