Transcript

Edmund's now had a biscuit, and he got a coffee, so he's happy. I hope you're all feeling well fed and watered. Anyway, I'd like to thank you all for coming of us this morning. It's up past 10, so we'll start. We have got a quarry, so we've got nine members here. So, I'd like to welcome everyone to this meeting, the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, Monday the 3rd of February at 10.30am in the council chamber here. There is no fire during expected today, so if you do hear it, I'm afraid you'll hear it. It's real. In case of an emergency, please, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit, which presumably here would be that one, and assemble at the top car park, which is just outside, reporting to a member of the building and management team. Staff will be on hand to guide you to your nearest exit. Please ensure your mobile phones are either switched off or put on to silent. Social media use. In line with our guidance on the use of social media, I'm happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the committee, to use social media if this does not disturb the business of the meeting. Webcasts. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public, and a recording will be available online afterwards. Webcasts. Microsoft Teams. I'd like to also mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference via Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please do not use it. Its use limits the transparency and open discussion we aim to maintain in a public meeting. I can't actually see anybody on the screen. Do you know if anybody's joining? No, we don't have anyone joining on the screen. OK, so I'm told there won't be anybody joining anyway. Meeting speaking rules. For those officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand function. If you'd like to speak, and please mute your microphone and turn off your camera when not speaking. Microphone use. For those officers and members who have joined us in person, may our players ask anyone presenting to speak clearly, and directly, and directly into their microphones. When called upon to speak, press the right hand button on your microphone, and start speaking when the red light appears. Please remember to turn off your microphone when you're finished. If you are sharing your desk and microphone, then you need to press the right or left hand button, depending on which side of the microphone. Can you not hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? I can try putting this closer. Let's put that a bit closer. Is that any better? OK. Right, well, let's start. No, it's better. I can hear it myself now. Almost got an echo. Right, let's start the meeting agenda. Apologies for absence and substitutions. Apologies have been received from councillors Tony Burrell, councillor Danielle Newsom, and councillor Shanice Goldman. Thank you. Thank you. Minutes of the previous meeting, to approve the Minutes is a true and accurate record of the previous meeting. Are we all happy that they are factually correct? Thank you very much. Declarations of interest, receive any declarations of disclosable, peculiarly interests, significant personal interests, any gifts or hospitality accepted. We haven't had any advance. Is there anybody who wishes to declare? I see no hands. Thank you very much. Public questions. Have we had any, James? No, we see it. Thank you. So we come to the real first item of the agenda, which is to appointment of the co-opted independent member. The purpose of this paper is to set out the process that has been followed in order to select a co-opted independent member onto the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, and to recommend appointment to the position. As you know, we've had independent members before, and they are very helpful to the panel. The panel is asked to approve the appointment of Mrs. Samantha Sheriff to one of the vacant roles as co-opted independent member of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for a four-year term. Sam, can I just ask you to raise your hand so that everybody can see you? Those members or police who have not seen you. Lovely. That is Sam over there. Thank you very much. So, we need to adopt her, I hope. So I will formally make that resolution that we need to adopt the independent member. Can I have sharp hands, please, for those who agree? That's unanimous. Sorry, were you actually going to ask a question, Paul? I was offering to second, but perhaps it wasn't needed. Nice. I don't think it's needed for that. But if we do need it, we've got a seconder. Thank you very much. So, welcome to the panel. Hope you enjoy it. And we look forward to you joining us and asking questions when we have these meetings. Thank you very much. It's great to be here. So, on to item six, the draft, police and crime plan. Okay, this report introduces the draft, police and crime plan, 2025-28, for comment from the police and crime panel. John, I've got six of the cyber financial reports. Yes, we've altered the agenda slightly so that the finances run into each other. Is that all right? No, that's fine. It's just that I haven't had an agency back. Ah, okay. No, at our pre-meeting, I think it was Thursday, we suggested it would probably be better if it was to call the finances rather than have that lump in the middle. So, we've taken the crime plan first and then do the two finances. Sorry, I should have told you that. I didn't realise you hadn't got that on your new agenda. Okay, so, as I say, this is the draft, police and crime plan. So, can I ask you to introduce, please? Certainly, with pleasure. So, as members will know, I was elected less than a year ago on a promise of back-to-basics policing in Surrey. I'm very pleased to see the chief constable and the forcer delivering on that promise, which is excellent. Surrey Police is now one of the fastest-improving forces in the country, with more arrests, more charges, and faster response times than we've had. And, as the panel will be aware, more police officers than Surrey's ever had in its history. This plan is really a refocus of the first plan. We're not completely, you know, going back to the complete drawing board here. I think that's really important. Panel members will be aware that there's been quite an extensive consultation. I hope that panel members supported the consultation and shared it widely. So, what this does is set out, in very broad terms, the plan for the coming four years. It's not intended to hit every buzzword. And it shouldn't be assumed that the plan is everything that I, as Police and Crime Commissioner, expect from the force or from the chief constable. But it certainly is what came out of the consultation in terms of the public's priorities and, obviously, based on over three years as Police and Crime Commissioner already in Surrey, what I've seen, what I know the force does well, what I think, where we think we need improvements. And, of course, the many thousands of people that I have met during my first three years as Police and Crime Commissioner and also more recently that the chief constable and I met during our Police in Your Community 12 events around the county. So, yes, I welcome any questions on the plan. Thank you, Commissioner. As you're aware, the panel must make a report to the Commissioner on a draft Police and Crime plan in accordance with Section 28 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. So, questions, consultation, have any members of the panel got any questions? I believe we start with Councillor Mike Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. The covering report, paragraph 4.9, refers to a robust and inclusive consultation being deemed essential, with which I would agree. Is there evidence that the methodology and the number of members of the public that participated in the consultation, that it is statistically representative of Surrey as a county? The one aspect that caught my eye was responses to question 13, what is your age? It's immediately evident that over 75% of those responses are from age groups 50 plus. So, I'd like to ask how that was adjusted for or how you sought to bring in the views of younger age groups to ensure a fair balance. And likewise with the other various important characteristics. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm just going to address the other important characteristics. I see from the what is your sex question that was pretty much even. I'll come on to the young point in a moment. I, too, notice the fact that the majority of people, but if I'm perfectly honest, if I look around at the panel and all of us, then, you know, I think we probably all have work to do. I'm not going to sort of go into county or district and borough council representation either, but I think we all know there's work to do. So, the consultation was promoted extensively. I hope that panel members each did their bit in terms of promoting it amongst their specific constituents. As I said, the consultation forms part of. It is not a referendum. It's really important to point that out. I was elected less than a year ago on a manifesto. But, let's be honest, I'm aware that was based partly on my first police and crime plan as well and what I did in my first three years. This was not an attempt to rerun that election. This was a consultation process to get people's views on specific areas. An awful lot of work went in, including by Damien Markland from my office and the deputy police and crime commissioner as well, in terms of talking to groups who would be specifically affected. We can talk a bit about that where appropriate. And also, of course, the online consultation as well. The panel have, you know, you've got the full statistical breakdown around it. But I do think the point around age is an important one. So, I'm going to ask the deputy police and crime commissioner, who, as many of you will know, works an awful lot with young people in Surrey around their concerns around policing and crime, just to comment on that. Thank you, Commissioner. Councillor Smith, you will also note in the first paragraph of the draft plan, it mentions drawing on the feedback and experiences that Commissioner and I have had over the past four years, too. I think it's really important to note that when the commissioner was elected, four years ago now, we didn't have much youth input at all in any formal mechanism. And since that's happened together, we've both introduced the Surrey Youth Commission, who give a continuous feedback loop into policing and into our office. We're about to publish their second annual report and their third year of functioning is now well underway. So, whilst they may not have, you know, completed the survey, we did speak with them quite a lot during that process. We also spoke with teachers and school representatives. So, we've got that feedback of professional youth voice as well, as well as youth workers. And actually, you'll probably recognise that a lot of teachers are sort of in that middle bracket. So, they're not quite youth, but under 50. And throughout all those consultation sessions that Damien and I hosted, those individuals were also asked for their personal feedback at the end. So, we did get that sort of resident buy-in as well as their professional opinion in those sessions. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Paul Kennedy, Mulvalley. I just, you've sort of half answered the question already. But the question was, how has the public consultation survey influenced the draft plan? And how has this been evidenced? And I ask that primarily because the five headlines, most of them don't really appear in the survey at all. So, back to basics policing doesn't appear in any of the answers here, for example. And not even these confident communities as well. At what level have the survey responses actually affected the content of the plan? I don't, I'm at the risk of repeating myself about it not being a referendum and having been elected on a manifesto. Damien, do you want to talk a little bit about the methodology for Councillor Kennedy's benefit? Morning, everyone. I would say the best way of thinking about it is that the public survey, the quantitative data we acquired through that, set the foundations for us to then look at the qualitative data that we drew out of the focus groups. And it was a process of using that to inform the development of specific actions, which in turn led to the development of the high-level priorities, many of which, to a certain extent, are carried over from the previous police and crime plans. So, it's probably hard to answer exactly how it worked because it's a process that takes place over a period of time and you go through the various data points that you've got and it refines itself over that analysis. That's probably the best way of thinking about it. It's probably worth also highlighting that the five categories are used to sort of collate together things that the public have brought up. So, it's not necessarily that those individual titles will reference the survey, but we've grouped together issues that came up repeatedly within the survey under them. Councillor Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Councillor Richard Wilson from Surrey Heathborough Council. I take the point that it's not just the consultation, there's focus groups and other inputs into this, but it's interesting that road safety has been dropped as a priority and I speak to a lot of people on the doorstep and really it is pretty much the top concern is about road safety. And I'm just wondering how that fed in and for what reason has road safety been dropped? Thank you. So, road safety has not been dropped. Whilst you might not see it in the same way as it was in the first plan, I wouldn't want Councillor Wilson to be under the misapprehension that the force or that I don't care about road safety because we absolutely do and I do an awful lot of work around road safety, actually. But, again, reflecting