Transcript

I am happy for anyone attending today's meeting to use social media, provided that this does not disturb the business of the meeting. Members, please may I remind you that this meeting is being webcast live and is open to the public, although I have the right to suspend filming if the need arises. Is that now live? Right, so we are now live, thank you very much. Microphones. If any member or officer would like to speak to a discussion, they must indicate to the Chairman of the Committee that they wish to speak by raising their hand. When called by the Chairman, press the button to speak clearly and directly into the microphone. To ensure members of the press and public know who is talking, members and officers, please can you introduce yourselves when they speak for the first time. I will say I am John Roubini and I am Chair of this Committee meeting and I represent Waverley and I represent Chotendong in Hazen there. Members and officers must ensure they have switched off their microphones once they have finished speaking. We all hate that horrible feedback if you forget. Mobile phones, please if you could all now turn off your mobile phones or turn it to silent if you are desperate for a message. Now apologies for absence, Jake. Apologies have been received in advance from Councillors Shanice Goldman, Ellen Nicholson and Richard Smith. I don't think there are any other further apologies on that. Thank you. Decorations of interest. Jake again, have we got any decorations of interest? None received. Thank you. Anybody at the moment wants to declare any interest? No, thank you very much. If you do come across something then please shout up before that item is introduced. Minutes of the previous meeting. We need to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 20th June, 24, subject to any corrections but only in factual accuracy. It is the recorded minutes so we don't actually have to change them. So can we approve those, anybody happy? Lovely, great, thank you very much. So we move on to number 5 which is the first item here for public questions. Now there has been one that has been tabled from Councillor Ashley Tilling. Is Councillor Tilling available? He's not online. He's not online, okay. The Commissioner has made a response to this which we can all see in writing. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Devon. Paul Kennedy from Mole Valley District Council. This question is linked loosely to the question I was asking about CCTV later on. And so I actually, and indeed there are similar issues in my district as well. And so I reached out to Councillor Tilling to ask about the background to this question. He indicated he wouldn't be here today but having seen the response he did ask if I could ask a supplementary on his behalf if that's all right. And I have indicated that to the Commissioner. I think I know what the answer is going to be on that basis but if I could read it out. The question is several of the Surrey bids already have disc paid for by their levies. They are waiting for the direct link into Surrey Police so that incidents are easily reported and logged and to encourage more businesses to engage. Can Surrey Police commit to creating the direct link from all Surrey bid disc systems into their own system and provide a schedule for doing so? So that's the question. Thank you. Yeah, I'm obviously not going to commit to anything on behalf of the force. That's a question for the force and Councillor Kennedy or indeed, well, yes, it will be private sessions. Welcome to ask the Chief Constable. So I can either write to the panel or with the answer which I'm afraid will say very similar to that or Councillor Kennedy is of course welcome to ask the Chief Constable when he's here next month. Thank you Commissioner. I think if we could have a response to the panel as well. It will say that I'm not committing anything on behalf of the force. No, no, I understood that. Thank you. We'll move on then to the second question which has been received from Councillor Alex Coley that has been submitted and answered. Thank you very much. It's all in front of you. So we move on to the Police and Crime Panel Consultation Methodology, item number six. One of the main responsibilities of a Police and Crime Commissioner is to set out a Police and Crime Plan to cover their current tenure and until the end of the financial year after the next election. The plan should be set as soon as is practicable after election at the latest before the end of the financial year after election, that is March 2025. So if I could ask the Commissioner to set out so far please. Thank you Chairman. As members will probably be aware from the papers, we're currently going through the consultation process with experts which includes teachers and others in the sort of wider partnership field that we deal with and then we'll be coming out to the public very shortly actually. So happy to take any questions. There's obviously not a new amount to say on the plan as yet because the consultation is ongoing and I wouldn't want to preempt anything that comes out of that consultation. Thank you. So I have a question from First of all, Councillor Ayesha Azad. Thank you very much Chairman. I'm Ayesha Azad, Surrey County Councillor for Woking South West. Morning Commissioner. So I very much agree with your desire to have as wide. Thank you Councillor Azad. Good morning. It's yes some areas, since the last plan, which is three years ago, have become business as usual for the force and of course we have a new Chief Constable since, since the previous plan. So because of that, because some areas have, have sort of become properly embedded within the force. I don't want to say problems have been fixed because that suggests first of all there are problems and secondly that you can fix everything. But certainly there are areas that we don't need to give as much focus to all because the Chief Constable has put them in his plan. So I think it's right that we look at, we look at it in its totality and say what, I'm the first Commissioner in Surrey to be re-elected so this is a bit of a new exercise in the sense that I'm updating a plan which is the first time that's happened. So I think it's absolutely right that over the summer we took time to look at the, to look at the first plan, the current plan, and look at what we thought didn't necessarily need to be in a new plan. But also what areas have come up in the last three years that residents raise and there are quite a few that residents have raised with me over the last three years and during the election campaign and certainly doing community engagement meetings now. So I think that's right and also to see what comes out of obviously the consultation. So I think, yeah, I think that's probably the best answer I can give you for now but there's nothing that's being sort of taken out because we don't think it's worthy of attention.

Thanks very much. Councillor Haynes, I don't think you have a second question. [ Pause ] Sorry, having some trouble with your microphone. Can we switch that on, Robert? [ Pause ] Maybe, you know, do you want to use the neighboring ones? Sorry about that. [ Pause ] Thank you. I think it's the first time we've had a microphone break. Well, it's my first time on the committee so that's good. So my question was the consultation process is obviously really important and how we engage with stakeholders is really, really important. So my question really was how is impartiality and fairness going to be ensured during the consultation process? For example, is political proportionality guaranteed in the political representations that are consulted? Is there a risk that the consultation process could perhaps be a bit of an echo chamber of similar views? How will you ensure that there is a complete understanding of different views in the consultation process? Thank you, yeah, I understand. So I don't see the consultations remotely political process, if I'm honest. I think sort of the political process ended as far as I'm concerned at sort of the end of the election and everything that goes forward is and should be nonpolitical including this panel. So everybody, I mean literally everybody living and working in Surrey has an opportunity to contribute to the consultation. You will appreciate as a counselor that with your own constituents that we can go out and ask people to contribute and whether they do or not is a slightly separate thing. But I would hope that as many people as possible take part. I would hope that all of the members on this panel take part. I would hope that you all go out to your constituents where appropriate and ask them to take part. All counselors across the county will have an opportunity to be involved regardless of political party or none. So I don't see politics as playing a part in this at all. I think we will do everything within the team and certainly our engagement team to make sure that we're reaching as wide an audience as possible. And I hope that people from all parties and none will take part. Thank you. Counselor Haslam, would you like to move down the other side? Hopefully the microphone then will be working. Can you just check that other microphone now? Lovely, thank you very much. Counselor Mike Smith. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Commissioner. Counselor Mike Smith from Runnymede Borough representing Newhall near Adalstone. My second meeting here, but the first time we've met in person. I've got two questions. I think the first part, the first one, you've already gone some way to partially answering, but I'll ask the whole question. Which is how is the focus of the police and crime plan expected to change as a result of this methodology? And also, will the commissioner commit to altering the plan if necessary to a significant degree? If the stakeholder feedback is significantly different to what might be expected? First of all, welcome to the panel, Counselor Smith. I'm not quite in Adalstone, I'm not sure, but you are my local counselor in that regard. I think there's a couple of things. I'm going to let Damian Markland answer some of the ones around methodology because that's his area better than mine. But in terms of I don't have any expectations. So it's not, we're waiting for the, both the results of the sort of wider consultation that we're doing with expert groups and with teachers and partnerships. And then of course the public consultation will come. So we don't have any, I don't have any set expectations about what's going to be in it. So in that sense, I'm not expecting anything to change. Regarding the methodology, Damian, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how we go about doing that. Yeah, good morning everyone. I think the main thing to say about the methodology is that ultimately it's a structured mechanism by which we can collect data. And then interpret that data to ensure that when we start pushing the plan together, it's done so on the basis of a firm foundation. I'm quite fortunate at the moment that I've got someone working with me that's just got their PhD in social research methods. And they're holding my feet to the fire, so to speak, in terms of how we're running the process. So I would like to think it's quite a robust process, and what we'll do is when we come to the panel with the final draft, we'll be also bringing along a bit more details about the breakdown of how that methodology operated in practice, the people we spoke to, the numbers involved, and give you a bit of a better understanding as to how that translated into the final document. Thank you very much. My second question is regarding the feedback. The report says that preliminary findings will be shared with focus groups, focus group participants for feedback and confirmation. Is that group of participants going to be a subset of those that were consulted in the earlier rounds, or will it be the entire population? Excuse my cough, apologies. So what we're doing after each focus group, we go back to all those that participated with a transcript of the discussions, so they can just sanity check to make sure they're happy with the way that we've interpreted their comments. And as we're developing our interpretations of their comments and taking those a bit further, we're sanity checking that with the entire group yet again. What we're also doing after the focus group is recognizing that people can't always attend for whatever reason or might have to drop out early. We send another form where they can complete electronically, just provide any additional comments. So we're hoping that through this process, they get the chance to both clarify any statements they've made, get to see our interpretation of the statements that they have made, and also, as I said, to sanity check that our takeaways from the sessions are, in fact, what they were hoping to convey. So I think through that process, we're giving everyone quite a comprehensive chance to feedback. Thank you. That's reassuring. Thank you very much. Councillor Azzed, are you able to speak? I am. Ah, there we go. Excellent. Thank you, IT. Yes, thank you. So my question is just on some of the statistical methods that's going to be used for the plan. So how will the views offered in the more informal community engagement events in September to December be incorporated in the new plan if the same statistical methods are not applied? So in terms of the -- so we've had the first meeting, which took place in Guildford on Monday evening, and I know Councillor Azzed, you were at the Woking one last year, so you have experience -- you know how they operate, yeah. We did have a look at recording the sessions as a transcript and sort of feeding into the same process, but there were various -- with various concerns around that, including the fact that individuals attending, you would have to get forms from each of them to agree and participate and to consent. So that there are various reasons why people may not want a written transcript, and also, as anyone who's attended the meetings will be aware, sometimes quite personal stories come out and people do give their names. So we decided that it wasn't going to be right to do a verbatim record of the sessions taken, and we certainly haven't in the past. So instead what we're doing, and it happened at the first one, we're taking a written -- so we're manually recording written themes that are coming up and the issues that are coming up, and so, you know, if we can identify any particular trends. And that will absolutely start to inform the plan, but I should say that the community engagement sessions are less about informing the plan, and as much as anything, they're also about informing people and asking them to take part in the consultation when it comes out. So -- and obviously, they're also a chance for the public to speak to the chief constable and their borough commander. So it's less a formal part of it. Thank you. Thank you. Chancellor Rosette again. Yeah, thank you. Are you, Commissioner, able to provide absolute values for the number of participants involved in the focus groups and surveys, as well as for each response category? Yeah, so that's something, as Damian said, that we'll be able to provide once the consultation is over and the plan is coming out in draft form, but because they're still taking place, it's not something we have at this time. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman. As well as the consultation process, I think you've already indicated there's been an element of internal review as to how things have been operating. And I'm just wondering how robust that part of the process will be. For example, our council has recently had an LGA peer review process of our approach. Do you have any plans to get that sort of analytical review? And I suppose what we have at the moment is the inspectors' appeal reports, which basically found that apart from the management and rehabilitation of offenders, performance had actually deteriorated across the board. So it would be good to try and link that sort of performance against these objectives, as well as what I welcome in the paper is the trying to make this plan coherent with the Chief Constable's plan. And I suppose also the national policing priorities, which I guess may well be changing in the next few months as well with the new government. So I'm going to let Damian talk a bit about some of the methodology stuff. But in terms of peer review, so everybody in the commissioning team and in the office reviews it. And of course, as everybody here will appreciate, they are nonpolitical, so any concerns about that. They have an awful lot of experience in terms of writing and delivering plans, not just for me, but for the two previous police and crime commissioners. But also, very importantly, I consult with the force on it. And ultimately, the Chief Constable has to be able to deliver it. So if he thinks it's not deliverable, then it won't work. And as you'll appreciate, the Chief Constable and I have a very good sort of robust relationship. So I have no doubt that he will tell me if there's anything in it that he thinks won't work. And regarding external experts, obviously, that's part of the part that we're going through now. Strategic policing, all of those national things are very important. And again, they have to come under the Chief Constable's considerations as well. As you say, a lot of that is up in the air at the moment. There are an awful lot of things up in the air at the moment nationally regarding policing. So, you know, and that's why, I think I said this three years ago, the plan has to be, while we have to produce a plan, it also has to be fit for the modern real world and the real world changes. Damien, do you want to talk a bit more about the methodology? Yeah, I think it's fair to say there's different layers to the consultation and we've touched upon different ones. So as you've mentioned, Paul, we've had the internal review with officers within the team and the force. And now we're looking at focus groups and they're very much based thematically. So we don't just sit with random groups of people. We sit down with people from commissioned services. We sat down yesterday with people from the business community. Tomorrow Ellie and I are speaking to people involved in rural crime. So they're very thematically based. And then in addition to that, we've got the public consultation which will be launching, I think, hopefully in the next week or so. So they're the, I guess, us going out to try and get information. But then as you say, there's also a desk-based exercise where we're looking at things such as the force control strategy. We're looking at national directives. We're looking at HMIC inspections that have taken place. And we're trying to bring that all together as a cohesive whole to then develop from that a plan that is based upon all those different factors. So it's quite a lot. But I think by breaking it down in the way we have, we're getting a good sense of where we need to put the focus. I would like to say that anyway. I'd also say that, and particularly for those new members who weren't here three years ago, the last police and crime plan, so what's considered the current one, was the most widely consulted plan that Surrey's ever had. And we're going even further this time. So if there are any concerns that we're not consulting widely enough, I think. I think one of the benefits from my point of view, talking about it from a