on the public consultation, reflecting on the issues that come up at our meetings and the conversations that I've had. And as I said at the outset, please don't think that I was trying to get every buzzword in. I absolutely wasn't. What we're looking at is an overall plan that is by no means... Not everything is going to be in here. If anybody's looking for specific words, then they may well be disappointed. But I don't want anybody to think that road safety is not an incredibly important part of the police and crime plan, either for myself or the Chief Constable. Councillor Kennedy, I think you wanted to come. Councillor Wilson, I think it's also worth highlighting that the OPCC and Surrey Police were both key partners in the new Vision Zero strategy for the county, which was led by county council but really had buy-in from all partners, including Fire and Rescue 2 and Highways. If you don't feel that you've heard enough of me today, I encourage you to go to the Vision Zero website where you can listen to and watch the video, which is actually my voiceover. Councillor Kennedy, you want to come back on your question? Yes. Part of the reason that I was asking the question about the survey is a selfish one and as I sit on our local community safety partnership in Moll Valley and in preparing our priorities and action plan for next year, we've been waiting for this plan because obviously this is a crucial plan that we want to support. Another very useful aspect of this is clearly the survey responses. Usually our action plan is much more directed at specific categories of crime, so it would be very, very helpful to have that analysis of showing how, in my case, Moll Valley, but presumably colleagues around the room may be interested in their areas as well, how our area compares with the rest so that we can identify those areas where there are particular concerns that we should be prioritising in our own local area. Could we have that support? What we could do is drill down to your specific CSP area and see whether we could pull out the data specifically for your region, if that would be useful. Okay, thank you. Moving on to priority one, back to basics policing then. Councillor Chain. Thank you, Chairman. Barry Chain, Elbridge Park Council. Good morning, Commissioner. And I think this is, yeah, under priority one, the Commissioner commits to continue to work with partners to push for improvements in the wider criminal justice system with a particular focus on enhancing timelines. I think we all know that the present system is not working particularly well, particularly since COVID, and bringing an awful lot of emotional stress, particularly to victims. So does this statement within the priority one, does this mean that the Commissioner will broadly support government proposals for reforms to changes to the courts and tribunal systems? Thank you, Councillor Chain. Good morning. So you'll be aware that we are, as always, working to deliver any reforms that are set out by this government in relation to the courts and tribunal system. Part of my duty, obviously, is to uphold the law and ensure an effective criminal justice system, particularly as chair of the Criminal Justice Board in Surrey. However, what I would say is that my role is not to determine national policy, but to help shape its implementation. So I would just say, as per the wording within the plan, I'll keep engaging with partners right across the justice system to advocate for improvements that address very specific local challenges that we have here in Surrey, particularly, I should say, in enhancing timeliness and efficiency, because we know that that's a real challenge for us and affects everything. Panel will remember the presentation we had about victims at the last meeting, and it particularly affects them. It affects the number of victims that we have across our county, of course. So I will keep working with what the government tell us we're working with as well and effectively as I can and making sure that we are liaising with all of our partners. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Yes, thank you. And again, I think, Commissioner, you've already spoken to this a bit already. It's the rationale for the structure of the five priorities and what relationship this has to the Chief Constable's plan. During the roadshows last year, I think that the Chief Constable made pretty clear that his plan was largely a response to the Peel inspection report in December 2023. And so what is that relationship? I recognise quite a lot of the objectives from our plan in the back-to-basics objective, but it would be just good to have confirmation about that relationship. Yeah, I mean, there isn't a new structure. It's the same structure as the last police and crime plan, which also highlighted, featured five high-level priorities and sat under a number of actions and strands of work, and the new plan adopts the same structure as that. Obviously, the changes are a reflection, as we've discussed about, and are refocusing on feedback from consultation and conversations that have been had over the last four years. The police and crime plan, as you say, Councillor Kennedy, does sort of naturally affect some key elements of our plan, and many of them are, as you say, specifically under priority one. But the police and crime plan is designed to be, and is not just by me, but in statute, and to reflect the role of the police and crime commissioner as opposed to the role of the police force or the Chief Constable, much, much wider in scope and goes far beyond operational policing, obviously into commissioning and the other areas and the partnership work. And so operational policing is obviously the focus of the Chief Constable, whereas my role is much broader and wider, and the plan reflects that. Yes, Councillor Kennedy. Just going back on back to basics as a concept, I remember that from John Major, I think, in the 1990s, and it's a slightly slippery slogan in the sense that I think everyone around this room might have a different view of what back to basics means and potentially Donald Trump would probably have a different view from everyone in this room, I suspect. Are you satisfied that that gives sufficient clarity about what is required? I can understand that following the Peel inspection report there was a need to go back to basics, but looking forward to the next four years, wouldn't it be more helpful to have something that's a bit more, a bit clearer about what you're trying to achieve as opposed to just going back to basics? Councillor Kennedy will probably remember John Major Premiership better than I will, but, and I suspect, Councillor Kennedy, you also remember the election campaign last year. And if you read any of my literature, you will see that back to basics policing was one of the main things that I campaigned on. So I am satisfied that the public understood it, not only understood it, but clearly supported it. I think it's perfectly clear. Yes, I am happy with it. The Chief Constable and I understand it. I've not come across anybody who doesn't or has a problem with it. Councillor Kennedy and others will make of it what they will, but I think that the details under priority one are pretty clear. And certainly, as I say, when I've been out and about talking to the public over the last few weeks, months and years, they certainly seem to understand it. Thank you. Councillor Wilson, nothing to your question. Thank you, Chair. In the last part of back to basics, it mentions the suspicious activity portal. This is the potential to gather a lot of data on innocent people as well as potentially suspicious people. But are Surrey police careful enough with this data? It's photos, it's videos of people, it's facial images. Are they careful enough with that? And do they dispose of it and delete it safely when it's no longer required? I'm sure that Councillor Wilson is very aware of all of the laws around this particular area, which are very, very strict. And yes, I'm very confident that the police understand the laws as well. Thank you. Then moving on to priority two, protecting vulnerable people in Surrey. Councillor Baker. Thank you, Chairman. Priority two, protecting vulnerable people in Surrey, makes reference to supporting partners, services and initiatives required to assist vulnerable groups and those over-represented in the criminal justice system. Though the commissioning update presentation that this panel received last November clarified the significant threats to grant funding for many commission services. How will the OPCC and the Surrey police commit to the plan's various aims in the face of this threatened funding environment? Thank you, Councillor Baker. Good morning. So budgetary challenges, as we're all aware, are a reality. Everybody working across districts and boroughs and county will be aware of that as well. And the team and I are absolutely committed to commissioning services to support the ambitions within the police and crime plan. And as we talked about at the last meeting, it does require making some difficult decisions. We've got to ensure that funding is directed where it's going to have the greatest impact. But commissioning activity will absolutely continue and I remain and the team remains completely focused on securing the best possible outcomes for vulnerable people in Surrey. As is highlighted in the priority and as has been said already, the office does not work in isolation. So we actively seek joint commissioning opportunities with other local agencies and we ensure that resources are pooled effectively to maximise support for those who we know in our county need it most. The collaboration, and you'll have heard an awful lot, obviously, at the last meeting about that collaboration, it does strengthen our ability to deliver services in a sustainable way, even when financial circumstances are as challenging as they are now. And I think in addition to that, the OPCC does have an incredibly strong track record that goes sort of way before my time of identifying successfully bidding for government funding streams to support those specific strands of work. That proactive approach is going to continue, which will allow us to supplement our core funding and delivery of targeted interventions, again, where they're most needed. And of course, that is subject to the availability of government funding, which at the moment is a sort of daily conversation that's being had. It's also, I think, really, really important to recognise that the role of myself as PCC, the Deputy PCC, and in fact, the entire office, extends sort of far beyond that direct funding piece. And of course, the office plays a really, really key role in bringing together partners across the criminal justice system, as I've already said, as chair of the Criminal Justice Board, local government, voluntary sector, where we address, obviously, the systematic challenges, improve service coordination, and make better use of all of our existing resources as well. So funding is a really, really important tool. It's by no means the only one at our disposal. And what I would say to that collaboration point as well is, you know, you will sort of see the formal meetings that are held and the ones that I'm required to hold from a statutory point of view, but there are an awful lot of other meetings that I either chair or take part in, or my office takes part in, that do exactly that. And I think it's those conversations, actually, within those rooms where we can make a real difference to the vulnerable in Surrey. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman. Can you please explain how you decided which items are covered in this item, protecting vulnerable people in Surrey, and also in the following items, following objectives, preventing violence against women and girls, and also strengthening safe and resilient communities? For example, why is rural communities a group under vulnerable people, as opposed to strengthening safe and resilient communities? And clearly, children includes all children, but girls and, indeed, boys are also considered, again, under violence against women and girls, and ethnic minorities, disabled people, LGBTQ+, people, who are probably the most vulnerable people in Surrey that we can think of often, are not mentioned here at all. So, again, at risk of repeating myself, the police and crime plan is not intended to cover every possible issue, every area of work that we will undertake over the coming years. So, specific strands of work are identified in the plan, and the overarching priorities, I believe, do provide enough flexibility, and that flexibility is really important. This plan has to last for four years, and so it has to be flexible enough. It's got to be a living document that enables it to do that without me coming back to the panel every year and rewriting it. And so it does have to be flexible enough, and we can't have both high-level enough to capture everything and detailed enough that it doesn't allow for that flexibility. And I think that we also have to be very careful, if I'm honest, about... And I say this as sort of, you know, somebody who would obviously come under the violence against women and girls sort of side of it, but it's really, really important not to view demographic groups as uniform entities requiring a single approach. somebody who is gay living in Surrey will identify themselves as more than just being a gay person living in Surrey, as will somebody who is disabled will view themselves as having many more characteristics than just being disabled. And the plan structure reflects the reality that individuals within the same group can have different needs and will depend on their different factors and their different contexts. You know, you think particularly of sort of financial ability of people and their working status may well be more important than whether they're trans or whether they're in a wheelchair in terms of their ability and what they need and their vulnerabilities. So no policy document is ever going to fully capture the complexities of the full human experience, quite frankly. If we're going to ensure clarity and effective progress monitoring, which I'm sure the panel will want to follow up over the coming years, decisions have got to be made about how the plan is structured. I think much like a cake, you could have cut it in many, many different ways. It doesn't mean that the issues that aren't explicitly mentioned are going to be overlooked. But I think that this framework, I'm very confident that this framework allows for a broad and responsive approach to the emerging needs and I don't doubt that Councillor Kennedy and other colleagues here will hold me to those over the coming years. Thank you. Councillor Chain. Oh, sorry, no. We're all communities. So I've got the first question. I was forgetting myself up here. The plan states that the OPCC will actively monitor government funding opportunities relevant to work in rural crime. Does this constitute a change in the OPC's present policy and if so, why? Has the funding landscape for work in rural crime changed in recent times? As you know, rural crime is something that's dear to me and Councillor Kennedy as well, representing rural areas. I've heard. So, in recent years, as the panel will be aware, government funding priorities have prioritised specific areas such as violence against women and girls. Indeed, the last government did it, most notably through Safer Streets funding that we were allowed to bid for. It was very specifically for projects that prevented violence against women and girls. This government has done the same thing in that they've protected money specifically in the budget and the spending review for violence against women and girls within the Home Office and the MOJ. And so, therefore, we've had a lot of external funding streams have been directed towards specifically those initiatives. Broading funder posts that Ed Potts are a safe streets fund. You will have noticed have been much more focused on urban areas. And again, that's a choice from the government rather than a choice from me as PCC or individuals PCCs. I suspect we're going to see more of that with this government than the last, if anything. In fact, we're already seeing that in the funding allocation that's been handed out to PCCs in the last, just the last week and beyond. We're very much seeing that money as being concentrated in more urban areas. And I think when it comes to obviously the three-year spending review is being looked at at the moment, I think it's very unlikely, for example, that Surrey is going to be a particular beneficiary from this Treasury. So that is something that we are all going to have to deal with and to sort of cut our cloth appropriately. At present, the future direction of government funding remains somewhat uncertain. As I said, we've got a three-year spending review that's happening at the moment, so we'll wait and see what that looks like. Our approach, my approach, is to ensure that the needs of rural communities are at the forefront are at the forefront of our minds when funding opportunities do arise. It may require a slightly more creative, shall we say, interpretation of the eligibility criteria and a more proactive, I suspect, approach in terms of making the case for investment in rural policing and in crime prevention. I wouldn't say it's a change in policy. We've always been very committed to supporting rural communities, but it is a refinement, I think, of the approach, ensuring that we're fully prepared to identify, capitalise on those opportunities as they arise and so that we can bring meaningful improvements to policing and community safety in Surrey's rural areas. We're not quite ready, but I would like to come to the panel in future meetings with more information on what we're doing around rural crime and rural communities, including environmental crime, but for now, I'm going to let the DPCC just give you a bit of hot-off-the-press news around some of the work that she and I have both been doing and engaging in with our neighbours as well. Thanks, Commissioner. It's nice to have a question from the chair because we can actually look at you at the same time as leaning into the microphone. As the Commissioner mentioned, it's not a change in approach but rather a reaffirmation of our commitment to rural communities and keeping an eye out for anything that we can do to support. As an optimist, I'd also say there's a cautious optimism there from me that we might see some additional funding opportunities from government but also potentially from other sources too. So, over the last particularly 18 months, there's been a big focus on collaborative working and that's both at a regional level and a national level. And as part of that, as I've mentioned in panels before, in order to ensure that Surrey's really got a seat at the table, I'm already also a board member of the National Rural Crime Network. So, we're doing as much as we can to maximise those opportunities. But as that sort of collaborative working has become more embedded, it's really started to see some success. And I'd say I remain optimistic that as that's sort of delivered, the government might realise that we can maximise on that a little bit more and potentially lead to some funding options that we can keep an eye on. Yes, can I thank you for that full answer and thank you very much for keeping an eye on the rural communities. And I look forward to success in the future to bring some money in. Thank you. Councillor Chain. Thank you, Chairman. I think, although this question is listed under rural communities, I think it applies probably across the board. The mental, or sorry, the plan states in the section headed mental health that the force will continue to implement and oversee the delivery of the right care, right person model. It was intended that this model would reduce the time officers were having to spend with vulnerable people, particularly mental health, people with mental health difficulties. Can any savings accruing from the implementation of this model be quantified and has this had any impact on the forces manpower or overtime requirements in financial terms? Thank you. I think there's a number of things to say on this and these are conversations I've had both nationally in my capacity as the mental health lead nationally, a role I've just relinquished, but during the implementation and then the conversations around right care, right person, this was a conversation we had an awful lot with the government at the time around that and with Humberside who many of the members here will be aware were the first force to implement right care, right person. The team have been discussing this in quite some detail with the force specifically around are we able to quantify it and I don't think we are going to be in a position to ever quantify it in a way that is meaningful. I know lots of numbers have been bandied around by other police forces and nationally about the savings. I'm a little bit sceptical about it and that's because the reality is that any time that is freed up by right care, right person and it is happening which is great and I notice that when I'm out speaking to officers in our safer neighbourhoods teams particularly on the ground anecdotally time is being freed up and that's great but it is always and very quickly absorbed by other operational demands and so given the nature of policing and officer workloads which are highly dynamic we don't have a mechanism that I would trust in order to track or measure this redistribution of time in a way that will be financially meaningful but I absolutely believe the premise of the model remains completely justified it ensures that vulnerable people receive as it says the right care from the right person at the right time it improves outcomes for those individuals but also of course really importantly as well it allows officers to focus on their core policing duties which makes a better use of the overall resources that policing has available to it just coming back on that very slightly I questioned our own borough commander about this and she told me that one of the big problems that the force was having was a very grave shortage of professionals from the other services to take care of this I was just wondering if this had been found in other areas of the county I think it's absolutely I think when it comes to mental health services and health services generally it's something that we see right across the county and that's why the chief constable was initially chairing that gold group specifically on Right Care Right Person because it did bring together all of those partnership services that are relevant to mental health including children's services together in order to have these discussions whereas in some areas Surrey Police was by no means the last but we weren't one of the first couple of forces to go in and implement Right Care Right Person very specifically because the chief constable wanted to do it in partnership with those services and not do it to those services and I think that was absolutely the right call and a very very important one and it does mean that when we did get started we noticed the benefits quite quickly but none of that changes the fact that our health care services are stretched mental health particularly and that's not so much a reduction in mental health care staff it's an increase in mental health poor mental health demand and people experiencing crisis in the county and nationally clearly so I do think there's more work to do but I do think that Surrey Police have got the approach right by working with those partners and with those services it's something certainly that I want to continue to explore through the community safety board which I'll be chairing because I do think it's an incredibly important part of making sure that our communities across Surrey are receiving the best services they possibly can from policing and from our partners thank you so moving on to priority three which is preventing violence against women and girls so if I could ask our new independent person Mrs. Samantha Sheriff please thank you chairman priority three focuses on violence against women and girls and considers the potential step of formally recognising as victims the families of perpetrators of sexual crimes along with other forms of hidden victims is there any analysis of the resource implications this would have on Surrey Police and the courts and tribunal service and have other proposals been similarly modelled thank you welcome to the panel so priority three action primarily relates to our commission services and so wouldn't directly impact Surrey Police or courts in terms of operational demand but it is about recognising that wider impact of serious crimes on family units and ensuring that appropriate support is always there for people when they need it as the wording of the action suggests the full review of existing services and potential opportunities to enhance and of course expand provision hasn't yet taken place and so the specific resource implications are yet to be fully assessed by the team but it is something ongoing it does remain both in Surrey and nationally an incredibly important area of focus and as we develop that understanding we are going to work obviously and continue to work I should say very closely with partners to explore the feasibility of any changes including potential resources it is also an issue that at Criminal Justice Board we have as a standing item to touch on there because it is a real issue in terms of that wider criminal justice piece we know for example that victims of violence against women and girls particularly female victims of rape will often spend far too long in the criminal justice system before getting an outcome either way and so that is something that we explore at every Criminal Justice Board in terms of that and work very closely I work very closely with the Victims Minister as well who is equally as committed to this as I am in making sure that those victims are kept within the system and are supported and I think I hope for those members who were there that really came through from Rachel Roberts at the last meeting when she talked about the Victim and Witness Care Unit Thank you very much Councillor Wilson Thank you Chair the government's target is to reduce violence against women and girls by 50% in a decade what is Surrey's target So Surrey Police was actually one of the first forces to develop a dedicated Vogue policing strategy and has fully adopted the NPCC Vogue delivery framework the framework as Councillor Wilson I'm sure will be aware focuses on preparing policing to effectively respond to and reduce Vogue protect individuals and communities from Vogue relentlessly pursue perpetrators of Vogue and prevent people from committing violence against women and girls My plan obviously places a strong emphasis on tackling Vogue in Surrey and the panel recall the last meeting provided an update on our commission services many of whom directly support victims of rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse That said and I think this is really important reducing violence against women and girls is not of course solely the responsibility of police It requires collective effort from local councils, partner agencies and the wider community and again as members heard at the last meeting there is an excellent motion available for councils and councillors to put forward in their own areas and it's for that reason that neither I nor police set a numerical reduction target instead our focus is on implementing meaningful actions that drive real change rather than pursuing a figure that we can only ever slightly influence and I'm also as I said I think at the first time I ever appeared in front of this panel I am very very wary of targets around this area and I think I said at the