purely research perspective, because we've got the continued continuity with Lisa in post, and we are building and refining on the existing plan. It's allowing us to have a bit more detailed discussions with stakeholders. So rather than having to start afresh and say, right, blank canvas, what do you think about policing in Surrey and start again, we can actually drill down into more of the detail. And that's been really useful with, particularly yesterday, the session we had with the business community where we could go into the detail about what's working, what's not working, what they'd like to see more from the plan. Perhaps they'd like to see less from the plan. So it's been, I think from my perspective, a bit more of a detailed discussion, less of a wide-ranging discussion around absolutely everything that might involve policing. Thanks for that detail. Councillor Kennedy, you wanted to come back? Just very briefly, thank you for that. I assume that, I understand that the draft plan will be brought to, hopefully to the November panel meeting, and it sounds as though we will have further information about the consultation process. How much of these analytical review will also be shared, I suppose, A, with the public and B, with us so that we can comment? And in fact, just one of the things that was noted three years ago, because I was here, was yes, there was a lot of consultation beforehand, but the final result was essentially presented to the panel a week before the meeting and was not consulted on as such. So there was plenty of consultation leading into its development, but the draft plan was not then consulted on. Is there any proposal to change the way that is run? If I take the bit about the methodology, so in terms of what we're providing to the panel, you'll get the draft plan. And with that, I will do my best to provide an analytical summary of the data, how we've interpreted it, why it's led to the formation of the policies that are put in front of you. Had to be a little bit careful because obviously we've got a huge amount of data, I mean the transcripts alone are huge, so we wouldn't want to come along with a phone book size and set of papers that expect you to read through. So we'll have to make some choices about exactly what's shared. We also have to be a bit careful because as part of the consent process, we make sure that people understand that we will not be providing personal information about their specific contribution, so we have to anonymize the data. So I will try and make sure you get a thorough summary of all the data, but it won't be absolutely everything. And the coding process is an accepted statistical method of taking qualitative data and turning it into a quantitative dataset. So hopefully I can provide, with the help of the system I've got working with me, a reasonable summary of how we went from A to B. So that's the methodological answer. Alison, do you really want to comment further about the wider consultation? Thank you, Darian. I think it's just worth pointing out, Councillor Kennedy, that when the plan comes to the panel in draft form, it is there for you to review. So it's not an additional stage to the consultation process. That said, it's not a fait accompli when it comes to the panel. There is still opportunity for things to change, and I think recall three years ago, I think it was you that made the point that we haven't given sufficient prominence to rural crime, and that point was taken on board. We did amend it, so it's not coming to you as a done deal, but it is not then a further stage of consultation, if you like. And it's, I mean, the time pressure, although it seems like a long time from when Lisa was re-elected in May, to the point of an awful lot of consultations to a range of meetings to set up in a relatively short period of time. So it's actually quite robust in the time that he's been allowed to do it. Absolutely. I think it's also worth saying that some commissioners, particularly the new ones who have just been elected in May, have already rushed out their plans. So the duty, again, for those who are not aware, the duty for the PCC is to consult. It doesn't set out how widely, who with the groups, the methodology, the work that Damien's doing, particularly with Herville, goes deeper than I think anything we've ever done. And certainly far more than some commissioners who have already rushed out their plans, and I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to do it last time. I didn't want to do it this time. I want to make sure that we get it right, not that we get it out quickly. Thank you, Commissioner. Sorry, Chair. If I could just say one more thing. And it's an interesting point, because it can be a really tricky balance, particularly with the survey. So we have developed a survey. We're just going through a few bits of sanity checking around it. And the temptation when you're trying to get as much data as possible is to make it, it could be long and detailed and really get into the minutiae of the experiences of residents in Surrey. But equally, you want enough people to complete that survey in its entirety. So it's trying to find that balance in the middle, trying to make sure that you've got a robust data set that's methodologically sound, but not put people off because they don't want to spend 40 minutes sitting through my survey. But I think we've found a nice halfway house, and I will share the survey, obviously, with the panel so it can be distributed through your own networks. It's also a saying, of course, that we are at the time of year where we're starting to think about the preset consultation, which we also want to do as widely as possible. And I'm very, very conscious that I'll be coming back to the panel very soon to ask you all to publicise the preset consultation among your constituents and in your local areas. So there is a balance to be found. I don't want, nobody wants to get consultation fatigue. Thank you for that full answer. Yes, we, for the new members, we are what is known as a critical friend, so we need to look at what is coming out and the methodology. But at the same time, Damien is absolutely right. We can't be swamped with facts and figures that none of us would appreciate reading over a week's time or something, and it would swamp us. So, you know, we have to rely on the honesty and integrity, which I do, from the officers at the other end to give us the facts and figures that will allow us to make a judgment that is correct. So I think we're on the right path. However, there has been a suggestion. It might be something we'd like to look at, perhaps forming a subcommittee within this area, the panel, just so that we can have a look at it rather than come here and get the paper a couple of weeks before, it might be something we could look at over a little length of time just to make sure that we understand what is coming. We'll consider that afterwards. I'll talk to the officers and see whether that can be forwarded. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Commissioner. I'm Councillor Richard Wilson representing Surrey Heath Borough Council. Have the invitations for the focus group sessions and the one-to-one interviews referred to in the report already been distributed, given that the process is set to end in October 2024? And will Councillors be invited to these sessions, given that they're identified as a stakeholder group in the report, and Councils as a whole are also identified as a stakeholder group? I ask because I've not received my invitation yet, and I don't think any of my colleagues have, and the Council doesn't seem to have received an invitation. Thank you. Council has, yeah. Yeah, exactly. So focus groups are ongoing, as you've already heard. Some have taken place, as you've heard. Some are scheduled. Sessions with school representatives, particularly over the summer, took a bit longer, so they're happening now. Councillor sessions are still being worked upon. CSPs, your Council CSPs, have already been invited. They have been involved. Councillor sessions are being worked on more widely, but of course it wouldn't be feasible to meet personally with hundreds of Councillors that exist across the county. So we will use a combination of online feedback and smaller one-to-one groups, but all of the Council CSPs have been invited. Thank you. Can I just ask that if there is a focus group in our area, perhaps you could ask if you identify a panel member to make sure that they're invited, please? It's not geographical in that way, but of course, as we've already discussed about the community engagement meetings, I would encourage all of the panel members to attend their local meeting. We've had Guildford, that's the only one we've had. I don't believe there was a panel member there for that one, but the others are all coming up. The dates are on the website. Please invite your constituents to come and please come along yourself. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy? Has there been any engagement with local councils to try and ensure that dates and locations are suitable? In terms of the engagement meetings? Well, if you think about, I mean, I'm very fortunate in that I don't have to get involved with the planning of it, but a number of people in my office and right across the police force do as well as the boroughs. Because of course, we've got to find a date that suits, in my diary, the Chief Constable's diary, and he, you'll all appreciate, is a very, very busy man, and the borough commander in that specific area. And they're also quite busy, yeah, and they have to be on an evening so that we can maximise the number of residents that take place, and there has to be an appropriate venue that has parking and all the facilities. So, there's only so much, so no, I'm not conscious that we've checked in with each individual council to say, Does this date suit you? Because we can't operate like that. Unfortunately, the Moll Valley meeting clashes with a council meeting, which I basically have to choose between being at your meeting so I know what my residents are saying so I can represent them, or looking at how we roll out CCTV provision. I'm afraid we all, you'll appreciate that I have exactly the same challenges on a weekly basis about which boards to attend and which meetings to attend. It is a challenge, I think, for all of us involved in public life, unfortunately. Yes, we do appreciate that, and I do appreciate you can't get everybody to the meeting at the same date and time. I should say there is, of course, a second opportunity, Councillor Kennedy, you do get a second bite at the cherry, the online one in January. Thanks for reminding us, Commissioner. Okay, so unless there are any more questions, we'll move on to the recommendation, which is to note the report. Do we all note that, please? Thank you very much. So, moving on to the Police and Crime Commissioner annual report, which has been deferred from the annual June session. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act place a duty on police and crime commissioners to produce an annual report. The report should cover the exercise of the PCC's functions in the financial year and the progress made in meeting the priorities set out in the Police and Crime Plan. The report should be presented to the Police and Crime Panel for comment and recommendations, and then a published version with pictures produced. So, again, if I could go to Commissioner Tewes, please. Thank you, Chairman. I think the paper speaks for itself. I'm happy to take obviously any questions. Thank you. Councillor Chang. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. I'm Barry Chang, Elmbridge Borough Council. I read your report, which I congratulate you on, with interest and obviously you and your officers have been very successful in obtaining funding during the last year. Particularly on this question, I'm talking about the Domestic Abuse Hub and Domestic Abuse Perpetrator's Intervention Fund, which you secured two million pounds. The standards published alongside the fund require intervention programs to take place within the wider community, with a wider community response. And they've been delivered, supported by specialist staff and benefiting from monitoring and evaluation. Could you give us an idea of how the interventions at the Surrey Hub are meeting those requirements at the moment? Thank you, Councillor Shayne. Good morning. I'm very proud of the Domestic Abuse Hub and in the team for securing the money to enable it. So the requirements are all factored into the service specification and the procurement process. So they're all embedded very, very early on in that process and are embedded also in the contractual obligations as part of receiving the funding. And the commissioning team have an awful lot of experience, over 10 years of experience now, of working with organisations to make sure that those contractual obligations are met, to make sure that we're providing any support that they might need, to make sure that any issues that are coming up are tackled really, really early on and are understood. So we have excellent relationships with each of our funding partners in that regard and I think that makes a really, really big difference. And of course, when it comes to this particular area that you've highlighted, which we are incredibly proud of, the commissioning team have an enormous amount of experience in this particular area. And have spoken actually nationally on national forums about the work that we're doing in Surrey because it really is very, very special in offering something to Surrey residents, I think, that is not seen really in very many places across the country. Damien, is there anything else you want to say? I know this is an area that you've been involved in. I spent about, I think it was eight years looking after victim services in Surrey and it's worth mentioning that in addition to forums such as this, when we get devolved funding, whether it be as part of our standard allocation or through a competitive process, whether it's the Home Office or the MOJ, they do pay quite a lot of interest to what we're doing with that money. And the commissioning team have to provide regular statutory updates and formal updates on how the money is being spent and that often includes, in addition to contractual responsibilities that we're monitoring, certain requirements that we have to convince and can provide evidence for to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. So, the funding always comes with a burden, but it's a good burden because it keeps us on the straight and narrow. And as Lisa says, in addition to all the procurement process and the tendering exercises we run, it's all factored into the final contract. Yes, Colonel. Thank you. Commissioner, as I say, I think this is a wonderful program that we've got here. Will we be able to have, perhaps in your next year's review, a summary of what you've achieved during the year within these hubs? While I'm thinking, I just announced that Councillor Smith has problems in his area and has to leave, which is why he walked out. Yeah, I can't see any reason why not, Councillor Strange, I'm very happy to. It's always a pleasure to come back and report on our successes. Councillor Asad. Thank you very much, Chairman. I have to say, as a new member of the panel, I found the report illuminating. So I'm just going to probe a little bit more in terms of the funding. So the report states that we have had extensive funds. It says we have made millions of pounds available to support victims of crime. Would you be able to clarify, is the level of funding for these services has increased, decreased or remained the same throughout this period? So the period being? The period being the last three years. The last three years. So all the funding data, I should say, to everyone is available in the annual reports and they're all available on the website. So Councillor Asad, you can go back and read the last reports as well, if you would like to. So the absolute level of funding that's made available to the OPCC each year varies. And because, as well as the funds that we get from government, which of course vary and we don't yet know what we're going to be receiving from this new government yet, the OPCC and the Commissioning Team bid for additional funds as well from government. So things like, for example, Safer Streets. We recently had the ASB, the million pounds for ASB funding. We obviously had the Domestic Abuse Perpetrator. We had the schools program that came in. We've got Clear Hold Build, which is happening at the moment in Red Hill. So the annual differences don't necessarily reflect a trajectory of our commitment or lack of commitment because they're often outside of our control. And I think the other thing is that it's not always very easy for us to spit out victim services from sort of community safety or reducing reoffending even. Because the support that's offered by an individual service, actually the Domestic Abuse Hub is a really good example, is there to support a range of people. So it may be there to support perpetrators to ensure that they don't reoffend as well as victims or potential victims even to make sure that they're supported or don't become victims. So it's a bit of a difficult thing sometimes in order to separate it out. But I think it's worth for reference. So for 2022, '23, the OPC funded local services to 5.4 million pounds. And then in the last year, 6.5. So that's just over a million pounds more. And that is as a result of being very successful. That's absolutely down to the team in being successful in terms of extra bids as well. But what I would say, I would caveat out massively, which is, as we all know, and I suspect everybody working in the Surrey Council is aware that we do not yet know what level of funding Surrey is going to see from this government. Thank you. Councillor Baker. Thank you, Chairman. Morning Commissioner. James Baker, Wigan, Banstead Council. Why is the total funding being allocated to increase public safety in Walton, Redhill and Guildford set to decrease in 2024-25 from the previous year? How sufficient advances in community safety being realised in these areas and could this reduction compromise the delivery of serious violence reduction strategy? Welcome, Councillor Baker. For the panel, good morning. So, as I've said already, we regularly bid for funds. This was part of the Safer Streets Fund that came from the last government. So, the amount of money that we can bid for each year varies, as do the issues that the government want us to prioritise within that area. The government has since revisited its financial commitment to some of the national funding, as I'm sure everybody in Surrey is aware, and that includes, unfortunately, Safer Streets. So, previously agreed funding to PCCs, and we're not on our own in Surrey, obviously, on this, so previously agreed funding to PCCs for things including Safer Streets has been downgraded, I'm afraid. It is worth flagging that in the case of Walton and Redhill and Guildford, the money that was given to us earlier this year was to support the establishment of new infrastructure and some street scene changes as well. A lot of that work has already happened or is happening, and thankfully, of course, they don't disappear at the end of the year, they remain, and any additional money is going to be used to keep building on those as well. I think more generally it's worth saying, and this goes to Councillor Wilson's question about councils as well, and I'm sure Councillor Kennedy would be interested in this given his work with Mull Valley, which I know he works very closely there, that we do work very closely with the CSPs as well to identify specific areas of need and ensure that the money and the new funding opportunities are going in the right places. And it's worth saying the Safer Streets funding that's delivered is always done in conjunction with your district and borough councils as well, working very, very closely with them. Thank you. Councillor Chine. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Just a short question, actually. What work is being done to consult with the VCSF or third sector experts in violence against women and girls, such as organisations like the End Violence Against Women? And I think the important thing is here, can we be certain that the work of other such organisations in this field is not being duplicated? It's a good question. So, as I've already said, and Damian has mentioned as well, so the office have been commissioning services for victims of violence against women and girls for over 10 years now, and in that time developed very, very strong relationships, both nationally, regionally and locally. And as I said earlier, are often asked to contribute to national discussions around it because of their very strong relationships and experience in this area. So, work very closely with national organisations such as Women's Aid. I've worked very closely with Women's Aid as well. And historically, our local service providers have been represented, of course, on our police boards as well. So, within the force addressing violence against women and girls, and the force has a very good record as well on this. I think that it's probably worth actually bringing Damian in on this because, as he's already said, he has eight years' experience in this particular area in Surrey. So, Damian, I don't know if you want to sort of reassure the panel. I feel I've set the bar too high now. I think the main takeaway from this is probably, when we first started commissioning services for victims of crime, there were occasions where, because of the old system still being somewhat in effect, we would occasionally find that services were almost air-dropped in by different departments within government, sometimes particularly around services for victims of rape and sexual assault. We occasionally came across instances where money was just thrown in by central government and a new service popped up and there wasn't that join-up. But what I would say is that, very much over the last five years at least, that just doesn't really happen anymore. I think the government, including all its central departments, have got a lot better at understanding the value that PCCs can bring to the commissioning landscape. And they do consult with PCCs about anything that they're doing. And it just means that the vast majority of funding for services does flow through PCC offices, so it helps us coordinate a lot more. As Lisa's touched upon, we've also got very good relationships, not just with the providers themselves, but also with other statutory agencies locally. So Surrey County Council, for example, we do a lot of joint commissioning with them. And it means that if, for example, the county going out for a tender for a particular service, we're often part of that tendering exercise. We often sit on the interviews with providers and we're just a lot more linked in with them. And the same applies to organizations such as NHS England around recommissioning, for example, the SARC, which looks at forensic support when people have been victims of rape and sexual assault. We're very much part of that process, both in terms of supporting it through funding, but also just being part of the commissioning exercise. So I would say that compared with where we were 10, 12 years ago versus where we are now, it's much better and we don't have any issues with duplication nowadays. [ Pause ] Councillor Cheney, it's also probably worth flagging that in many areas we're leading the way, particularly when it comes to violence against women and girls. We generally, anything that happens around the vogue space in Surrey is collaborative with the charity partners anyway, so no one's really duplicating. But in terms of sort of where we're leading the way, one of the things we do in Surrey, and it's not necessarily completely funded by us, but it's very much supported by our office, is we now have rural specific IDVS, which is Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. So they support victims in specifically rural communities. And as part of my role leading on rural in Surrey, I sit on the National Rural Crime Network, so we look at stuff nationally. And because of the sort of what we're doing with rural [inaudible] and how I've been championing them nationally, I've now been asked to chair the working group nationally on rural domestic abuse, which is a big thing that we're looking at this year. So not only are we not duplicating things, we're quite often leading the way and sort of creating new ideas. [ Pause ] Yes, thank you for that. I must admit I would be interested in that rural crime episode, as I know Councillor Kennedy would. Perhaps sometime you could send us some sort of report on that as to how it's going, because us in the more rural areas would be very interested in seeing what work is going on. Especially some of the data that the police sometimes get right or wrong because they can't decide which is rural and which is urban, and it gets very confusing. So thank you very much for that. Councillor Wilson. Thank you, Chair. My question is about the format of the annual report. Can the commissioner explain the choice to use a report format that does not involve key performance indicators to track performance and outcomes against specified targets and objectives? I can give an example of this, so it says priority one, reducing violence against women and girls. So if the reader wondered whether violence against women and girls had reduced, the report doesn't say. And the report has lots of activities in it, but it doesn't say what the outcomes are. And if violence has reduced in that way, has it reduced more or less than the target? Is it a target? I've compared it to the Thames Valley PCC annual report, and it contains lots of performance data about what type of crimes have gone up and down over the period. I hope that question makes sense. I will try. So, in terms of the RAG rating, so for each priority, the annual report has a, it's got a link and a QR code, and that will take you to the data hub, which I assume all members I hope are aware of now and very familiar with. And then within those pages, there is a basket of measures for each element of the police and crime plan with both monthly and annual rolling trend data that's provided for a range of measures. The problem with, of course, including data in a static document, we have this internally and within the force, is that it's out of date by the time you get to see it. It's out of date by the time it goes on the website, quite frankly, so I think it's far, far more transparent than a rather simplistic PCC-determined RAG indicator, which I'm sure we could all sit here and argue about. But also, it ensures that residents and stakeholders, that you all have access to the latest data all the time. And also, it allows us to show comparisons with previous year's data, and that gives a much, much better sense, I think, of the overall trajectory. And of course, data can very easily be shared and exported offline as well. So we started using custom mapping tools as well, and that makes use of the police.UK API data, and that allows users to plot crime, antisocial behavior, stop and search activity in your area. I am not aware of any other OPCC in the country, despite -- how long has the data hub been out now? A year and a half, two years? Two years now. So we're two years into having Surrey having the data hub. I'm not conscious of any other OPCC having one, or publishing anything like the amount of data that we do, or making it accessible, or being nearly as transparent as we are in Surrey. And you all, of course, benefit from that as well, although I know that Damien here, who created it, has been contacted by a number of other OPCCs asking if he could help them create something, because they do want something locally as well. So I think all of that is there. In terms of violence against women and girls, I mean, so you can look at all of that data, of course, and it's all there. It's a really difficult area. I remember when I first -- I think it was my first panel meeting and talking about priorities and things that I wanted to do in my first term, and saying one of the things about violence against women and girls was that I didn't believe that the figures painted anything close to a true picture of domestic abuse, of sexual assault, of any of those issues in Surrey. Or nationally, I should say. And as some panel members will be aware, we've had, unfortunately in Surrey, a little bit of a feeling, and thankfully not from anybody sitting on this panel now, but previous panel members who have suggested that domestic abuse doesn't really happen in Surrey, because we're not that kind of county. And as I'm sure everybody on this panel will understand, that is absolute rubbish. So I was very much of the belief, as were the fours, that domestic abuse and other associated forms of vogue were not being reported at anything like the others. And I said that I wanted to see that go up. I wanted to see sort of the measures go up, because I want more people to report. I want more women and more men, more children to report this. So I think that's always -- pulling that one out is always a slightly difficult measure, but you can see from the data hub all of the data that's there. Damien, is there anything else you want to say, just in terms of data and how we measure good and success? I think I'd probably just signpost the panel to it, if you haven't had a chance to see it, particularly if you've just joined the panel. If you just go to Google, type in Surrey police data hub, it will be the top result, and you can have a flick through. And as Lisa said, it's all structured based upon the priorities of the police and crime plan, with a basket of measures that sit underneath. I think I just echo the point Lisa made. It's very difficult with the annual report, because we start drafting it around April and May time. And where are we at the moment? We're coming up to October, and it's only just got in front of you, albeit at this time it's been a bit unique because of the election cycle, both local and nationally. But the danger would be that if we put all that data into the annual report, you'd be looking at this point at data that's about six months old, and it does change quite drastically over relatively short periods of time. But yeah, please play around with it. I'm always happy to take suggestions. There were some comments previously from the panel, and we made some amendments to the hub to make certain things clearer, particularly around some of the mapping that we were doing. But if you'd like to see anything else on there, just let me know, and equally we'll be updating it post-launch of the new police and crime plan to make sure that the new basket of measures reflect what it was in the final police and crime plan that gets published. Hands up. Yes, carry on. Thank you, just a very quick supplementary point about that. I appreciate the data hub, and it is useful to see kind of real-time data, but the purpose of an annual report is to look at what happened during the year in question, and so that it can be compared to other years. And I take the point about the data's already out of date, but it's always the case, but the Thames Valley PCC's data is presumably out of date as well, but still provides a proper look at the performance over that year. The annual report isn't about performance up to today. It's about performance over the year. Please take that point. I would say that all the data is available on the hub. It's all there. You can look at historical data. I would much rather that than produce a report that is out of date. Councillor Burrell. I'm Councillor Burrell from Spothornborough Council. The data hub, you just get awash with the amount of data. I mean, it's fantastic, but it is an annual report, and I agree with Councillor Wilson that a simplified RAG statement, even if it's six months out of date, at least you'd be able to reach it from the six months previous, I think it would just help personally. I take those comments on board and reiterate my earlier answer. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman. Another aspect of the report is, as we all know, the existing plan does list a number of objectives underneath the five headline aims, but the annual report primarily highlights things underneath those five headlines. So what approach has been taken in terms of identifying which of the objectives to highlight in the report? Presumably, one would expect things that have worked particularly well, but also, I guess, things that frustrations and weaknesses to also appear. How has that been picked to avoid, I suppose, the appearance of cherry picking? Yeah, absolutely. It's a really good question, Councillor Kennedy, and it is something we've been discussing within the OPC, particularly in light of the new plan and how we can, you know, we're all constantly trying to improve the hub and the data that the public have access to, as well as, of course, yourselves. Damien, do you want to talk a bit about what we're looking at doing? It's a very valid point. So when we launched the hub, there was, and I think it's still on there actually, you've got a breakdown of the items that you just described, which is the specific actions, both against us as an office for the force and joint actions. And we started initially trying to provide updates under each of those, but due to the sheer number of actions, it became a bit unwieldy and it was quite hard to keep track if you're trying to peruse it and understand what's going on. It's difficult for us to keep track of it as well. So it is something we're looking at. We're hoping to, as part of, obviously, the new police and crime plan, we'll have a new set of actions. And it is something, whether it is some sort of grading system or something that allows you to have a better oversight of how individual actions are progressing. I do take the point, and it is something we've discussed, and it can be improved. And I'll come back to you, hopefully, when we publish the new police and crime plan with a bit of a process that will make it easier to understand delivery. We do publish both, obviously, in the annual report and on the beta hub qualitative updates around specific areas of work. But I do take your point that they tend to be grouped under the main thematic headings rather than the specific areas of action. So leave it with us. We are trying to always refine things to make it easier to understand. And it's obviously in our benefit from a public perspective for residents to understand the often really good work that is being achieved. So we would like to make it clearer for everyone. Sorry, could I just add something, Chair? I just want to take this opportunity to make a slightly -- it's connected, but slightly separate, but shameless plug about our youth commission, just because I'm incredibly proud of them. So this week, our youth commission had their second annual big conversation conference in which they've delivered their findings for this year, which will also feed into our police and crime plan. But they've also went through the objectives they set for us and police and partners last year and sort of identified where we've delivered and where we need to keep working on things. So their plan from that will be published sort of early winter, and I'd encourage the panel to read that and we'll make sure it's shared with you too. Yes, thank you for that. Councillor Kennedy? Yes, thank you. And that is helpful. It was interesting hearing the commissioner responding to Councillor Wilson on domestic abuse, because, you know, clearly there are frustrations. And I think, you know, particularly I suppose with four years to go until the commissioner's next up for election, you know, this is an opportunity to actually take a reasonably balanced approach and say, you know, some things are going well, but actually there are a number of frustrations. And I just did get a slight impression reading this that there was a tendency to pick the positives. And for example, the appeal inspection police performance essentially just referred you to the hub, whereas the reality was that the latest appeal report was challenging. It was, but I would also say that the latest appeal report, even when it came out, wasn't reflective of the situation at the time, and it certainly isn't reflective of the situation now. So, and again, that's the danger with annual reports, and that's why I'm so proud of the website and the work that Damien in particular has done, making sure that the, I mean, the report, I don't know if any of you would read the report if you weren't Councillors or you didn't sit on this panel. And all of the data that we put out with the greatest of respect to the panel, and to Councillors more generally, is for the public as well. And I want to make sure that that's available to them. I don't know how many members of the public would pick up a copy of the annual report and read it. Under performance, it basically says look at the hub. So that's not much use either. Okay, thank you. Are there any more questions from Councillor? Councillor Chang. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I have a question. I'm sorry I didn't notify anybody beforehand and I think probably it's directed more towards the Deputy Commissioner than perhaps to the Commissioner, because I was interested to read your paragraphs on supporting the armed forces. We in my area don't have any establishments, but we have an awful lot of veterans. I believe there's a considerable number in Surrey. And some years, I think at one time we were working with the Sussex police on employing veterans. Now, what concerned me was, and I come from the area where we're particularly short of officers, particularly PCSOs, and in mentioning this to senior officers in my area, many of them had never heard of the scheme that we were doing with Sussex. So I was just wondering how within the borough forces, borough district forces. Thank you, Councillor Cheney. An unexpected but brilliant question. So actually that sort of links back to day one of both the Commissioner and I being enrolled, many panel members recall that we were quite vocal about the need to scrap the degree requirement for policing. One of the core reasons for my views on that was the fact that we weren't enticing veterans to join the police as we have historically. And so that's been a really big change that's really helped. We've also supported, and I've particularly supported, there's a new arms forces support group within Surrey Police, which works collaboratively with Sussex. And as a sort of combination, we alongside them, sort of they led it on behalf of the force and applied for silver level and the employer recognition scheme and both our office and the force achieved that earlier this year. So that's been really helpful. That group is sort of now getting well underway and is attending sort of careers fairs, going out to barracks and sort of speaking to soldiers as they're departing. But we're supporting as much as possible. We're enticing veterans to join up, to join policing. They've got many life skills that are really helpful in police officers. We support, and I think they quite often go to the drop-ins of the veterans hubs that are often hosted at fire stations around the county, but also in other venues. They were leading for some time. And I'm not quite sure where this is up to because it may now be superfluous, but they were looking at a veteran specific route into policing in Surrey. But now that that degree requirements dropped and there's alternative routes anyway for anybody that might not be as needed at the moment, but I'm happy to sort of catch up and see where that's got to and send a further answer if that's helpful. I'd be interested to progress that further sometime. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Now, as we all know from the agenda, members of the police and crime panel are asked to comment on the attached annual report prior to its formal publication. And we will be drafting that. Now, there's been a lot of information this morning coming forward that the panel were not aware of prior to the meeting. So what I'm going to suggest is that, first of all, can all the Councillors make sure that they don't ask any more pertinent questions now? If not, I'm going to suggest we take this offline for discussion over the next week or two and then get back to the Commission with a formal response at the moment. Is there anybody who wishes to ask another question? No, then I suggest we take this offline. Thank you very much. And we'll be reporting to the Commissioner in due course. Thank you. So we move on to item eight, which is the peer inspection update. And just to let you know, after this, I intend to make a small comfort break of 10 minutes if we can, please, because we are actually doing quite well in our debate. I thought it was going to be longer. So the peer inspection update, which again was deferred from the annual June session. This report covers His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, fire and rescue services, recent peer inspection to Surrey Police and makes reference to its conclusions and recommendations. So if I could ask Commissioner in due course, please. Thank you very much. All of the data and particularly, I hope panel members will note the improvements that have been made are contained within the report. I would like to highlight because the work that the force have done has been particularly admirable on this. And the Chief Constable, who is taking part in community engagement meetings, and he's he's giving a lot more details about this during the community engagement meetings. So please do come along if you can, but particularly to highlight the work that's been done around an area that I know the panel were particularly concerned about, which was the ability to be able to answer emergency calls quickly enough. And the Chief Constable tells me we're the fastest improving force in the country on that particular measure, which I think is excellent. I take no credit for that, but please do. I hope that you will pass on your thanks to the Chief Constable for that particular piece of work that the force has done when you see him next month. I'm obviously happy to take any questions. Councillor Kennedy. Yes, thank you. The question that's been listed here is actually one of the questions I asked under Commissioner question time. What prompted the question was one actually reading your annual report where the annual report says that all the Inspectorate reports are put on the hub with your response. And I looked on the hub and neither the report nor your response were on it at the time. And so that's why I asked the question to prompt that so that the annual report would be correct, as it were. And the other question about the Information Commission, again, that's just something I saw in the news, but obviously it perhaps relates to the Peel inspection. Finding that sorry please required improvement on on data recording. If you if you recall, I do. I think that you separate issues and chair and Councillor Kennedy. I don't know whether a fuller answer has been has been provided. Do you want me to I was just explaining that back. Yeah, I have no, I have no supplementary as such on that other than I supposed to ask whether there is any link between that difficulty. That's a good question and certainly something you could ask the Chief Constable. I don't believe there is because of the way it's handled, but they're very yeah they're separate teams and it's done separately and FOI is as anybody in public life knows a different beast. But you may want to ask the Chief Constable next month. Yes, we have the opportunity. So, we'll, we'll ask next month. Thank you very much chair. So just picking up the report refers to a new shift pattern being introduced in the call handling centre from September this year. How does the introduction of this measure at this stage feature into the plan for call response times, given the advances that have already been attained. Thank you. So obviously I'm thrilled as is the Chief Constable with the huge performance improvements that we've seen in 101 and 999 and I think the important thing is now that's maintained. It's all very well to have a brilliant. You know, to have great performance but unless it's maintained and unfortunately it's not as much use. So an awful lot of work and that looks including looking at revised shift patterns is being explored to make sure that we can we can maintain that in performance so that there's a whole load of measures. I think quite rightly that are being looked at. And are constantly being looked at across the force to make sure that where we have areas of improvement. How are we ensuring that they're improved and where we're doing very well. How do we make sure it's maintained and of course our workforce are absolutely integral to that. Thank you. No. Thank you. This question relates to the charts on page 63 of the reports, and those charts show an improvement compared with the obviously totally unacceptable outcomes for responses. I think the grade one responses within 15 minutes. So, March 23 it was just 30% within 15 minutes and grade two compliance. That's less serious items. Again, that was just 17.8 as far as I can read 70.8%. That's within an hour. So that has improved, but obviously it's not as good as it had been in March 2022. And again, how confident are you that that sort of improvement can be achieved. Yeah, and I think I think it is right to look at the trajectory. So the, as it says in the report, the force of making a good progress and we're not there yet. And I think that's a really important thing to recognize as well. And again, actually the chief constable spoke about it. Our first engagement meeting because he's he's highlighted it as an area that he particularly is seeking to make. Improvement is very conscious of it and I speak to him about it. Obviously he knows my views on it and I'm sure I'm sure counselor Kennedy will discuss it next month with him as well. So it's really important that we're transparent again about all of the data. The force are looking at the grading system as a whole and have been looking at it for a little while to allow for a more refined target because within the grading system, there are some unintended consequences in terms of in terms of the outcomes. So a grade two is is incredibly broad in terms of how it's graded and I think can be really unhelpful so it can make it look like we've not attended something in time when it's because we've spoken to a member of the public and they said actually I don't want you to come out and see me this afternoon. And now I'm going on holiday. So can you come and see me next week. And we've therefore missed the target. So I think the force are quite rightly looking at how that's how that's looked at. I think it's also absolutely right that they've paused that piece of work and not introduced something too early. Because I think that would look like a fudge. And I think what you'd be saying to me is quite rightly, I think you'd be saying to me, oh, the figures weren't great. So the force went and played around with the figures and now it makes it look better. So I would encourage you to have that conversation next month with the chief constable because he will explain it far better than I can. But it is an area that absolutely the force needs to do better at. And I'm confident the chief is to answer your question. I am confident the chief is gripping it. And we are two questions already for next month. We're doing well. So sorry, can I just add a bit of context, which I think I've mentioned before, but it's quite useful way of elaborating what Lisa said. So particularly with domestic abuse cases, which are obviously one of our volume crimes. We found that actually provided there's not an immediate risk to a victim or a complainant, it makes a lot more sense in terms of potential integrity and getting the best out of that individual in terms of their statement. If you give them a bit of time and rather than running around there straightaway. So often the cases that are classified as great to the officer or the content center may agree with the victim at the time that will come around maybe tomorrow and we'll have a proper chat. Then we'll get all the resources in place. Make sure you've got access to support services. But the problem is the clock starts ticking for that grade to the point of report that the officer might not, although it's been negotiated with the individual turn up until the day later. So you get that issue that I think Lisa touched upon where the force by trying to do the right thing can sometimes do the wrong thing in terms of pure data terms. And that's the sort of thing that the new grading structure is going to try and provide a bit more granularity around. And so they're not being punished for doing the right thing. Yes, thank you for that. Ms. Juliet Fryer. Juliet Fryer, Independent. I think actually you've covered quite a bit of the area of the next question, but for policy's sake I'm going to read it anyway. You might be able to give me a little bit extra. Can you please provide detail of performance management measures, training program and longer term sustainable model being implemented for AFI, which is an area for improvement one concerning the handling of sexual offenses in the recording. Thank you very much. That's an incredibly large piece. I'm not going to try and answer that verbally. I think the panel may want to actually look at it as a separate piece of work for another agenda, in which case we'd be more than happy to come back with a much fuller report. That looks at each of those areas in detail and gives you hopefully the reassurance that you're seeking. A sort of subcommittee group type thing. I will let you decide that. We will look at it. Thank you very much. Thank you. As you say, it's a big question. Too big for the day. Councillor Smith. Thank you very much, Chair. My question concerns area for improvement number four regarding stop and search and the use of force. I know these can be useful tools if dealt with in the right way, but if misapplied can lead to a real damage to the public's perception of the force. And I've got a personal interest in this question. I was once subject to a stop and search. It was a mistaken identity. I wasn't involved in any crime and everything was done as it should have been. But even so, it was an experience which really shook me and upset me for several days afterwards. So it obviously has to be used with great care. My question is, how will the outcomes of the community engagement sessions with the public impact and influence the force's behaviour and policies and also how will the force know when it has satisfied and reach the level of improvement that is required? Thank you. And stop and search is an incredibly important measure as you appreciate. And unfortunately, it's been a bit of political football over not even just the last few years, but decades, I think. So the force have an enormous amount of experience and expertise using community feedback in particular on stop and search, which informs their approach to operational policing more generally. It's historically included a community scrutiny panel where volunteers review instances of stop and search and provide feedback. My office has been working particularly closely with the force over the last year to refine the process. And the staff member that Damien mentioned earlier, who's helping with our analytics, actually has a specific experience as an academic working with MOPAC on very, very specifically this issue in producing a report for MOPAC. Unfortunately, the London PCC decided he did not want to publish, but that's for them. So there's a lot of experience. They are bringing actually, and this may please Councillor Kennedy and Councillor Wilson, a RAG rating system to formalise the way in which the data is captured. And we've also been working with the force to review the recruitment process for that to ensure that the widest possible number of people are able to participate. Having taken part in a very large number of residence meetings and looking very specifically at the issue that you raised about community engagement meetings and the 22 that we did last year, I'm not conscious anybody has raised this issue. And so if I'm honest, I have far more confidence in the force and in my office working with the force to make sure that they have a proper scrutiny panel of people who are the right people to look at this area rather than community engagement meetings, which are by their nature far less formal. So I'm really pleased that you've raised it because it's not an issue, if I'm honest, that's raised very often with me. But I would encourage you to come to the running meeting and please do raise it with the chief constable there if you wish. And of course, next month. Yes, thanks for that. It's always. I'm sorry. Sorry, I feel like you're interrupting you. And just to add, there's a point of point to your question, which was very sensible around how do we know when that objective has been met? Just to clarify the process internally. So when there are FIs or any recommendations from HMIC, they're essentially owned by the strategic planning team, and they obviously work with colleagues within the force to make sure that updates are provided. And strategic planning have an ongoing dialogue with HMIC inspectors and they provide updates on what's being done to address the issues that have been raised. And essentially through that ongoing communication, eventually we get to a point where HMIC is satisfied that the issues addressed have been met, and of course we then wait for the next HMIC inspection where we can begin the process again. But that's ultimately the way the mechanism works. Thank you, Damon. I don't mind you interrupting at all. I just don't see your hand all the time. I do apologise. Yes, it's always an emotive question, the search and stopping the search. I myself, obviously, when I was in the force did it many, many times. However, I am well out of date, I'm talking about 30 years ago, and I am very satisfied with the latest rules. And it's a damn sight better than perhaps we were instructed to do, because we had no rules at the time. We just failed as an officer, stopped some research and fine. And you don't always realise the impact it has on that person you're searching, particularly as you've indicated, if they're doing it entirely innocent. Nothing to do with the crime, which you're actually looking for. But on the other hand, we're trying to solve crime. So it is abundance to be struck. So it is always very difficult. But as I say, I welcome the new rules. And of course, when I used to do it, there were no personal phones or cameras or anything else. So in the Metropolitan Police, and we'll see where we go with it. Thank you. Councillor household. Thank you very much, Chairman. So I'm going to focus on the improvement plan. How will the improvement plan achieve better outcomes for victims of crime? What will occur in each of the three phases of the plan, please? So the AFI in the HMIC report is specifically related to outcomes for types for crimes and not support offered to victims more generally. So in terms of Surrey police compliance with the victim's code of practice, HMIC found that the force does have effective measures in place. And victims is something that we take obviously incredibly seriously and we look very, very closely at as an office. And Damien's already spoken about his previous role in victims. And I've actually recently taken over the national victims portfolio. So I'm looking at it even more closely, perhaps than I was. The overarching aims of the three phases are to bring the proportion of victim based crimes assigned specific crime outcomes more in line with the national averages. There wasn't a massive discrepancy between Surrey force and other forces, but inspectors did note that we were using more out of court disposals and encountering more evidential difficulties than they would have liked. So that's an important part of the work as well. Damien, is there anything you want to say on that wider piece of measures? No, not really. I appreciate the answer. It's a bit convoluted, but essentially it's because it's predominantly one around best based methodology and trying to make sure that, as Lisa said, we're using out of court disposals appropriately and things like that. So it probably sounds more grandiose than it really is. It's more of a sort of sanity check around the existing processes and making sure that officers know which powers to use and when to use them appropriately. Thank you, Councillor. I think you have a second question. I do. Thank you, Chairman. So the force has a three pillar strategy for tackling discriminatory behaviour. Did the force seek advice from government or third party sectors for this? And also, how will the behaviour of the organisation be tracked regarding this? I don't know who the force have used specifically, although you appreciate that police forces nationally have put an enormous amount of effort into this area. I know a lot of work has done via the National Police Chief's Council on this. There's an awful lot of experience for the force to draw from as well as having sort of internal experience as well. So feedback is going to be tracked through various channels, including a new staff feedback mechanism and pulse surveys. But I would, again, sorry to do this, Chairman, I would encourage you to ask the Chief Constable about it because I know it's a piece of work and it's an area that he's put an awful lot of effort in, particularly in the last six months. So I'm sure he'd welcome talking a bit more about the work that he's doing with the senior leadership team on that. Thank you. We might have to extend the time if Chief Constable. Chairman, I'm really sorry I'm doing it again. I've just got one tidbit to add to that. I think I've probably mentioned previously, but one thing I've always been very impressed with the force around is their ability to bring organisations from the voluntary sector into some of their governance processes. So this is a bit anecdotal, but