first panel around domestic abuse as well because we've got to encourage victims to come forward One of the things that we know for sure about violence against women and girls domestic abuse rape, sexual assault is that not enough people come forward, not enough women come forward and report these crimes violence and so if anything I want to see more women more people reporting this kind of violence this kind of sexual assault and that may well mean an increase in volume and I would not consider that to be a negative Thank you did you want to come back Thank you I take the point that we do want more reporting but the government can have a numerical target over a period of time surely Surrey should be able to and if there is no numerical target how will we know if the plan has been successful I will leave targets set by this government to this government and I'm not going to suppose there are reasons for doing it I'm very sceptical of the targets set by government for all the reasons I just set out and I've been very open with the minister about that I am sure that this panel together with over the coming months and Damien Markland as you will be well aware we are working on the sort of measures and it will appear obviously on the data hub as well I want to see police dealing better with the victims that we've got I want to see more women feeling that they can report that's certainly how I will be judging it it is up to the panel how they choose to decide whether I have achieved it or not Thank you Councillor Smith Thank you Chair Commissioner you mentioned just a moment ago about the need for strong relationships between partner organisations and the police and you reference that in the together we will section under this objective the second statement there talks about strengthening those relationships but it also refers to rebuild trust and partnership effectiveness maybe pedantic or semantics but using the word rebuild rather than build or maintain suggests perhaps there's a feeling that trust and effectiveness have declined do you feel that's the case and if so what are the reasons for that I don't think it's declined but like all organisations of course Surrey Police is continuously this is Surrey Police and not just my office I should say so Surrey Police is continuously reviewing its governance structures to ensure of course that they're effective and it does sometimes lead to the establishment or sometimes dissolution of various internal boards and working groups historically local service providers and particularly those delivering VAUG related services were actively involved in those governance structures and some even co-chaired certain force meetings and that has reduced because of course different priorities come up and the force needs to make sure that it's efficient as possible as well it's really really important to clarify though I think that the decision to adjust the structures isn't about never about distancing from partners but part of an evolving approach to governance and making sure the force are getting it right that said feedback from stakeholder engagement sessions with local service providers the feedback that the work that we've done as an office has made it very clear that there is a strong need to bring these organisations closer again I'm absolutely not looking to and nor could I or should I dictate to the chief as to how it should be achieved that's for him and I'm not suggesting that emulating the previous model is the ideal solution or the only solution either but I do think we have to acknowledge the experience of the frontline workers in supporting victims of VAUG and generally is invaluable I want to make sure their voices are fully heard of course by the leadership at Surrey Police but I would ask Damien Marklin just to come in because Damien as some members of the committee will be aware has an awful lot of experience working on the victims brief in Surrey and so was around long before my time and would have been aware of some of those previous structures as well I think I'll probably just echo what Lisa just said in the sense that there was more formal engagement on those boards historically it has dropped away slightly I wouldn't want to speak for the chief but I would suspect he'd say something along the lines that he needed to grab the board by the proverbial horns to move the organisation in the direction he wanted to go and I think with that we did lose some of that direct input into those boards but relationships overall with the Vorg delivery organisations right across all of our commission services does remain really good and I've worked a lot across the country with other PCC offices and I do think that our relationship both as an office and as a force with these organisations is definitely better than it is in some other areas so I think as Lisa said it's not so much a case of saying we're going to rewind and put in place exactly the same models but it's a chance for us as an organisation as an office particularly our commissioning colleagues to think about how we bring those voices into wider work we're doing within the force even if that doesn't mean sitting directly on a board or a forum but making sure that those concerns are pushed up the agenda so to speak Thank you On to priority four strengthening safe and resilient communities how will the commissioner's aims under priority four be measured and audited over the lifetime of the plan for example will targets for crime intervention early intervention resident outreach and community participation be reliably tracked and measured against I think I touched on this very briefly in my answer to councillor Wilson but different actions are obviously going to have different metrics as you'd expect so there isn't a single simple answer and as I've said we will be updating the data hub with the new priorities and then putting in place an appropriate basket of measures for each of those the metrics will be designed to provide a balanced view of course of performance we'll combine quantitative data such as crime reduction figures engagement numbers another really important part with the qualitative insights as well so once those measures have been finalised then I expect to bring those to the panel I'm sure we'll have another discussion around them yes thank you prevention has always been a difficult one councillor kennedy thank you thank you for that answer one of the concerns that I've had and raised in the last couple of years has been the relatively low number of PCSOs in rural areas such as Moor Valley Tandridge Waverley compared with other areas and the concern was that that might be because crime levels are generally more reported crime levels are generally higher in urban areas can we see any and I appreciate that you've put rural crime under a different category here but can we expect to see rural areas getting their fair share of resource under this height well it's certainly true that urban areas report more crime than rural areas and fair share would suggest putting offices where more crime is so I'm not sure they're entirely compatible however the Councillor Kennedy will appreciate that where exactly offices are and where they're distributed is in water for the chief constable and not for the police and crime commissioner but it's very much an operational duty and not one that I am allowed to step on and nor would I want to I think the deputy police and crime commissioner has already talked about the important work that's happening around rural crime a senior officer within the force has recently been appointed to lead on neighbourhood policing and specifically with rural crime within that and so I would expect as part of her review to be looking at our numbers we are getting very close now to establishment on PCSOs so it's not true to say that our PCSO numbers are down across the county in the way that they were following the previous chief constable's decision to reduce PCSOs so we are certainly back up and I think our last cohort of PCSO training actually we had more than planned for which is brilliant but I would expect that review to include looking at our PCSO numbers in rural areas as well and I would encourage as I always do please report all crime yes thank you if I could just comment obviously at the Hazelman meeting as you know it was no the rural crime itself wasn't mentioned but there was a lot of other subjects mentioned of lack of policing in that rural area that was the problem and the police were unable to answer it at that time but I understand they're trying to improve that policing let's hope it goes forward Councillor Wilson thank you chair is counterterrorism considered one of the commissioner's priorities is mentioned in the strategic policing requirement but not here or is terrorism one of the buzzwords that was mentioned earlier and deliberately omitted from the plan so the police and crime plan is primarily a framework for delivering on the priorities of Surrey residents as they were raised it doesn't override my wider statutory responsibilities which I would remind the panel of and Councillor Wilson of which includes ensuring oversight and local implementation of the strategic policing requirement for this reason the plan includes a dedicated section on the SPR it is in there and reaffirms the commitment to supporting national policing priorities and ensuring that Surrey residents are kept as safe as possible counterterrorism obviously remains a key aspect of the responsibility even if it is not explicitly listed among the plan's core priorities it probably won't come as much surprise to any of the councillors here that counterterrorism and terrorism was not something that was raised or is raised regularly by residents of Surrey but it does not change my wider statutory responsibilities which are of course far wider than the police and crime plan thank you on to priority five fostering integrity accountability and well-being in policing councillor chain thank you gentlemen yeah this priority five I mean is I think important because it is fundamental to the public's perception of the force so he's mentioned in the priority so how will the OPCC ensure that adequate resources and support are in place to ensure that the Surrey Police Professional Standards Department and Joint Betting Unit are effective and well-led thank you this is actually a really this is probably a wider area that we could give over an entire panel to and it's something that the Chief Constable and I the Chief Constable members will notice is in his there are quite a lot of elements of this within his plan and it's something we discuss an awful lot and I discuss at my regular meetings with the Police Federation for Surrey as well so we work incredibly closely with Surrey Police's Professional Standards Department undertaking both statutory reviews of complaints timeliness assessments dip sampling of cases to track themes and to identify potential issues I would say that the individual in my office who leads on this area who I would really like the panel to hear from directly at a future meeting is widely recognized and actually speaks to other forces about how we do it because I do think that Surrey is one of the best forces in the country at doing this and this individual in particular in the OPCC makes the OPCC one of the best OPCCs in the country at it the panel will also may also be aware that one of my key duties is to facilitate gross misconduct hearings and police appeal tribunals and my stark work across the region to recruit train and oversee the appointment of legally qualified advisors and independent panel members something that I have to say is incredibly time consuming for them we closely monitor the outcome obviously of all of the processes to understand any specific trends that we're seeing which I think is really important and trying to get ahead of any issues that Surrey police are facing so as I said I'd be really really happy to update the panel more widely on this at a future meeting looking very specifically at the processes that we have in place regards to misconduct and oversight because I absolutely believe the panel will be suitably reassured and I think it might be really interesting for the panel to see that wider piece of work and I think it will really help with your confidence both in the team that work on it within my office but more importantly within Surrey Police Yes thank you for that I'm sure you were right about the panel being very interested in that and perhaps we can get it on the agenda for the next meeting or relatively quickly thank you on to collaboration councillor Azad thank you very much chairman morning commissioner so I should ask that I'm sorry sorry county council for working south west how has partnership working with other forces fed into the plan and what do you think are its effects on the SPR and then just following on from that and to ensure that there is an understanding and ownership of these issues at a high level what capability mechanisms are in place thank you so obviously we talked a little bit about the SPR in a previous question so and obviously compliance is a statutory requirement of both police forces and of PCCs and obviously we continue to oversee the adherence to that part and that happens within the existing mechanism so consideration of the SPR and the forces delivery is a standing item on the resource and efficiency work program the next update for that is during March next month so and in terms of sort of wider collaboration it's something that is discussed regularly we hold regular meetings with our other southeast forces who we also collaborate with on regional organized crime unit and the counter regional counter terrorism as well that brings together myself and my chief constable along with Thames Valley Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Sussex and a part of Kent it's a slightly odd one with Kent but we all come together very regularly as PCCs the chief constables come together regularly as well to look at all of these different mechanisms and then as I said we do as a standing agenda item when I meet with the chief constable to make sure that that accountability is in place because it's incredibly important thank you Councillor Kennedy and just something that occurred to me during your answer and relating to collaboration particularly Sussex with which obviously Surrey and Sussex police work closely together I haven't looked at the police and crime plan for Sussex but how compatible are they I'm sure you've looked I don't know because it's it's a matter for the police and crime commissioner of Sussex who's elected by the people of Sussex the reason the reason I asked was it would probably be easier for Surrey and Sussex police when working together to be able to report against a common framework I can we can discuss this at another meeting if you want to but the priorities for Sussex's PCC are very distinct from mine the forces obviously work closely together and on those areas where they are collaborated I hold the chief constable to account on them and we have areas around budget and other areas where we are closely collaborated but generally speaking it's not a matter for the police and crime plan thank you Councillor Wilson thank you chair how will the public and panel be able to monitor the OPCC and Surrey police's progress towards their stated aims will monitoring information be focused on activity or on outcomes will the data the data hub now include targets for metrics tracks via the data hub so we can see on the data hub a measure of individual performances but the public can't tell if that's a good performance or bad performance because there's no target there and even going back to priority one it says my team will ensure residents can easily track Surrey police's performance and progress against its public commitments by providing access to understandable data so if there are no objective targets how can anyone tell if the plan's been successful I think I think the Surrey public are sophisticated enough to be able to look at the data hub and see whether Surrey police is doing well against you know other measures and I've answered an awful lot of this bit already I think but the data hub will will be updated obviously with new priorities there'll be a basket of measures for each so they can understand the delivery some of the measures are going to track outcomes such as burglary attendance rates or solved outcomes for vogue related offenses others are will track activity so that would be the delivery of specific events the final metrics will be shared obviously as I've said with the panel once they're dealt with but for all of the reasons discussed in previously and in previous meetings I'm wary of targets but Damien is there anything you want to add on the data hub one thing we have done with the data hub and one thing we're continuing to try and refine our national averages so we take ONS data at the end of each financial year and try and provide the aggregate average for various crime types and volumes and then put that on the data hub as a little note so whilst there's not a specific target and you can see comparatively how the force is performing against others and although obviously not comparing like for like all the time so you have to take with a bit of pinch of salt but it can provide a bit more context around the numbers that are on there Council Wilson yeah thank you that that would be helpful but it would be more helpful to have objective targets I looked at the Thames Valley police and crime plan and it's got 17 objective measures that will be used to determine whether the plan's been successful or not things like reduction by a certain amount of people killed or seriously injured on their roads and that sort of thing and there's a target so their police and crime panel will be able to come back year after year and at the end of the plan and say whether the plan was successful but we've got nothing that we can measure against yeah I'm not going to comment on Matthew Barber's plan I'm sure it's an excellent plan with excellent measures in it and I'm sure their panel will deal with it accordingly I don't doubt this panel's ability to both support and scrutinize my plan and work yes we can only repeat we're a critical friend and we will bring things up and hopefully work together on the future plans I would make one comment though can we have the plan a bit earlier because obviously today we've got so much on here we would have liked to have seen something earlier so we could debate it properly well I think the important thing was to get the plan right not to get it to the panel early I do accept that all I'm saying is that perhaps we could work together earlier so that we can get the thing here slightly earlier so we can debate it thank you okay going on just coming to the recommendation now as I said in the first place the panel must make a report to the Commission on her draft police and crime plan in accordance with section 28 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which actually states 3A police and crime panel must review the draft police and crime plan or draft variation given to the panel by the relevant police and crime commissioner in accordance with section 5 6 C and B make a report or recommendations on the draft plan or variation to the commissioner so the recommendation is that the police and crime panel is asked to review and comment on the draft plan and the recruiting officer to capture comments which we've raised at the meeting into a letter of response to the PCC and we will summarise the discussion and thoughts of the panel on the commissioner's draft police and the panel this will then be formulated and circulated so that when we respond it will be the views of this panel can I ask for that to be noted please is that all agreed thank you very much so we now move on to the group financial report in fact we are absolutely right on time so it is a bit tight today but well done we're getting there so item 7 the Surrey Police Group Financial Report for the month 8 of financial year if I could ask for this to be introduced please there we are right so this report is the for the eight months ended 30th of November and it shows on the revenue budget there's a small underspend of 0.8 of a million there have been some overspend some areas in particular overtime but on the other hand we also benefited from a grant was awarded in the year to help pay for the pay rise that was awarded in the year so means of plus and minuses and also being particularly successful on delivering savings in that getting on for 1.4 million that's estimated savings above the target have been found in the year so just give you an update I have had to look at the outturn projection for the end of December and there hasn't really been any change from the prediction here at end of November 0.8 of a million so so I'm reasonably confident that that's we should come on around about that at the end of the year in terms of capital capital is quite well underspent it's been quite a element of slippage particularly in estates and particularly in the new headquarters at Mount Brown some of that has been due to the time taken in order to obtain planning permission and indeed that is still rolling on but it should be seen as slippage rather than an underspend and that will be transferred into the new year so if anyone's got any questions I'm happy to answer those. Thank you for that first of all I've got Councillor Wilson. Thank you chair thank you for the report what is the forecast total transfer into reserves anticipated for 2024-25? So we're transferring part of the we've benefited from extra interest on some of our balances so that's been transferred into reserves that will be used for capital and also if there's an underspend that will also go into reserves. Is it possible to put a figure on that? So the amount of interest I think is 1.2 million and the underspend is 0.8 million at the moment. And that's the amount that will be transferred into reserves over this financial year? Yes that's not budgeted for. And what was budgeted for? So that's the total number I'm after. I'd have to come back to you on that because I haven't got that information in this report. Would you agree it would be quite a substantial sum will be transferred into reserves this year? When we estimate reserves we transfer into reserves for various things so we've got an insurance reserve, we've got a pensions reserve, we put money aside for capital projects. So all of those things are taken account of in the general figures that are given here. I would have to see if I could find it out. So for example here we've got 0.7 that was transferred into the insurance reserve. I've said on page three also the 1.2 million that's gone, which was interest, that's gone to purchase these short life assets. Thank you. Councillor Wilson, you have a further question I believe. Thank you Chair. Paragraph 15 on page 22 mentions asset sales to provide capital funding. What sort of assets are being sold to raise the £13.2 million quoted? So principally we're in the process of selling a number of houses, surplus police houses they're going through. Some of the money for that is being used to fund the refurbishment of the stock that we're keeping. We're also disposing of a number of surplus police stations. Rygate Police Station for example is up for sale at the moment and also although part of the Leatherhead site is being retained for the new Eason Hub the surplus element of that will also be disposed of. And then we have a number of other assets around the county. I think there's a surplus one in Godston there was a Bansett Police Station and I think also Hawley Police Station was also disposed of. Councillor Chayne. Thank you Chairman. Mr. Menon, it is purely a point of clarification in that same paragraph that Councillor Wilson was just referring to on paragraph 15 you had asset sales or PWLB borrowing. PWLB I presume refers to the Public Works Loan Board which if my memory serves me correct was abolished in about 2020. Well I hope it hasn't been abolished because I'm hoping to borrow the money from Mount Brown from that. I would suggest that you might want to check that one out or this has been reinstated in a different form. Yes, it might have a new name possibly but I did think it was still called the Public Works Loan Board but it's a department of the Treasury that lends money to local authorities and public bodies. Their function I believe you're quite right in saying that was transferred direct to the Treasury but it's no longer as a board it's no longer in existence. That could be right. Okay, thank you. We'll update that at some time. What's in a name for goodness sake as long as we get the money. Okay, carrying on Councillor Kennedy. Thank you Chairman. I'm sure many of the local authorities in Surrey would like the debts that go with the PWLB to disappear as well. Mr. Menor, you've already answered or got as far as you can to answering my question four in terms of progress. I suppose there's an element of uncertainty as to whether some of these asset sales will be this year or next year. So presumably that is quite a significant lump because obviously the amounts raised will be substantial. Is there any indication because one of the extra income that often does boost the results is additional income from mutual aid and so on. So far I think the weather has kept rioting at bay but is there any indication for example that police sales will be needed or further secondments are required? In terms of operation for the police sales for safeguarding I think it was called the government have given an indication that they won't need to use sales at the moment mainly because they've emptied out the jails so there's space in the prison so they won't be needing those but who's to say how that will turn out? In terms of other operations you're right about we had a lot of civil disorder in the last summer but it won't surprise you that forces are now arguing with the government as to how much they're going to pay and whether they're going to give any money for that so that is still ongoing but yes who knows what could happen in the next 12 months and what Surrey police will be called upon to support so there could well be some income from mutual aid or something but I wouldn't lie to predict it. And is it possible that actually no need for borrowing will arise? I suppose it depends on the capital sales primarily and progress with capital projects. I don't think there'll be any borrowing in this financial year and the Mount Brown project is phased so the idea is to try and match the phasing with the capital receipts and also we do hold some reserves which we're planning to use against the costs for the new development so I'm hoping there won't be a substantial amount of borrowing certainly in the next financial year. And just to say thank you very much for the more detailed answers that you've also provided and thank you to the Surrey police as well for providing those. Yes we've had some very good presentations on the finances. Councilor Kennedy I think you've got another question now. I've rolled those two into one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If we could just ask the panel members to note that report please. Agreed? Thank you. So on to item 8 the 225-26 proposed precept if we could have this introduced please. Make sure I've got the right papers in front of me. That would be helpful. It would be helpful wouldn't it? Sorry I'll also just get to the right bit on my arm. There we go. So hot off the presses and the panel will have been notified this morning. So we closed the precept consultation lots of consultations at midnight because we wanted to keep it open for as long as possible. there were 3,240 people voted in it. The split was 41-59 in favour. Ten days ago when I believe the panel was sent the full papers as