during the time I was looking after victim services, the force would often have representatives from some of our DA, rape, sexual assault provider services, literally on boards or sometimes even jointly chairing those boards with police officers and those that are responsible for delivering internally. So I guess, whilst like Lisa, I can't say exactly who they consulted on as part of the development of this, I can reassure you that the force do listen very carefully to our local community sector and they recognise their value in delivering services. So I don't doubt that they had good input, so to speak, in terms of their development of that particular area of work. Yes, thank you for that. Councillor Morrison, you're next. Thank you, Chair. I want to ask about progress on area for improvement seven, which is the force needs to do more to understand the workforce's wellbeing needs and tailor accordingly. Because I think this area for improvement links into almost all of the others and the problems the force has with things like officer and staff retention, which is a critical problem. And in fact, in one of your previous answers, you said the workforce is integral to improvement in the areas for improvement. So what the inspector actually said, I'll read the first sentence or two. The force told us that it hasn't completed a force wellbeing survey in three years and it hasn't completed a blue light self-assessment to understand what affects good or poor wellbeing. I know there's been a survey of the police staff, but do you know if that has been addressed, if there's been a blue light self-assessment and if there's plans to survey officers on wellbeing as well? Thank you. I can provide a bit of information. I think this may be one that the chief can enlighten the panel a little bit more on and he'll be closer to it than I am. There are obviously, the HMIC notes were not necessarily great in terms of previous surveying of staff and I think that's established. The force have put a lot of effort into improving that process. I think the report talks about pulse surveys, which we've touched upon. So there's more opportunity now for people to feedback particular issues they've got, whether that be around workloads and discrimination and issues like that. And equally, there's other bits of work taking place internally that look specifically at issues of discrimination, whether that be the race action plan and other boards that oversee workplace discrimination based issues. So that'd be a very general response. If you've got specific queries, I think, as I said, maybe the chief is the initial good starting point. If you want further clarity, feel free to contact me and I'll try my best to work with the force to provide an answer that satisfies. The panel may remember, those who are present may remember the chief constable's plan, which came out nearly a year ago now, where he talked, one of his points on his plan, I think it was point 10, talked specifically about staff and officer wellbeing and improving that. It's something that the chief constable and I spoke about in that period between me appointing him and him taking up the role because I felt that it was something as well that needed working on. Not just because of any particular feedback from Surrey police, but just because generally we know that people who do shift work, we know now from all of the data and the science that in an ideal world, none of us would do shift work. It's one of the worst things you can do for your body and your health. I'm sure every one of us in this room is enormously grateful to those men and women who are happy and do, for very little reward, in all honesty, sit up throughout the night dealing with emergencies that we hope never to have. So it was an area that I wanted to look at, particularly with the chief as well. And actually I recently had a conversation with Surrey University who are leading internationally on some of this work and the chief constable and I are going to meet with them shortly. And they will come in and help us hopefully to develop a pilot around this because I do think that shift work and our offices is something that we need to be looking at. We can't stop it, obviously, but we can make sure that they are as healthy and supportive as much as they possibly can be, not just because it's in all of our interests for our offices to be happy and working and making sure that we have a healthy workforce, but also in their retirement. And as they move on, whether it's to another career or they move on into retirement, that we're doing everything we can at this stage to make sure that they live a long and healthy life beyond policing. So it's something that the chief feels very strongly about and is talking about because he's talking about the updates on his plan at the community engagement meetings as well. So it's another area, as Daniel said, where I think the chief would be really, really happy to tell you about the work that's happening. [ Pause ] Just to take all that point, thank you for the answer, but just to go back to the inspector's report and the area for improvement, as you know, given an example, and I could certainly ask the chief constable about this, but just because it's in the report, I wonder if you know if it's been dealt with. They said during our field work, we learned 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 backup. This makes police staff investigators more vulnerable, which negatively affects well-being. Do you know if that's been dealt? It sounds like a simple thing to deal with. Are you aware of it? [ Pause ] Okay, and there's another question then for the chief constable, I think. Thank you very much. And I will say thank you for looking after the welfare or getting the policies promoted. I did many years of working a week of nights, a week of late, a week of earlys, and it really does-- it's your digestion. You never know when you're eating. You eat at 2 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon or 6 o'clock in the morning. It's all over the place. But I'm here and I'm healthy. So thank you very much. You are, and also I should say the impact that it has on families, you know, and the impact that it has particularly if you have children and a partner and when you can see them and how much you're able to support them and whether you see each other. So it's a really big area that I think as a society we should be doing a lot more on to support all of our shift workers, whether they're working in retail or emergency services or anywhere else. Yes, thank you for that because of course it's adding back to my family but at the time I didn't recognise it and I don't think-- well, children did but there we are. Another story. Well, thank you for that. So that-- is there any other questions from a Councillor? No. So recommendation of the report is to note it. Do we all note that report? Thank you very much. And in that case then as I said we'll have a 10-minute comfort break please but just make it 10 minutes. So if we get back at 10 past 12, thank you. [ Pause ] Report from the PCC on Recruitment and Workforce Planning with additional reference to work concerning force culture, conduct, vetting, and [inaudible] issues. So if I could ask you to introduce please. Thank you, Chairman. I think in the interest of brevity let's get on to the questions. Okay, thanks. We've all read the papers. I'll start with Councillor Mike Smith please. Thank you, Chair. My question is in exceeding the government officer recruitment uplift target, obviously a good thing but gives rise to its own issues. So we now employ more officers than ever before. Can I ask what impact this has had on the finances given the need for the 18 million of savings required over the next four years? Absolutely. I will start off but Kelvin who is online may want to chip in as well. So you're absolutely right and the previous government offered two incentives to forces for us to recruit above uplift. So we took advantage of both offers so in 2023-24 and this financial year 24-25, 10 applied for the first year and a further 12 for this financial year. So for each officer that we've recruited above the uplift in 24-25, the government providing a grant of 48,000 pounds. And it's been assumed that going forward those additional officers will continue to be funded separately and so wouldn't fall under our wider force budget. If that ceases to be the case, of course, then officer numbers may well have to be reduced but that would happen through natural wastage, of course. And that would be until they come back to the uplift figure. And that uplift figure is a reminder is the figure that sort of means we have more officers than ever before so we wouldn't dip below that. I know that the police forces, all forces did lobby the previous government to recognize the cost of funding. Uplift officers obviously increases over time as officers move up the pay scale so that's a challenge. It's not been recognized so far in funding allocations. It's a growing pressure. We're waiting to see if it's reflected in the spending review later this year although I'm not, if I'm honest, complete very hopeful about this given some of our challenges that we've already experiencing very specific to Surrey which members of the panel will be aware of around funding of uplift generally and funding of officers more widely. Kelvin, is there anything you want to add to that in terms of our finances? No, Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer. Sorry I can't be with you, but I broke my leg in the civilian Alps, so I'm stuck at home. No, I think that's a very comprehensive answer. I'm on the National Police Chief's Council Finance Committee, and one of the things we've put in our submission is that the rising cost of uplift needs to be recognized and adequately funded but as the Commissioner says, public finances do seem to be very tight at the moment. [ Pause ] Thank you both. I was going on to ask about whether there were any indications from the new government as to how you used the words not hopeful earlier and you're shaking your head now. I think that's all the answer I need even though it's not a good one. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I mean, we're obviously all hoping, waiting for the spending review, we're waiting for more detail from this government. I know that police chiefs, chief constables have been told not to expect more money, which obviously in Surrey gives us a particular headache. But I hope that we can all discuss sort of the details of that incoming panel session. Yes, I assume we're still lobbying for different formats so that Surrey is fair. Yes, and the Chairman and members who have been a member of this panel for a while will be aware of the constant looking at the funding formula. What I would say about that, and the chief constable and I have had conversations about this and are of some mind on this, which is that a change in the -- and I've said this before to panel. A change in the funding formula won't necessarily benefit Surrey. And we all assume that because of the position Surrey is in, that any change benefits us. And I think we need to be a little bit careful about what we wish for on that, particularly with the current government. Who, and I don't think this is a particularly controversial point, is not going to have any particular need to bestow any favors on Surrey. You'll understand that, thank you. Okay, Councillor Atherton, now you've got three questions if you'd like to ask your first. I have, thank you. Chairman, so I wonder if you can help us understand how you expect the new government plans for 13,000 new neighbourhoods. Please, PCSOs and special constables across the UK will affect and be implemented by Surrey police, is my first question. Clarity would be lovely in this area. And as PCCs and indeed as forces, we're still waiting. So this was an announcement that was first made probably a year ago now by the then opposition, now Labour government. That Cooper is his home's secretary, around 13,000 extra officers, extra officers then became neighbourhood officers. Which then became, well, a mixture of PCSOs who are, of course, police staff. And special constables who are volunteers across the UK. So there's a number of things. And they have made it a manifesto commitment, so we are expecting it. And early discussions with the home office do seem to indicate that it is going to be a mixture of officers. So we don't yet know. We have, and again, chief constables have been told not to expect any extra funding for it. So that's a potential massive challenge for us, particularly in Surrey. We believe that it will be made up of a combination of new PCSOs and officers in theory. Although, particularly with PCSOs, as everybody on this panel will know, is a real challenge for us recruiting in Surrey. Although, our final, our most recent cohort recruitment drive was full. I believe, speaking to the chief constable on Monday, I believe we're 18 PCSOs short now of establishment. Which is a much better position than we were in and we are continuing to try different methods of recruitment. The NPCC finance committee, which Kelvin has just mentioned, has made it very, very clear that if forces nationally are to meet that pledge, we will need extra funding in order to do it. They have talked about some of the PCSOs and officers being redeployed from other areas of policing, which is a real concern for me. And I fear, and this is not a political point because I made the point to the last government, that all of this talk of extra neighbourhood officers is all very well. And all of our constituents want to see extra neighbourhood officers. But where the real harm is happening is not on the streets of Hazelmere or the streets of Woking or the streets of Ottershaw, it is behind closed doors. And it's in the bedrooms of our young people and while they're on their devices and our elderly and vulnerable, you know, whether it's on the internet or on their phones, it's domestic abuse, domestic violence, coercive and controlling behaviour. So I would be really, really concerned if this government decides that, or any government of any colour or stripe, decides that for political expediency, it is a good idea to take officers away from those specialist services so that we can make our constituents seemingly happier because they're seeing an officer on their street. So I have a real, real concern about that. We are waiting for more details, I'm afraid, I'm sorry, I know I'm saying that a lot at the moment, but when it comes to this particular government, and they are very, very new, and we're still waiting for the spending review, we're hoping for more details there. And as I said, there are some concerns about our ability to recruit as well. We don't yet know what our share of the 13,000 would look like. But I'm sure that's a conversation I suspect, Chairman, we're going to have in the coming months as a panel. Thank you. Yes, would you be able to provide any insight into the reasons suspected to be behind the higher and slightly increasing rate of officer attrition in the force? I think there's a number of factors. And we've had this conversation as a panel as well before. So it's a very competitive job market at the moment, we know. It won't be a surprise to anybody that there are better salaries available than there are for particularly PCSOs. And staff. Policing, of course, and we've talked about shift patterns already, isn't generally that flexible for a lot of the, particularly the kind of roles that we often talk about in panel. We're not able to offer work from home options, which of course increasingly organizations and companies are having to do, both in the public and private sector in order to attract recruits. We being a donut force, we have to contend with the met and their recruitment campaigns and their recruitment campaigns tend to include offers of quite sizable amounts of money. If you leave one force and go to them. So that's a challenge for us. Of course, sorry, as everybody here knows, is very expensive, particularly for young people and national pay scales because of national pay scales. Of course, it's often cheaper for them to leave, so they may have grown up in Surrey, but it's often cheaper for them to leave Surrey and take up a role in a police force elsewhere. And of course, all forces are recruiting. And I think there's also the very, very real aspect, which is that policing isn't for everybody. And sometimes people don't actually realize that until they've experienced it and until they've gotten and a huge amount of work I know has gone in and is going in with our HR and recruitment teams around trying to be very open and very explicit and setting expectations very, very clearly about what is expected from applicants. And I think it's sometimes it works, but in all honesty, sometimes it doesn't. So I think like all organizations, the force has to be very aware of its own shortcomings as well. There's also a lot of work I should say that's going into, and this is a wider workforce area, that's going into making sure that conversations are had with people very, very early on when they raise that they may be considering leaving or if a manager has noticed that an employee doesn't seem happy in their work or is experiencing problems so that we can have those conversations really, really early on. Because what we don't want to happen is the first that the force are aware that somebody is leaving is when they hand their notice in. So a huge amount of work's been going on probably for the last year or so, if not longer, actually. Again, it's something that we have discussed previously at panel around that. So, yeah, there's an awful lot of work to be done around it, and I think that it was always going to be a challenge when we were recruiting such high numbers so quickly that we were going to see increased attrition, particularly from those relatively new joiners. Thank you. So is that your third question? >> Thank you. My final question on this agenda item. So the report refers to the new enhanced scrutiny arrangements for local policing bodies and PCCs in respect of misconduct hearings, including meetings with chairs. What do you think -- what impact does the commission envisage these changes will have, and does she believe that there is a way that the panel could be updated on strategic issues or themes that arise from this? So we are anticipating that all forces nationally, including Surrey, is going to see an increase in misconduct hearings, and the forces, again, nationally, and you see it on the news almost weekly, are doing an enormous amount of work on rooting out all kinds of behavior, which we don't consider to be appropriate or which is concerning. And that is going to lead, of course, to a corresponding increase in appeals, and they are both processes that the OPCC supports through the recruitment of legally qualified chairs and independent panel members, and the provision of training and ensuring compliance is all managed by the office as well. We have been working very, very hard to ensure better and more efficient working relationships, particularly with neighboring OPCCs, which allows us to deal with any demand spikes, and that includes us being able to borrow from them and then, of course, being able to borrow from us as well. Obviously, the data that's associated with misconduct cases is incredibly confidential, so obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to share that, but I'm very happy to provide updates on strategic issues as part of the standing workforce planning update. Thank you. Councillor Ball. Commissioner, it is stated that the proportion of officers and staff facing misconduct clearance is small in comparison to the 4,000 staff, but the force conducted 47% more hearings this year than it did in 2023. How can we be certain that the force is not simply failing to detect a greater number of instances of misconduct? So I think it's fair to say that no vetting or misconduct process is ever going to be obviously perfect, and I certainly wouldn't suggest it is, and it would be deeply responsible of me to suggest that, as with any organization. But an enormous amount of time and effort has gone into ensuring that our local processes are as robust as they possibly can be, and I certainly think they're a hell of a lot better now than they were. And that's highlighted in the report, and my office now plays a much larger role in the oversight of that than we used to, both in terms of just PCC role having changed, but also I think particularly with bringing in new staff whose role it is very specifically, and who have experience within the force themselves. In order to oversee that and have a very close working relationship with the organization's PSD and the federation, for example, and I speak very regularly to the federation as well to understand any concerns that they have. I mean, from my own perspective, I'm really pleased that we've seen an upswing in the misconduct hearings, because I think it means that our reporting mechanisms and detection mechanisms are much more robust. And the last report that I saw detailing our misconduct, one of the things that gave me enormous reassurance, actually, and is a real change in policing, not just in Surrey but nationally, is seeing of those misconduct proceedings, the vast majority were because a colleague had reported another colleague, and that's exactly what I want to see. And I think it's really reassuring, and we should all be reassured, that police officers are now feeling enabled to, they feel that the processes are there, and they feel confident enough to come forward to the force or come forward to their manager and say, I believe that my colleagues' behavior or something they said wasn't entirely appropriate. I think that's really, really good, because they're early warning signs that we want to be picking up. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chair. The Police Federation's Pay and Morale Survey, I refer to paragraph 8.2, found concerning levels of dissatisfaction among Surrey officers, including the pay, and a large number of confessed to desire to leave the service within two years. And I suppose that also is consistent with the Inspectorate's bindings as well. How can that current level of dissatisfaction with compensation be reconciled with the assumptions in the medium-term financial forecast? Yeah, it's a real challenge, and of course, as everyone will appreciate, police pay is set nationally by the pay review body. And so once the government has considered the PRB's findings and decides on the increase the officers are going to get, we're obliged to comply with the recommendation. And so that's out of my hands. In the current year, the government's provided additional funding to help fund the cost of the pay rise above 2.5%, which is what we'd obviously allowed for. So going forward, the MTFP includes annual rises of 2.5% on the assumption, again, that if a larger increase is agreed by the government following the pay review board, that that will be funded as well. The staff survey was obviously conducted before the adoption, I should say, of the PRB, so it would be interesting to see if that does make any difference. They're conducted on a sort of regular basis, although I'm not aware of when the next one is going to be undertaken. I think it also goes back to some of the reasons as outlined in my answer to Ayesha as well, which is that there are lots of reasons as well why we know people leave the police force, including better opportunities or more convenient as well opportunities as well, of course, as pay. Kelvin, is there anything that you want to add to that in terms of how we deal with it in the NTFP? No, as the Commissioner has said, pay is set by the government, and we've assumed that any rise over 2.5% will be funded. If it's not funded, then that will add to further pressure on the MTFP, but we just have to wait and see how that pans out. Councillor Kelly, do you want to come back? Just to say, I welcome the intention to strengthen, I think I saw the intention to strengthen the police and crime plan in this area, because I think that is an area where clearly we need to do what we can. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I must admit that it's a very complicated subject, and it's not just about pay, and we used to wonder when I was in there, why people after 15 years service would suddenly up and go somewhere else. For no particular reason, it seemed to us. Councillor Wilson. Thank you, chair. I think this might be a question for the CFO. I'm interested in how officer numbers are expected to change over the Commissioner's term in office, and how will financial penalties for low officer numbers be affected, because the uplift program also includes penalties if the total number of officers drops below the target levels that they've been funding. So the Commissioner said earlier that numbers may have to be reduced over the next few years. So what's the assumption about the uplift penalties? Well, I mean, as I've already said, you'll appreciate, there's a huge amount of uncertainty going forward in terms of government policy in this area, and so we're not really able to forecast officer numbers beyond 24, 25 with any massive amount of certainty. So for the current year, we are required to obtain our uplift baseline, which is, for those who are interested, 2,253 officers, as well as the additional 22 that I talked about a few moments ago, that we agreed to recruit post uplift in those two separate branches. The force does believe it's on track to meet the target. We're obviously waiting for the new government to put that in place and to tell us the funding arrangements. Kelvin, in terms of the wider challenges, I don't know if you want to comment on, a lot of it's unknown, unfortunately, at the moment. It is. Thank you, Commissioner. The uplift arrangements, Councillor Wilson is right, there are financial penalties if you don't meet the target, but the arrangements are put in place for each single year. So we only know the arrangements at the moment for 24, 25, and it'll be down to the new government probably announcing a spending review, what arrangements they put in for uplift going forward. So until we know that, we're not really able to predict with any certainty what the future regime might be. Yeah, I totally understand that, but it's always going to be, even in the future, it's going to be a decision about how the resources are used to maintain or increase or decrease officer numbers. And just going back to the Commissioner's reelection, on the ballot paper, the description was more police, safer streets. Shouldn't voters take that as a commitment that the number of officers is going to increase over your term of office? Well, the number of officers has increased, as you know, and is increasing, is still increasing, and absolutely I'm committed to doing everything I can to ensure that in terms of the resources and where they come from. That's obviously something for the, in terms of operational resources, that's for the Chief Constable to decide where he believes operational resources are best deployed, whether they are roles that should be undertaken by police officers or police staff who has the right experience and everything in order to do that. So I would take my advice from him on that rather than, you know, it's obviously not going to be very wrong for me to dictate to the Chief Constable. What I will say is both the Chief Constable and I both made commitments to ensure that we have more officers out and about on Surrey streets, which is what we're doing, and that's why the PCSO recruitment campaign is such an important part of both of our plans. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Yes, thank you, Chairman. The final section of this report deals with the work that's being done by both by Surrey Police and also your office to address misogyny and victim blaming. Just a couple of questions related to that, one which you haven't been pre-notified of, but I was listening to the radio this morning and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has just updated their guidance for the Prevent duty, which I gather comes into force in a month's time, requiring all organisations to take positive but reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. How confident are you that the police will meet that objective? And it's great to see these initiatives. Is there any evidence that they are having a positive effect yet on attrition rates, I guess, particularly for new joiners, but all? And the third question, this is one aspect of the difficulties that officers and staff may have, but are there similar work in relation to ethnic minorities and LGBT+ officers and staff as well? Thank you. I didn't hear that radio interview, but you're absolutely right, obviously, around Prevent. I think it's an important announcement. I think it probably duplicates a lot of the work and a lot of previous announcements that have come out from other organisations as well. So I don't believe Surrey Police are going to have to do anything differently in order to meet it. I think they're already working very hard to meet that. It's a standard they've set themselves, quite frankly, quite aside from, and again, the Chief Constable talks about it an awful lot, both in terms of his plan originally that you will have heard about last year, but also the update on that. So I think that's something I am very confident about. In terms of attrition and misogyny, I mean, what was really interesting is I think we're sort of going in the other direction right now, which is brilliant, which we've got more female applicants to be police officers and in particular detectives right now. So that's both in terms of new joiners, but also within the force, which of course is really important because their people have already experienced the force and its policies and its culture moving into that world. So I think that's really interesting. And I think Surrey police force, and I will let the chairman decide whether this is a good or a bad thing, looks very different now and will look very different again in five and 10 years from how it did when Councillor Roubini was a police officer in Surrey. Councillor Roubini, I will not pass any judgement on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. But certainly as the world has moved on, I think policing has traditionally been a bit behind, but I do think that Surrey is absolutely moving in the right direction and we are likely to have a situation where we've got more female officers than male officers if the trend continues, which I'm sure was not the case under the Chairman's, during the Chairman's career. So, and there are groups happening and we've talked a little bit about this already when we've talked about some of the wellbeing, but also in regards to stop and search and other issues. So, and the Chief's vision is very much to have a workforce, not just that is diverse and equal and inclusive, but also understands why all of those things are important. I do think they're two slightly different things because from a leadership point of view, you can do sort of a certain amount to engineer that, whether it's in how you recruit, who you recruit, who you're appointing, who you're promoting. That's one thing. We see organisations trying to do that to various degrees of success. I think to have an organisation that understands at its core and that each of its members understand its core, why those things are important is actually more important and certainly under the current Chief, I'm seeing that happening. So rather than it being a top-down thing, every member of the force understanding why those things are important, which of course goes beyond just our recruitment, but goes into, and this comes back to, I'm sorry, the member for Runnymede's point about stop and search and everything as well, but understands how we treat members of the public, whether they are like the majority of us on the panel, white, Caucasian members of Surrey or not. So I think that's really, really important. I'm really proud of that work that's happening. So the force has agreed in equality, diversity and inclusion policy, you won't be surprised to hear, and that sets out a structure that deals with all of this as well. And there are a number of dedicated forums, I've talked a bit about some of them already, that consider the equality issues. They include the disability advisory group, the race advisory group, the LGBTQ+ advisory group, as well as being dedicated liaison officers within the force for those who are experiencing issues, and they're very well signposted as well, so that any officer or of course staff member can do that. So I think that, and also I think any issues regarding that, it's something the force and the deputy chief constable in particular have taken a real interest in leading the gold group around this area as well. And I'm sure that's something the chief could talk more about if he wanted to, but those pulse surveys and wider HR feed mechanisms have been designed in order to capture that data. Thank you for that response, which I support. I think just before the riot started, I think there was a statement from a senior member of the Surrey Police, I think, saying that Surrey Police was an anti-racist organisation, I think that was posted on social media. And it received quite a lot of abuse, I suppose, from the sorts of people that were involved in the term of... As you'd expect, because anybody who posts on social media knows you've stepped back and... Are you happy to endorse that statement? I'm not going to say anything about it because I haven't seen the statement. So without seeing the statement, I'm not going to endorse something that's... I think the expression was that Surrey Police aims to be an anti-racist organisation. Great. I haven't seen the statements. Right. Thank you very much for that. Just to put the record straight, I joined the force in 1972, and yet it's a completely different force to what it is now. I remember the first uniformed lady officer, because up to that point, they were known as matrons, who looked after young people and lost people and other things like that. And suddenly, equal pay came along, and they had to do exactly the same work as ourselves. And I always remember going into a pub where there was a big fight, thinking to myself, The only backup I've got is a female officer. And in fact, she came in, and the fight stopped because they didn't want to hurt her. I would say, yes, and of course, they used to be WPCs, and they're not anymore, and I do still have some members of our collective residents who say to me, Well, that was a lady police officer. And I have been called a lady PCC, so we do still see that. But yes, we have members of the force who joined during that time who are still there, who remember being given their skirt and their handbag, and told where they could purchase their tights. Different days complete is much better now. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. If I can just add in one further question, which occurred to me when I was re-reading the report this morning, going back to misconduct. In the data table, there are five cases where the outcome says would have been dismissed had they not already resigned. Can I just confirm that that would have been dismissed is the result of the same thoroughness of investigation as with the other cases, rather than assuming that resignation proves their guilt? Yeah, no, I do understand. No. I think with the effects on the force itself, the public perception, and also that person's future, that any result of that kind is the result. They are. No, no, it always is. So the fact that somebody resigns doesn't end the process, if that's what you're... Yeah, yeah. Thank you. If there are no more questions, then if we could note the report, please. Thank you very much. So item 10, the medium term financial plan update, an update report from medium term financial plan of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner of Surrey to be considered as part of the budget setting process. Is Kelvin going to present this or? Yeah, I feel that Kelvin's been sitting there very patiently with his broken leg, and I think we should give him his moment in the sun. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chairman. So this report is the latest updated financial forecast for the period from 2025/26 to 2028/29. And it sets out the level of savings based on the assumptions in the forecast that we may need to find over that period. Don't tend to say anything else about it, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. So if we could start with Councillor Chain, please. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I think it's probably a very straightforward question. I will follow it up with a subsequent question, if I may, if the Chairman allows. The report states that the cumulative saving of 23.4 million will be required for four years, 25/26 to 28/29, while the annual report that we were reviewing earlier in the meeting states that the MTF indicates a saving of £18 million over the next four years. Is there a reason for the discrepancy or are they just updated figures? It's updated assumptions, Councillor. So we updated in particular the pay assumptions in the intervening period, and that's why the gap has increased. Chairman, if I may just, I notice in the report that you have assumed for the 25/26, the referendum limit will be returned by the Minister to 2%. Are you making that same assumption for the following three years as well, that it will be set at 2% year on year? Yes, that's correct. That's the assumption within the forecast. But obviously, we should know in October what the referendum limit will actually be. Thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'm looking at paragraph 11 and noting that Surrey could receive the lowest share of the 175 million Home Office grant for funding pay awards, depending on the calculation method that is used. What contingencies are being looked at if this was to occur? And also, can I ask what impact have your meetings and representations to the Home Secretary to consider using alternative methods? Have they borne any fruit or do you hope that they will? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. So, we've had previous pay grants in previous years and they've all been allocated on the funding formula basis, despite lobbying the previous government to change the methodology. We did the same thing this year. I made representations to the Home Office and also the PCC wrote to the Home Secretary. But despite the Home Office informing me that they did consider various methodologies, they've stuck with the funding formula method, which means that Surrey has got the lowest share nationally of the 175 million. We've been awarded 2.1 million to cover the pay increase for officers and staff for 20, 24, 25. When I've asked the Home Office why they've done that, part of the reason seems to be that they feel that they don't want people to lose faith in the formula overall. And that's why they've kept that basis. It seems a rather strange argument, but that's what I've been told. So, we have allowed for that level of funding within the forecast, and that's part of the reason why we had a contingency to cover part of the paywall for this year. So, in terms of officers, if we get the 2.1 million from the grant, we should just about be able to cover the increase in this year. We will have to wait and see what next year's increase will be. If you want to come back? Yes, please. Just quickly, I may have missed it in what you said, but I heard that the 2.1 million amount. What is the gap between that 2.1 million and the cost to this force of the total cost of pay award? So, for police officers, the grant just about covers the cost, the additional cost over the two and a half percent that we allowed in the budget. However, there is no additional money to cover the staff increase, and the government will quite clear that actually the grant was to cover the staff and the officer increase. So, the shortfall on that is around about 2.4 million or so. Thank you. Councillor Chain. Thank you, Chairman. Do you have any detail of potential areas for further savings that are being identified by the tactical reviews, 25, 26, in their budget review? And I suppose, importantly, within the calculations that you've made and the information you've given us, is there any likelihood, or have you included, that there will be a need to draw on reserves during that period? Thank you, Councillor Chaney. There is quite an extensive change program over the next few years. It's looking at things like changing shift patterns, looking at the benefits from upgrading our ERP system, reducing overtime, forensics, etc. We've got a big program that's looking to rationalise the fleet, Operation Thrifty, and also there's a detailed budget review by area. You'll have seen, though, that there's still quite a gap number of savings that still need to be identified for next year, and if they can't be identified in time for budget setting, then we will have to draw upon reserves. So that is something that will be part of the budget setting later in the year. Councillor Kennedy, you wanted to raise a question? Well, it was a supplementary on the question about lobbying the Home Office and so on. Just to say I, too, tried to lobby the Home Office in agreeing with the Commissioner. And I'm just wondering to what extent the Commissioner's been speaking to Surrey's MPs in order to lobby them, and there is, of course, a vote in early February or late January when Surrey's MPs have an opportunity to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with what is being offered. Indeed. So yeah, you'll appreciate the conversations that happen pretty constantly, and we've got a meeting with all of, or certainly all of Surrey's MPs have been invited to a meeting with myself and the Chief Constable, which is coming up. And that is absolutely one of the conversations that I think it's really, really important to have with them. You've seen our challenges in this area, and I don't think that this is, like you see, much of a change. There are other Commissioners who also obviously want to seek change. I know Kent have, Kent are also concerned about it, Thames Valley and others. Unfortunately, all of those areas who are unhappy with the funding formula happen to be largely conservative controlled PCC areas. And the areas who benefit from the funding formula by having excess money left over at the end of every year after they've paid all of their staff and officers are all in labour areas. So I suspect we may not get the change we're seeking, Councillor Kennedy. Yeah, I don't even want to bring too much politics into this. Thank you very much. If I can carry on. Councillor Baker, please. Thank you, Chair. The report refers to the possibility that the services may be impacted by the savings required. What does this mean for residents of the county, and are there emergency plans in place should this occur? Thank you. Just a quick footnote on Councillor Kennedy's question. I think it's a linkage of PCC that's asking for a judicial review of the formula. So it'll be interesting to see how that pans out with regard to the impact of savings. It's too early to say really until we know what the level of savings are going to be. And then we'll have to work out which areas that will have to be taken from. But I think the chief and the PCC are both committed to try and minimise any impact on residents. And probably that will be something to discuss with the chief constable when you see him next month as to the impact that savings may have, particularly in the context of a council tax. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy, then. Yes, thank you. I got the feeling I may have asked this question last year as well. I mean, my local authority, we're actually given an optimistic and a pessimistic version of the medium-term financial plan, as well as the central one. And has any thought been given to doing the same for the Surrey Police Group, as it's called? I know there have been a number of areas where potentially this may be regarded as pessimistic. We've debated in the past the extent to which one should allow for the possibility of income through mutual aid and renting out police cells to the prison service and so on. And the reality is that that has occurred, even though there's been no assumption for it. And equally, the assumption that essentially grant funding will be flat, that is pessimistic. I hear the pessimism of the commissioner, but equally, from what I could gather from what was said up in Liverpool over the last few days, there were lots of promises of more neighbourhood policing, which is fantastic. And if that's to be delivered, there has to be some funding for it, I would have thought. Could I just say, yes, and I think I've said this, haven't I, already, and I would welcome this panel's joint efforts as well with mine, and Councillor Kennedy, if you wish to write to the Home Office again, because I do think you're absolutely right. Surrey will suffer if we're, I don't want to say forced, but if we are required to hire more officers, which I think is fundamentally a good thing in principle, but without the money to do so, which could unfortunately leave us in a worse position. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Carry on. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, we have done some scenario modelling, Councillor Kennedy, which I'm happy to share with you. So on an optimistic basis, I think the gap falls to 21 and a half million, and on a pessimistic basis, it rises to 27.6. But as I'm sure you can appreciate, all depends on the assumptions that you use in the forecast. So it's probably better to think in terms of sensitivity. So we put two and a half percent pay into the forecast. If, for example, the government decided that they were going to fund an additional one percent of that, that would move the forecast by two and a half million. Similarly, if the council tax cap was moved from two percent for every pound that we can get on adds another half million. So I think it's probably better to understand the sensitivity of the forecast, and I'm happy to share a bit of data on that with members if they would find that useful. OK, thank you. So I can't see you in there. Sorry. That's all right. That's the end of the question. What I would say is that perhaps the panel would agree to actually formulate their own letter as well, together with the BCC's office, the Centre for Home Office, to support that extra money. Are we all in agreement on that? Thanks so much. I'll work with the officers to get something written up and obviously we'll share it around before we send it. Thank you. So the recommendations report, the panel is invited to note the initial outcome of the forecast, the likely need for additional savings and the financial challenge that this represents, to note the current assumptions being employed in scenarios and the risks therein and to comment as appropriate. So can we note the forecast and current assumptions, please? Thank you very much. So onto item 11, which is the Surrey Police Group un-audited financial report for 23/24, which again was deferred. This report is intended to update the panel on the un-audited financial position of the Surrey Police Group as at the year end of 31st March 2024. So is it Kelvin again? Yes, Kelvin. Thank you, Mr Chairman. So this is the un-audited financial report, as you said, for 23/24. At the moment, the audit is being conducted and our orders have assured us that they will complete the audit by the statutory deadline in February. So I should be able to update the panel then on how that is going. And so I'm just happy to answer any questions. Councillor Barrow. Thank you, Chair. How were the underspends in supplies and services and grants and income of 1.8 million and 5.8 million respectively achieved in 2023/24? And is it anticipated that these would be repeated for the years 20, 24, 25? Thank you. So thank you, Councillor Barrow. So the 1.8 million really was an effort to drive savings earlier in the period. So rather than saying, oh, we've met our savings target for 23/24, we start trying to drive savings out earlier for use in 24/25. And so that meant that a number of centrally held budgets for things like estates, et cetera, were not all used. The 5.8 million is made up by some things that Councillor Kennedy mentioned. So we had additional income for the use of custody cells. You may well know about the prison overcrowding issue. And they've had to use police cells for that we've had. But I should say that money is meant for them to be used on their custody improvements. We had grants awarded in the year for safer streets. So although we've got an underspend in supplies and services, we'll have an overspend elsewhere in the budget. We did get income from mutual aid and also from counterterrorism. And we also had, rather unexpectedly, a 1.6 million refund of business rates from a revaluation of business rates that we put into reserves. And we'll go towards our estates programme. Whether any of those will be repeated in the year, I'm sure some of them will. So some of the additional income for custody cells, that's certainly in this year. And there has been quite a lot of mutual aid because of the civil disturbance. So I would say some of those will come back. But at the moment, that's how things stand. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Listed here is the question that, again, I think I put to the Commissioner in the written question, which was what is the revenue outcome before reserve and capital transfers? I've seen the reply, which basically says that inquiries will be made at police. I think what I was actually after was the report in decision 10 on the website, which is later on in the agenda, but I couldn't find on the website. I remember last year, essentially, that same report did set out the reasonably significant underspend and how that underspend was then converted into increases in reserves and so on. And I suppose the reason for my curiosity was that the headline is there's only a 0.2 million pound underspend. And yet the reality is that actually there's been a substantial increase in reserves. If you look at page 99, total reserves have gone up from 30.8 million to 37.2 million. So I'm wondering whether what has actually happened is there's been a reasonably significant revenue surplus, but it's simply been put away in reserves. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. So there has been a revenue surplus. I mean, part of that increase was the, as I said, the rates refund, 1.6 million. During the year, we've also sold a number of assets. That money's been put into reserves. We some programmes have slipped in the capital programme. That money's gone into reserves. But as I said, I should be able to get the information on the floor so I can give you a more detailed answer on that. Thank you. Councillor Atherton. Thank you very much, Chair. So I'm just going to pick up on the additional funding that was secured from the Home Office for recruiting above the operation uplift target. The question really is, was this financially prudent given that this increase does not cover the future salaries of offices as they are promoted up the pay scale? Some character on that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Azad. The government offered this incentive to recruit above uplift, but we're not monitored on that target as part of our base uplift figure. So if the funding is not renewed, then we're no longer obliged to keep those offices. So what that meant was that we could recruit ahead of time and also get paid an incentive to do it. So I think it was the right thing to do at the time. But it's something that we all have to review, depending on what the uplift conditions are in future years. Thank you very much. And a question from myself. Overtime costs are overspent by two point seven million pound in twenty three, twenty four. But not all of this was due to contact staff vacancies that have now been filled. How will the cost from the other sources, namely neighborhood policing, especially as crime and custody be mitigated in future years? Thank you. Overtime is quite a difficult area. I'm sure it was when you were a policeman, Mr Chairman. There's an overtime working group that's being put in place. And also there's they're looking at things like shift patterns, looking at things like handovers. Also, there'll always be an element of overtime to cover special operations, to cover bank holidays, to cover sickness. But I think what's happened in the past is maybe there hasn't been enough senior officer oversight of where overtime has been spent. And so this group is looking at working practices to try and minimize the amount of unplanned overtime, because not only do you have the cost of overtime, some officers do an awful lot of overtime and that has an impact on their well-being and their families as well. So that's why there's a special group in place to look at that. Yes, thank you. You're absolutely right. I seem to remember there was a group of officers that always seemed to make an arrest 30 minutes before they finished, therefore having to claim overtime for that arrest. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you. This is another question which I submitted to the Commissioner for a written reply. And it's been raised here, I suppose, because it's financial and links in with Kelvin's work. I mean, it's been about seven months since we last discussed finances. So during that time, the internal audit progress reports in June, I gather there's recently been another, did highlight limited assurance reports for financial controls in seven areas. I think most Surrey councils use SIAP as well, so it's the same internal auditors as you, and the process that we have at our local authority is that when a limited assurance report is given, which essentially says that the controls are weak, the head of department is actually hauled up and asked to speak to the audit committee at a public meeting, and the report itself lists or highlights the main concerns. And that is not apparent in the internal audit report for the joint audit committee. And so that's why I was asking if you could say in summary what the concerns were in each area. Now, the response I've had basically indicates that most of the recommendations have been met to the extent they're currently due. And I suppose to that extent, that means the Commissioner is satisfied that the concerns have been addressed. But it would be helpful for us to understand what those concerns were, at least in summary. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. I suppose I should start by saying that the auditors don't only look at financial controls and systems, they also look at operational controls and systems. And so it's not all to do with money. So the particular reports that you're referring to, there was one on the levers process and whether the correct procedure was being followed for levers and a number of recommendations came out of that. Vehicle recovery was, a number of the recommendations were to do with inadequate storage of vehicles that were being seized by police. Armouries was to do with, one of the recommendations I believe was to do with sort of training records that needed to be updated. Business continuity, a number of plans were outstanding that needed to be tested. And redundancy was, again, there are a couple of instances where the redundancy policy hadn't been followed in precisely. So it's a good thing that the auditors have come up with these recommendations because it means that they've done a very thorough job. And also then that actions can be taken to improve these areas. And obviously, the Joint Audit Committee has a report shows they see the full report. The PCC sees a full report, as does the Chief Constable and managers are then held to account in those forums. Thank you. And back to me again. £1.9 million more than was budgeted for in grants was received this year, as demonstrated by the table on page five. Is this likely to be repeated in future years? And in fact, what would happen if similar amounts are not required for future budgets? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. These grants, I think, as the PCC said earlier, are ones that we apply for or that the government decide to give. So they gave a grant and they for this year for antisocial behaviour. We've had grants for Safer Streets. We would certainly like them all to be repeated and we would certainly like them all to be increased in the coming year. What impact would they have if they stopped? Well, those initiatives then would have to be reduced or stopped. If we are awarded additional grants, then that would enable us to support more things in those areas. And also, no doubt, also some of that money could be used to provide extra policing. So maybe that's something that you could put in your letter to the Home Secretary. Yes, I think it should be, because obviously antisocial behaviour and other things like that are very much in the public forum and we need to do everything we can to cut them down. So, yes, we'll put that in the letter just to remind them that these grants, if that's what they want to call them, we need year after year. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Thank you, Chair. The CFO has already answered about the uncertainty of potential savings and what would be done. So I'll just cut my question down a bit, if I may, and concentrate on paragraph 36 in the report. And it starts, the force has benefited financially from a tight labour market in that its inability to recruit police staff has enabled it not only to have a larger vacancy margin, having a larger vacancy margin. So, and you go on to say the force cannot afford for all these posts to be filled and it's having an effect on operations. So as we already heard in this meeting that it's not just salary levels that determine whether people stay in jobs or apply for jobs, it's also whether the force is a good employer and it's a good place to work. So it doesn't this imply that the force shouldn't try too hard to retain staff and recruit staff and because financially it can't afford to fill all the vacancies. Is that the implication? Thank you. Thank you. Obviously, I've written this with a finance hat and obviously the bigger the vacancy margin, the more chance I have of balancing my budget. But it does obviously have an operational impact. It does create pressures on the staff that are there. And part of that is being addressed now by putting a number of restructures, changing the way that things are done, changing shift patterns, so that these reductions in staff can actually become permanent. And by changing working practices, because the truth is, is that we if we were magically to be able to recruit the 10 percent staff that we don't have in place, we wouldn't have the money to pay for it. So we do have to do things a lot more smarter and a lot more efficiently with the resources that we've got. Mr. Kennedy. I'm loosely linked with that question, but it also I was just thinking on something the commissioner said earlier as well about the number of PCSOs being improved. In the past, we've received an update on the relative strength of what the establishment is and what the strength of the force is in particular areas. We had that, I think, at 31st of March last year, and I think Damian got us an update on that middle of last year. Is it possible to get us the latest figures as at, I don't know, 31st of March? I suppose time has come, it could almost be 31st of September, couldn't it, an update on that. I find those figures quite helpful in discussions with the borough commander in our area as well. Thank you. OK. Anybody want to start? I'm sure that we could provide those figures, Damian. We just need to ask the force for them, but they must be available. Apologies, Kelvin. I forget. You're not here and you can't see us all vigorously nodding. OK. Well, thank you very much. So recommendation report is that we're asked to note the content of that report. So are we agreed? Thank you. Item 12, performance and accountability meetings, and it provides an update on the meetings that have been held between the commissioner and chief constable. And what has been discussed to demonstrate the arrangements for good governance and scrutiny are in place. I have one question. Commissioner, did you want to comment? Then Councillor Mosen. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I was looking on the OPCC website for these regular meetings that take place, meetings take place every six weeks when they alternate and the performance and accountability meeting. The last one on the website was from nearly a year ago and there's no date for the next one. Just wonder if there's an update, are these meetings still taking place? Yes, of course they are. So regular meetings are happening. Formal meetings took place in January, March, July. The next is scheduled for a couple of weeks time. We did have a small gap, as you'd expect, during the PCC election and the run up to that. What we are doing, though, is reviewing our approach to public meetings, which we historically webcast, as you might know, on Facebook. And part of that is because attendance at those meetings hasn't been as high as we'd like. And actually we find that attendance at the community engagement meetings is higher, but I appreciate it's not the same thing. So we're trying to find a way of doing it that balances that burden between holding the meetings, which is important, and the meetings continue, but holding them in public and Surrey Police and the amount of work that's required, obviously, from then as well. So the meetings, the public events that are being held between now and Christmas, and there are 10, 11 more of them to come, I'm confident that the public have ample opportunity to question the Chief Constable, which of course is what they're for, and to raise their concerns. And we've been using the dates that were set aside for the public meetings for me to continue to have those six weekly meetings with a gap during the run up to the PCC elections with the force. So there's also an awful lot of work goes into making sure that the scrutiny meetings are well attended and that people can attend them. But it is obviously just one option for the public, and I do recognize that people don't always have time to watch them. So again, going back to the data hub, it's another reason why I think it's really, really important that we're as transparent as possible on the website so that people have access to the data that they're interested in. But I am absolutely committed to a public form of scrutiny. And as everybody on this panel will appreciate, particularly as I look at the public gallery behind me, it's very difficult sometimes to get the public to take an interest in the issues that we all know are really important and we, I hope, enjoy discussing. I certainly enjoy discussing them with you. I hope you enjoy coming. It can be difficult to get the public to engage and even, you know, not just turning up, but I noticed that our public questions today are actually from two Councillors, one of whom is a former member of the panel. So I think we probably all have work to do, ideally together, in making sure that we get as much public as possible. Policing is no different. Yeah, OK, thanks for that. I understand. Just to make something absolutely clear, the Chief Constable obviously is a very busy person. Is he making himself available for these meetings? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, there's not an issue there at all. The Chief Constable is very, very good at making himself available. And the Chief Constable and I meet at least once a week to talk about issues as well, so that anything that's coming up in real time. And if there are any immediate issues which you all appreciate happens, they happen in your roles as well, or that happen in policing, particularly major and critical incidents that happen in Surrey or anything that is of particular importance, then either the Chief Constable or one of his senior leaders will always telephone me directly. Thank you very much. In any case, if we could just note the report again, please. Great, thank you very much. So on to Item 13 again, I've already got one question. A PCC Decisions and Forward Plan. Something you want to say, Commissioner, before the question? Then, Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chair. I noted on a decision 19 related to a request from Mr Menon for the Commissioner to approve the award of a contract to a developer for the Mount Brown headquarters. When I joined this panel, I remember that building the future was a standing item on this agenda. But I suppose it's been two and a half months since that request was put to the Commissioner. So is there anything that you can say, Commissioner? Only that, obviously, the tender process was incredibly intense. A contractor has been selected. And as soon as I'm in a position to announce publicly who it is, we will do so. And in that case, as we've got before, are you OK to note the report, please? Great, thank you very much. Item 14, which is the Commissioner's question time, is the panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in the area of the Commissioner. So I've got one question from Councillor Richard Wilson. Would you like me to read the question, Chair? For the member of the public, it would be better if you did. Is Surrey Police prepared for the effect of government policy to release many prisoners early due to shortage of prison space? Is this shortage influencing Surrey Police's decisions on whether to detain suspects? Does the Commissioner believe that the early release of prisoners is putting the public safety at risk? We have got your answer, but did you want to say anything else? I don't think so. Just to say that it's something I've been regularly updated on, both by Surrey's Gold Commander, who is actually, I should say, gold for both Surrey and Sussex. We had one of our regular meetings of the Surrey Criminal Justice Board yesterday, where the issue was discussed amongst all of Surrey's criminal justice partners. So that brings together, as well as policing, obviously in my office, prisons, very importantly, probation, the courts, Crown Prosecution Service and other related partners. And so it was discussed there, and I think we're in a much better position in Surrey than perhaps some other forces are, partly because we've had relatively low numbers released in Surrey, and an enormous amount of planning went into it in Surrey. So rather than relying on the Ministry of Justice's own processes, which I've been involved with as part of my national role as holding the victims brief, Surrey has very much taken a very proactive approach in terms of how we deal with it, so we're in a very, very good place. So I'm very confident, and in terms of it influencing our decision whether to detain suspects, no, it's not. Thank you. Now I've got five questions from... Oh, go on. Yeah, no, just to say thank you for the answer. I just, my point about it influencing decisions by the police, I'm just wondering if it undermines the work of the police, but that's combined with failures of other public services like the courts and probation. Do Surrey police have a greater workload, or are they undermined by the general failure of public services in this country? I don't think there is, so no. But, I mean, you will all be aware that particularly since COVID, across the country we're experiencing court backlogs, and all of that work is ongoing. I don't believe that this is particularly playing into it, and actually Surrey Police have, so I think as of last week, possibly certainly last month, Surrey Police have charged 3,000 more offences than in the same period the year before. That tells you how well Surrey Police is performing, particularly under our new Chief Constable, so clearly it's not having any detrimental effect. In fact, it's getting better. Thank you for that. Now, as I've got five questions from Councillor Kennedy, if you'd like to read out question one, we have had a response, so obviously we don't need a full response. Sorry, can I just add, just in case it's slightly unclear to anyone, as you mentioned, Councillor Kennedy, Councillor Kennedy's questions, some of which have already been touched on their substantive items earlier in the agenda. So if any of them seem familiar, that's why. I don't know if you want to go through the ones that have not been touched on yet, or all of them. I think three of the five questions have already been dealt with, and the other two, the first one, the question was nearly two years ago, and you can find it on Decision 47-2022 on the Commissioner's website. The Commissioner decided to commission a fire governance review essentially into whether to take over Surrey's fire and rescue service, and why has the review taken so long? I think it was originally scheduled, I think, for April 2023. I have seen the response. I guess my supplementary question is basically in response to the news that the Commissioner received the work in early 2024, but is not currently progressing it. What did the work say in our plan? Commissioner. I think, Councillor, it would be wrong to say that it was a review with an intention of taking over the fire service. What it was was a relatively light-touch piece of work that looked at a report that had been made five years previously by KPMG around options for future fire governance in Surrey. And I suppose the principal difference from five years ago to the point at which the Commissioner received the report was the steer that we had from the then government, that they very much wanted fire governance to be in the hands of an elected individual, ideally a directly elected individual. So the information that the Commissioner had in the most recent piece of work did look at the KPMG options through that lens. That said, we got the report early in the year. It was then the Police and Fire Bureau's around fire governance. So at the moment, the direction we're getting from the Commissioner is this is on ice, if you like. It is not a priority, so it is where it is. And we all-- well, some of us heard Councillor Fury a year or so ago when he was giving an impassioned plea against that. I appreciate that we have a new government. I've heard comments to the extent that they believe, certainly, in elected mayors. And so actually, their approach may not be that different from the previous one. But excluding the external political imperative, was there any change found in the-- significant change found in the circumstances-- No significant change was found. As the Chief Exec said, it was very, very light touch in terms of reviewing that. And the big change, again, as Alison said, really was the government, the Home Office's direction around it. So I think it would be wrong for me to focus on that piece of work as PCC now given-- I mean, we've all discussed how much there is going on at the moment without any further direction of government. I agree with you, Councillor Kennedy. It would be interesting to see what this government wants to do around evolution. There have been mixed signals, particularly when it comes to policing around evolution. There's a combination of we want mayors, we want decisions taken really locally, but also we want to-- you know, some of our funding, we want to be more centralized and we want to have a more centralized grip on policing. So I'll be interested to see how that plays out in terms of this. And until that happens, I will let the rest of you wait with bated breath. Thank you. Your next question? Yes, this was a question about-- the question was a number of Surrey councils are reviewing their provision of public realm CCTV for use by Surrey Police following the withdrawal of Surrey Police from the previous longstanding monitoring arrangements. In the absence of a Surrey wide CCTV strategy and Surrey Police's previous strategy have now expired, how is the commissioner overseeing this process to ensure that the resulting CCTV coverage across the county is effective, appropriately targeted and equitable? I have a particular interest in this because that is currently considering its provision, but I've been watching with interest what's happening in Rygate and Banstead and I think Councillor Baker has offered to compare notes with me. I guess it is a curious position, some of the responses we get from people, from residents. The whole point of the CCTV is to help the police and so while local authorities having to pay for it seems to be the challenge and yet the public want us to, so that's the struggle we have and we see in some cases safer streets funding has been provided to certain individual boroughs but not to others and so for those of us that haven't, it's a particular challenge. I think I've provided quite a full answer there and I know it's there to help. We're all here to help residents, that's what CCTV, where it works is there for, regardless of who is providing it and we're all in the business of supporting our residents and wanting to keep them safe and I suppose the reality is we can say it's there to help the police, but when I speak to officers it's not as helpful as some of our public think it is and that's the reality and I've set out my answer why that's the case. The evidence isn't quite there, but the answer is quite full. I know we've had this conversation a number of times around it. I suppose I wait for interest as well what Mulvally decide to do and it is for Mulvally to decide. Yes, thank you. I seem to remember we've raised this subject several times before and I believe the police are liaising with other council leaders to do a policy and yet that hasn't been forthcoming and I think that's been some years now since they've made that promise. So I would be very interested when they're actually going to do something. Councillor Kennedy, did you have another final question? No, I think the other questions have all been dealt with. Thank you. Right, in that case then we'll move on to Item 15 which is complaints received since the last meeting. To note the complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner received since the last panel and in fact three complaints were received as I said in front of you. Two were considered by the complaints subsequently while one had the complaints. Protocols were supplied and was not considered. You are aware the Chief Executive made the rule on that and we agreed. Can we note that report please? Councillor Kennedy. I'll be allowed to know what the outcome of the two complaints was in outline. Can we just close that? I know that I have since written to our response was on hold because of the complaints process ironically enough. I haven't received a response from her or her team but I assume it was received. Okay, I mean we don't want to go into detail in the background but it was about late response basically and that was because of the elections. Yes, that's right. The panel did get a copy. I'm sure that a copy can be shared with you Councillor Kennedy if you haven't seen it. Yeah, I can certainly double check the rules on disclosure and if everyone's happy with that then we can send it around if you're happy. I certainly have no problem with the letter that I sent and I'm quite happy to share it directly with Councillor Kennedy if the panel encounters problems with it. I think the third complaint was dis-applied because it was a repeat. That's correct, yeah. I'm not on the complaints subcommittee so all I see is it's quite limited. I remember there was in the past an occasion where I think you disagreed with the recommendation. I think this was a slightly different one in that the timing meant that the response that was about to be sent was then not sent because a complaint was put in and actually had the complaint not been put in they'd have had the response much sooner. So I believe the subcommittee's recommendation was yes and the response which we did. I'm more than happy Paul to share it with you if you're interested and as the author of it I can share it. So even if the panel have problems with it for whatever reason but yeah. It's the process I'm interested in more than the specific process. I appreciate that, yeah. Yeah, we'll get that circulated to all the members. It is a matter of time and it was, as the Commissioner said, sorted out. So can we all note that report please? Thank you. So on to the complaints subcommittee appointment. The panel is invited to make an appointment to the complaints subcommittee to fill the vacancy created by the departure of Councillor Paul from the panel. A nomination has been received and that is for Councillor Wilson. Are there any other nominations at this point? I see nothing coming forward. I will take that as a general consent. Do we agree please? Councillor Wilson you are now on the complaints, good luck. Recommendations, tracker and forward work programme. The panel to track recommendation action is made at formal panel meetings and to review upcoming agenda items. Are there any questions on this? I've got no questions here. Anybody wants to raise a question? In that case can we note the report please? It is now half past one. We're half an hour ahead of schedule but unless there's anything else that anybody wants to bring up I will say that is the end of the meeting. Thank you very much and I hope you have safe journeys home. Thank you all very much for coming and avoid the rainstorms and flooding that are coming our way.