well about 2,400 people had voted in it. It was exactly the same split. It was 41-59 in favour as well so there's been no change to that. It's obviously disappointing that the level of government funding and that the increase only covers last year's pay rise so that does obviously give us some challenges and gives the chief constable some challenges. I would however like to put on the record and thank the chief constable and his national police chief's council colleagues for their continued lobbying as well to the home office and the government for more funding for policing. I know they work very hard on that and the chief constable does as well. You'll be aware that Surrey and certainly the OPCC are not an outlier at all. As far as I'm aware each of the councillors in this room's local authorities will be increasing their council tax by the maximum amount. You'll be aware that the maximum amount the government has dictated to PCCs this year in England I should say Wales doesn't have a cap is £14. It's what the government absolutely expect. All of the papers that we get from the government and the most recent email I had last week on the funding was very much the numbers from the government and the Treasury were done on the basis of PCCs raising by the maximum of £14 which my colleagues are also doing and only just to say I hope that the panel having listened to as you said chair extensively from the subcommittee listened extensively to colleagues from Surrey Police and from my office as well and a number of presentations and thank you to the subcommittee for taking the time to listen to those and I hope those in conjunction with the papers here today and everything that you hear today the panel will make a decision objectively and not based on any party politics or directions from whips or anything like that so on that Kelvin and I remain ready to answer any further questions. Thank you. If I could just assure you that from my perspective being a member of a political party I have not whipped anybody here in my party just to make that absolutely clear to the public. Chairman I know you don't whip and I'm grateful. So opening if I could ask Councillor Smith please. Thank you Mr Chair. Mine's a very general question about how our residents and bearing in mind the voting that has come in how can they be assured that the precept increase proposed and the associated budget and capital spend is strictly required for the maintenance of financial sustainability. We all know that financial hardship is continuing for council taxpayers and you mention inflation as quite an important pressure factor in your budgeting but of course that affects everyone and the maximum amount proposed is somewhat ahead of current inflation. So we've also heard just now that there may be possible increases in transfers to reserves in the current year. So are you absolutely sure and I know you've also said the government expects a £14 increase but you've displayed a healthy scepticism of statements from government in other places so I'm sure you won't feel duty bound by that and we'll be looking to do the right thing for our residents as well as for the force. Thank you Councillor Smith and you're absolutely right doing the right things for our residents across the county and the force is absolutely my reason for being here. I'll answer the first part of your question I'm going to ask Kelvin to comment on the inflationary part of it as well and separate because I do think they're two important parts. So the preset increase as you're right but it doesn't only contribute to the future financial stability it also has to ensure the improvements under the chief constable's plan are continued to be delivered and my role as PCC is to make sure that the chief constable has what he needs in order to keep the county safe. So the paper shows the increase the government grant is only enough as I've said earlier to pay that increase for 24-25 and so they've assumed that the council tax is going to fill the funding gap faced by almost all forces. And so all of that precept is being used to pay for policing and victim services. In regard to government statements you're absolutely right. I think the difference with this is some government statements are arguably political and are aimed at hopes and wishes and desires and targets. This particular one is a very concrete one of this is the amount of money we expect Surrey police to have this year. This is the amount of money we're giving you that is based on you and PCCs across England raising by £14. That's not really a statement one can agree or disagree with. it's a fact. Kelvin can I ask you to comment on the other part of Councillor Smith's? Thank you Commissioner. I think in an ideal world public funding would go up in line with inflation. So you'd see what the inflation rate was and that was the amount you'd increase your preset and government funding would rise by. It wasn't long ago that we had double digit inflation but I don't recall the preset nor the government funding going up by double digits in that period. So yes the increase this year is above inflation but we have a lot of historic inflation that we have to cope with and we have to cover and if you look at the medium term financial forecast projections we have a lot of savings, quite a funding gap that we have to achieve over the next four years and so therefore we need this increase in order to maintain the services that we've got, to drive through the improvements that the Chief Constable wants to deliver and also to deliver the financial sustainability in the medium term. Thank you. Mrs. Samantha Sheriff. Paragraph 9 of the introduction states that the government has decided not to prioritise funding to reduce crime or support victims. Could you just help the panel understand the basis for that claim please? Of course. So the funding allocations for 2025 and 26 from the Ministry of Justice were reduced by 4.2% despite the rising demand that we're obviously seeing for victims and increasing costs as we discussed earlier the number of victims that we have is a lot of that is coming from the fact that the courts are being delayed in terms of getting through cases. The funding for preventing violence against women from the Home Office hasn't been renewed for 2025, 26 so we are facing a reduction in both of those. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Thank you chair. Just for clarification we have not received the precept survey data yet. I haven't received it anyway. Things have been a bit a bit rushed for this meeting with such a large agenda. So we did receive an unpublished set of clarifications from the subcommittee, finance subcommittee but the public won't have seen that so just for the public's benefit on the agenda of paragraph 11 on this section it says that the inflation rate in November CPI was 3.5% I think the CFO has already clarified that it was actually 2.6% and that fell to 2.5% in December and I think my point is that if we increase the precept by 4.3% the council tax base is increasing as well so that means an extra 5.2% will be received in council tax by the police which is already the highest per capita in the country. Does the commissioner agree that that is actually more than double the relevant rate of inflation? Thank you. Can I just quickly clarify there on the point about the circulation of the survey data so an email was re-sent around to panel members this morning with the split of 59% respondents being in favour and 41% against and the number of respondents but no further breakdown. That was received to me at 7.18 this morning and was sent around to panel members then along with the clarifications of the other questions from the subgroup. So that has been sent around but nothing further. I'm sorry you're quite right I was driving when it was sent. Thanks. Yes unfortunately Councillor Watson I was exactly the same. I had no chance to read that because of course I left home about 8 o'clock. No I appreciate that which is why I sort of reiterated in my opening that it was exactly the same split just with more people having voted as when the papers were sent 10 days ago. Thank you. Thank you Chairman. I think I've already mentioned about my views on inflation and precept. If the precept went up in line with inflation when inflation is double digit then it should be a double digit rise and I'm happy to align it to inflation if that was the case across the board but that's not. In terms of the council tax base increasing as I'm sure councils will know the council tax base goes up simply because there are more properties in the county and more properties means more people and more people probably means more demand on policing. I have no doubt that if the government builds its two million houses a large chunk of those will be in Surrey and the tax base will go up and the police will get more money but there will also then be more people that they have to serve. So an actual resident in Surrey will still only see a £14 increase irrespective of the change in the tax base. Thank you. Do you want to come back Councillor Wilson? Thank you Chair. Yeah I understand the problems with historic inflation but that's a problem that my residents have as well. You know their wages haven't caught up with inflation. Their standard of living has dropped and if they're asked to pay an above increase in their council tax bill next year their standard of living is going to drop more. I've got people in my ward who can't afford to pay their bills and feed their kids and do the other things and this squeeze above inflation is going to take more of their pay and these are people who are working and trying to support their families it's going to take more of their pay away and make it more difficult for them to support their families. Thank you. Do you want to come back? Not really no I don't I don't think I think that's more more to do with government policy and increasing poverty that's not something that I can address with my 14 pounds precept. No and likewise the Councillor Wilson I'm sure will be having these conversations with his own borough council around their plans for the council tax as well as we all have to. Thank you. Councillor Greentree. Thanks chair. Steve Greentree Woking. It was great to read about the improved performance of the force but how would you respond to the counter argument that if Surrey police are doing so well why does it require extra funding especially compared to last year when the critical appeal report arguably justified for significant extra expenditure to address the concerns it raised? I understand the question. I'm not sure that it's entirely valid but the force is doing well compared to where it was 18 months ago. It's improving performance at a faster rate than many in fact as I think I've already said it's one of the fastest improving forces in the United Kingdom but there is still a lot of improvements needed in order to continue to deliver better and better service to the public. members who have been around for a couple of years will be aware that the appeal report early last year we're coming up to quite some time now since it was I think it's fair to say a reflection on the previous chief constable's plans. Our current chief constable not new anymore has made some real some incredible really progress since then and that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing a better service but it is against a backdrop of a massive increase year on year in which our financial resources aren't keeping up with as we all know. The precept that I have put forward is there to condition additional cover additional costs over which the force has as we've discussed little or no control. That amounts to 23.2 million pounds and set out in paragraph 56 in the report that you will have. The costs relate to things such as pay and inflation as we've discussed. The government has assumed that these costs will be covered by the precept. If the precept isn't raised then these unavoidable increases will need to be funded by even further savings and that would put the improvements that we've already achieved at risk let alone any future improvements. So I do understand the point and you're absolutely right in that the force is doing better but the precept increase isn't just to make us better it's to keep us where we are as well. Just going back to performance and looking at paragraph number 26 I wondered then if you might be able to make a better case if it would be helpful to have the number of cases reported alongside figures for the increase in the charge rate. For instance it reports 876 criminals charged for shoplifting which is the 321 percent increase which is great to hear but how many reports were there? Damien and do we have the figures from the force in terms of number of reports? Most of the crime volumes are on the data. I could try and pick through some of them but it might take a bit of time but the data is in the public domain. Thank you. Paragraph 45 states that Surrey Police is set to receive 1.3 million pound of funding for extra neighbourhood policing in 2025-26. Could you possibly say where this extra funding has been allocated and how will this translate to more neighbourhood policing? Yes so on Friday evening I received an email from the Home Office informing me that the amount provided for the neighbourhood policing guarantee was being increased from 1.3 to 2.6. Many of the panel will have seen the announcement by the government on Thursday that they were adding and this was following lobbying from police chiefs and also PCCs that the 100 million pounds that they were awarding was not going to be sufficient and so they doubled it to 200 million which means that Surrey is now getting 2.6 million. What they haven't yet told us is what the money has to be used for and how it's going to be monitored. We've had some detail but not enough for me to be able to bring to this panel to tell you. We are expecting the guidance very soon. I obviously welcome any additional money that the government decides to give us to support policing and currently in the budget it is being assumed the grant will give rise to an equal amount of additional costs because of course with that extra money come the extra conditions from the government and so it's being held centrally pending the guidance and subsequent allocation from so as we await the guidance. I hope that by the next time I'm a panel we have an awful lot more clarity on that. Thank you. When you get that answer perhaps you could forward the panel so that we can have a look at an extra funding for neighbourhood policing. It's something that I know all of us here get raised in the community time and time again so it would be very interesting where that's going. Thank you. On to police numbers, item six of this particular part. Councillor Wilson, please. Thank you chair. If it's okay I'll combine questions six and seven just for clarity and for speed as well. And so we've received some data about how well-funded Surrey police is and just for the public watching Surrey police is a well-funded police force. It receives more funding overall than an average police force relative to the size of the population. Although the people in Surrey pay the highest council tax in the country for the police force. So and this is as we're often told Surrey is a very very safe county. So one might expect it to have lower than average funding relative to the population. It does have lower than average number of police officers relative to the population quite a lot lower than average. It's the ninth lowest number of police officers per capita in the country. So and we've heard that there's underspend on the budget and transfers, unexpected transfers into the reserves. So can you confirm all this and and explain why we need to have a maximum precept when Surrey is already well-funded? I completely reject that Surrey is particularly well-funded and actually the chief constable has recently addressed this question and this this statement that Surrey police is very very well-funded. Surrey police is actually if you were going to set up a police force today Surrey would be the last place you would set up a police force. We have a situation where our police officers whose pay is obviously determined centrally. Many in fact most of them cannot afford to live in Surrey and all of us who do live in Surrey will understand why that is. We face exactly the same pressures as as everywhere else of course but we are doing it in a county that is particularly expensive to live in, particularly expensive to run property in and of course we face the same pressures as everybody does in terms of fuel and everything else. So it is simply not true that Surrey is a particularly well-funded police force and I'm sure the chief constable would happily repeat that to anybody who needs to hear it. We are a comparatively safe county, that's absolutely true and that is thanks to the tremendous work of our police officers and all of our local services as well who contribute to that. But as the CFO has already said, demand is rising and crime is becoming far more complex than it was. The allocation of officer numbers under uplift was not linked to demand, it was linked to the funding formula and as we've discussed at great length of this panel we know that is somewhat outdated and it's not just the police who suffer from that, county council do as well and other districts and boroughs. The graph there provides further evidence that our funding mechanism is not appropriate and it's one of the ways in which Surrey is actually disadvantaged. And I'm sure that members of, members here know that Surrey has amongst the lowest level of government funding per capita in England. I know that my county council colleagues are very aware of that. It's meant that residents have had to provide over half the funding, 54% of the funding that the force receives and that doesn't even bring us up to the resourcing level of some of our neighbouring forces. So it is, it's a challenge. The, that, that level of funding that's, that's paid through council tax is actually a legacy of the old police authority who before caps were put in place by government, which for what it's worth I think is a sensible thing. I think the system in Wales is, is very challenging for the people of Wales. Before the cap was put in, the police authority raised the precept by, I believe it was 28%, 42% one year. Um, and so there's a historic reason why it's high. And I would just, um, remind those who are inclined to want to go back to a police authority that, um, things were very different and much more expensive under the police authority. So I, I, I really reject this idea that, that Surrey police is particularly well funded because when you look at all the other challenges that they face and the complexity of crime and the fact that, for example, fraud is the fastest rising crime in our county and how incredibly complex that is to investigate. Um, I think that the, the numbers put forward to the panel speak for themselves. Council motion. Thank you, Chair. Just, I just want to quickly check, am I correct in saying that Surrey police overall funding relative to the size of the population is above average for four seas in England? So the total funding is, is, is, is around the average mark, but the costs of providing police in Surrey are certainly not around the average mark. Being right on the edge of London, the cost of providing all those sorts of services are significantly more expensive. And the only reason that Surrey is at that average mark is because in all the previous years, the decision has been taken to increase the precepts. And that does result in Surrey, uh, residents paying more for their policing in other areas, but that is a consequence of the low level of funding. And, uh, in the past, um, councillors and PCCs have taken the decision to prioritize provision of policing services, even if that's at the expense of raising the precept. And so that is why we have, um, around about the average level of funding overall. Um, and I think also just to reiterate back to the reserves, um, I did say that the underspend would be used for, um, for capital, the 1.2 million additional, uh, we got in income. And we also said that by, we would use reserves and, um, in, and asset sales to reduce the amount of borrowing we need to pay for Mount Brown. That is why we're putting money aside. Um, and so, um, that money there is not there to, uh, supplement our revenue expenditure because it can only be spent the once. Uh, the precept is available for every year and we intend to provide policing services in every year. Thank you. Um, on to the budget and finances then under paragraph eight. Uh, councillor Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. Uh, most of the, this report, uh, just talks about the, the more general, uh, reasons why, uh, uh, a higher precept is sought. Uh, but, uh, page 79, appendix A does contain a bit of a breakdown. Uh, uh, and I'm just trying to understand, uh, what specifically has changed or is changing in appendix A, uh, and the, the, the commissioner previously referred to the, uh, the critical appeal report, which the commissioner said was, uh, primarily a reflection on the previous chief constable. Um, the new chief constable is responding to that, uh, and has made changes and significant progress. Uh, but what has he been doing differently? Because it's not, it's not immediately apparent from appendix A, uh, uh, what's being done to, to turn sorry police around. I think there's a couple of, I mean, first of all, that there've only been minor changes in budget allocations and they reflect primarily increase in paying costs, as we've discussed. I think when it comes to what is the chief, what is the, not new anymore, what has Mr. DeMayer, um, done to, uh, to improve effectiveness, not everything. I appreciate this is a strange thing to say at the panel meeting. We're discussing the preset, but not actually everything. Um, even in policing is about money. And so much of it is around culture and it's around attitude and it's around what do you choose to, um, to prioritize. And those of us in the room who are politicians will know that very, very well. And this chief constable has chosen to prioritize, if I want to get a phrase back to basics policing, it's something we've talked about an awful lot. It's something I talked to the chief about, um, during interview process and it's something that we talked about after he was appointed as well an awful lot and still do. And that's really what it comes down to. Um, you'll recognize from his plan, um, pursuing criminals relentlessly. Now that doesn't necessarily require more money. It does require a refocusing. And I think that's what we've seen. And so it's not that the chief is spending money in different places. He's, he's just, he's really, really refocused the culture of the force towards really going after and pursuing criminals to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes for those who are victims of crime and to stop as many people in Surrey becoming victims of crime. And so it's not necessarily been about budget allocation. It's about how he uses the money that's available to him. Um, and of course, if, if he was sitting here, he'd say he'd like more as well. Um, but it's about how he's using it. So I really, really believe it's around focus. It's around culture within the force, um, and it's around prioritization. And that's what I've really seen change over the last 18 months. Thank you. I have a number of questions from Councillor Kennedy. So would you like to take your second one, please? I'll carry on. And this one is linked, I suppose. Uh, paragraph 55 states, the budget has been prepared, taking account of the, the new, uh, police and crime plan priorities in the draft plan we've just been looking at. Uh, and I'm just wondering how that has happened. It may well be that, that what the commission has just said about reflecting what the chief constable has been doing, uh, in our plan, uh, uh, largely answers that. I suppose in potentially implicit in back to basics is, is I suppose the Donald Trump approach of, of not doing, uh, things. Uh, and obviously I, we, we've discussed mental health, uh, already, but is there anything, uh, so police officers not, not being responsible for mental health, uh, as opposed to other, other professionals. Uh, but are, are there any other areas where, uh, you, you'd be expected to be doing less? I think that's really a question for the chief constable more than me, because that would be about operational demand. But I think what we have been doing, what chief constable has been doing is really focusing on that, on, on need. There's a big difference in placing and, and it's, it's no different from local authorities. You will face demand from your constituents as I do, and then there'll be need. And it's really about making sure that we're responding to need, um, and not simply responding to, to demand or he or she who shouts loudest and making sure that we're getting to those who need us the most. And those people aren't always, as, as you'll be aware, those who are, um, necessarily in the places. Yeah, they're, they're the hard to find. They're the most vulnerable victims. And I think that's where the chief constable has really, really drilled down is making sure that we're doing that. Um, so we're charging more frequently to make sure that it's acting as a deterrent, um, to other potential offenders. Um, and I think that through, through our plan, the chief constable's plan, um, the force now has that parity and consistency of direction. I think that's what's making the difference. Thank you. Your third question, Councillor Kennedy. I've actually moved on to the fourth. Uh, so my apologies. I combined two. Uh, the fourth one's actually been answered, I think, in the detailed questions that, uh, I think there was, there was a year that one of the headings was wrong. Um, but just, just to be clear, um, the, uh, the, the, the proposed savings for next year of 3.6 million, we're told 1.4 million of those already been, uh, identified. So, uh, compared with the following year where I think savings according to the medium term financial plan, savings of 6.9 million are required. Uh, the next savings required for next year are only 2.2 million pounds. Uh, it, it couldn't, why isn't it more ambitious? I think it's fair to say, uh, Councillor Kennedy, that in, uh, 25-26, as happened in 24-25, um, we will certainly be trying to achieve a far, uh, larger level of savings than we've budgeted for. And certainly that's been successful in 24-25 and, um, we'll do the same in 25-26. There are a number of projects that are looking to try and deliver that number of transformation projects and, uh, the police is all, a, uh, chief constable has also got a team looking at the whole total operating model, uh, which has been redesigned. So, with a view to delivering savings. Um, obviously the level of savings required as you go further away from 25-26 becomes more, um, I won't call it desk work, but it depends on the level, the assumptions that you make. And so, therefore, um, we're assuming based on some 6.8 million because we've got assumptions about, you know, government funding is not doing an increase, we've made an estimate for pay, uh, whether those things will actually, uh, transpire, whether it will be 6 million, 10 million, or 3 million, uh, I'll only know probably this time next year. Um, but you can rest assured that we are trying to drive through savings as quickly as possible. And, um, certainly once we get to the target, we don't stop and say, that's fine now. We'll, we'll, uh, sit back for a few months. Uh, we keep pushing it through because you just don't know what costs are going to come round the corner. Thank you. Councillor Wilson or Kennedy, who wants to go first? Councillor Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. Taking that point about assumptions, uh, obviously you're quite right. You have to make some sort of assumptions, um, to plan ahead. Um, thinking about the capital programme on page 73, uh, paragraph 102, um, there's, it's kind of front loaded in the first three years, uh, that's over a hundred million, it's about 120 million, um, spent, and it's mostly on estates and things like that. Um, there's going to be local government reorganisation announced very shortly, um, and that should come in potentially in the next three years. There will be a directly elected mayor and possible combinations with other forces. And I'm just thinking about the mistakes that were made with the leatherhead, um, potential HQ there and how 3 million pounds was wasted according to the BBC. This is a lot more than 3 million pounds. This is 120 million or something like that. Is it wise to, um, work on that so quickly when, uh, we could be in a new strategic authority with a new directly elected mayor with completely different priorities because there'll be a function will be taken by the directly elected mayor, uh, unless the government changes its mind. Um, I'll deal with the leatherhead point first because it's a really important one. And, um, um, as always, I'm sure that Councillor Wilson wouldn't want misinformation in the public domain. Um, so the 3 million pounds, as you quote for leatherhead was not, was not, not a waste in the sense that, uh, 3 million pounds was wasted. So, um, about half of that, um, was in capturing the brief in terms of what Surrey police needed at an HQ and how many people there were and all of that, that was directly transferable to Mount Brown, which happened. Um, so, and, and I obviously wasn't going to continue that the decision to buy leatherhead wasn't panel members will appreciate one that was taken by me. It was taken by my predecessor and I wasn't going to continue to back a plan that, um, neither the force wanted, um, nor seemed sensible in terms of getting the best value for money for Surrey's residents. So I wasn't going to throw, um, you could argue good money after bad in that sense. Um, you'll be aware that the leatherhead site, um, is when we're currently on discussion with Mulvalley District Council at the moment around planning for that, which is going very well. Um, I did sign that off. Um, and of course that means that the site is, is being used. And so the money that was purchased, that was used to purchase it and the plans, um, obviously get to use them and really importantly, once complete leatherhead will save 4 million pounds of public money. So I just want to address that point because it's a really important one to make sure that we don't let that piece of misinformation, um, continue. Kelvin, do you want to deal with the other part? Certainly. No, I think you make a very, um, very valid point, Councillor Wilson. There's an awful lot of uncertainty. Certainly the devolution has created an awful lot of uncertainty. Certainly we are reviewing our estate strategy as to, as to where we have facilities across the county because we don't know what shape that county is going to be in, in three or four years time. So, uh, that is something we're considering. As far as I know, the merger of police forces, uh, is not part of the devolution. It's not been mentioned. We are expecting a policing white paper at some point in the coming year, but, um, I'm not sure whether that will suggest a murder of forces. But I think what I would say about Mount Brown and the redevelopment is firstly, it's phased. So we can slow down or speed up each phase and we can adapt it as we go along. And secondly, although it's called a headquarters, I don't want you to imagine it's a giant office with lots of people shuffling bits of paper in it. It has a lot of things that are needed for policing. So it'll have, it's our, it's a forensic centre. It's a dog training centre. Uh, it'll be the centre for, um, where we take our calls and, and deploy resources. All of those things are going to be needed, uh, if, if the force is merged with another force or not, uh, because the volume of stuff that goes through forensics, number of calls, et cetera, all those facilities will be needed. So, um, I would say that, uh, now's the time to go ahead, uh, with the, uh, redevelopment. And if you've ever been to Mount Brown, uh, you will see that our current, uh, facilities there certainly, uh, could not be left for much longer if we're going to carry on providing, uh, the services that we want, uh, and to support our offices. Um, can I just correct myself, um, when I said that Leatherhead would lead to £4 million worth of savings, I, of course, meant Mount Brown. Um, and I would also say, and I, whilst I hate to disappoint, uh, councillors, Wilson and inevitably Kennedy, um, PCCs, I'm afraid are not being abolished. Um, I think if you spoke to Andy Burnham up in Manchester or Sadiq Khan, even in London, they are legally police and crime commissioners. Um, it's just that the powers will be absorbed other than you may. You'll also appreciate that we can't, the policing, um, has to be dynamic as do all the services that you all offer as, as districts and boroughs as well. Um, and we have to police for the situation as it is, not either as we wish it to be, or, um, try to second-guess the government. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy. Can I ask us just a supplementary on that? Because obviously one of the, uh, one of the possibilities in the, in the reorganisation and devolution is that we might end up with a, uh, regional mayor for Surrey and Sussex. Uh, what implications would that have for, for the police? I've, I've, I've not heard that as a, as a serious possibility, but either way, I think we're getting into hypotheticals now, which I'm reluctant to do given the time we have on this panel and the issues to get through. I understand the question, but it's, it's, yeah, who knows? Um, as things stand, I'm afraid you're all going to be abolished very soon, so let's, let's, let's wait and see where we all end up in a year or two's time. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy, is this your last question? It, it, it, it, it is apart from one, uh, because, uh, because, because, uh, Mr. Menon mentioned, uh, I mean, yeah, he confirmed that he's hoping for more savings than the 2.2 million, uh, net for next year. Uh, and I think one of my questions, uh, that comes under commissioners' questions might be relevant to our discussion, uh, on this topic, uh, about, because it's about the precept. Uh, but, uh, but if I could, so if I could raise that later, um, before we, before we conclude this discussion. Final, my final question was, uh, uh, as has been discussed really, paragraph 91, uh, of the report states pressure on other partners' budgets, such as local authorities, could severely limit some of the important preventative work in which we've been involved, uh, and, uh, that's absolutely right, uh, the, uh, particularly the district and borough councils have been absolutely clobbered in the latest local government finance settlement, zero spending, uh, increase at all, that, even allowing for council tax increases. Um, so what has been the nature of the discussions with local councils, uh, about that, and is the OPCC expecting to fill any gaps in funding arising, uh, from partner organizations? Yeah, so you're absolutely right. A number of the organizations that we work with rely on funding from local authority partners as well, of course, as, um, as my office. And, um, you know, concerns have obviously been expressed as sustainability of the funding. So we've been in discussion with partners, um, for some time now, well over, well over the last year, um, to try and help with some of the funding pressures, um, such as contributions that we make towards the, um, domestic abuse services. Um, we won't have the resources, um, to address, obviously, all of the gaps, particularly against this backdrop that we've discussed of rising demand, but we will aim, as always, to direct our forces where they can be most useful and to those who most need them, as I'm sure all of the districts and boroughs and county will. Did you want to come back? I can't really come back. Can, can, can I deal with my question under commissioner's questions? Uh, I, yes, let's take it now because I'm concerned we might run out of time. So, yes. Um, so, so my question was, uh, essentially just asking about the relationship between the referendum limit, uh, and, uh, uh, the, the commissioner's, uh, proposed requested increase. That's question two on commissioner's questions, the published supplementary agenda. Um, uh, and, I mean, she, she has answered my question. Essentially, I was asking, uh, how high would the referendum limit need to be, uh, before, uh, before the commissioner wouldn't be asking for the maximum, uh, and, uh, she said it was a hypothetical question, essentially. Um, to, I, I guess, can I just rephrase that question, uh, just to understand because, because the request is the referendum limit, uh, and the extent to which the commissioner has been constrained by that limit, uh, this year, or whether it's been viewed, uh, as more of a target. And the reason why it might be seen as more of a target is, uh, as, as Mr. Mennon has mentioned, uh, the, the savings that are being provided, provided for in the budget are less than he's hoping for. Uh, and also we've just heard that, uh, we're going to get 1.3 million pounds more than we thought. So, potentially a response to that might have been saying, well, we don't need that extra 1.3 million because we are already targeting, uh, communities and neighbourhood funding. Uh, so, so the question specifically is to what extent have you been limited by that referendum limit, uh, or are you in fact treating it more as a target? Uh, so much there to unpack. Um, first of all, in terms of the extra 1.3, as I said earlier, we don't yet know the, um, we don't, we don't yet know the conditions under which, but it will almost certainly be, um, to move, reallocate or hire extra officers. And if anything, I would expect that the increase for, for, um, local neighbourhood funding that we're getting from the government won't actually cover everything that we're required to do. And sorry, um, particularly if it's done on the same basis, um, as headcount versus, um, funding formula and all of that. So I actually, I'm not seeing that as extra money and there will be an extra burden attached to it. Um, saying that, always grateful for extra money from the government. Um, in terms of, no, I, I don't see 14 as a, as a target or as a, of necessarily as a, as a limitation. It's what the government expected PCCs to, um, to raise council tax by in order to get the full funding that they are specifying. Um, I think it's the same, same reason why PCCs across the country are raising it as part from, as I say, Wales, who don't have that, that same limit. And so, um, are raising by significantly more. Um, that's obviously a decision for PCCs in Wales, but what, not one that I would necessarily do. Um, I went out to the force a number of months ago, as you'd expect during our conversations around this before we knew what the amount was going to be that the government were expecting PCCs to raise, um, the precept by. And I asked them to model on a number of different factors, um, and, and, and not over 14 pounds as it happens. And so everything that I've done was based on that. So no, it wasn't a target. I don't see there's a particular limit. I would always like Surrey police to be better funded than it is. But as we've all discussed, that has got to be balanced against, um, our residents and what they need. And the fact that the funding formula means that Surrey residents pay more towards policing than anybody else does. Um, so all of those things have to be, I think, factored in. I don't, I don't think we can just look at any of them in isolation. Um, I believe as do the force, um, that if the panel approve 14 pounds, the chief constable is confident that he can keep delivering on his plan. I'm confident that I can deliver, um, the, uh, the police and crime plan, as we've discussed. Um, obviously we'll be back here next year having another conversation, but, um, this is absolutely based on what the chief constable believes he needs in order to be able to deliver. It's not going to be easy. There will be challenges. Um, and my role as PCC is to make sure that, um, that those are being done by, that those are being handled by the chief constable, um, in the best way that he can. I believe, I believe that 14 pounds reflects that. Thank you. Are there any more questions on the budget and finances before we go to taking a vote from the panel? Councillor Kennedy. Just go back to the survey. Uh, I, I completed the survey as well, the, the precept survey. Um, it did seem slightly rather more leading than, uh, in previous years. So, so for example, it said, yes, I, I want, uh, I'm prepared to pay extra or, uh, no, um, I'm basically, uh, I accept that that will mean a reduction in the service that I get. Uh, do you feel that that influenced, uh, the, uh, the, the, the survey responses? I think last year people were given more of a, a choice of increases and I think the, the maximum choice was, was actually less than what you were asking for. Uh, we have this conversation, I think every year, I think regardless of what I do with the survey, Councillor Kennedy will quite rightly question it. Um, no, I think it was very straightforward. We were very, very conscious this year that, um, there was an awful lot that we were asking of the public. Um, we'd had an election, we'd then had a general election. Um, we had to go out with our survey on the police and crime plan and then we were asking them to do another survey. And so, um, largely for that reason, I wanted to keep it really simple, but also the question was a very truthful one. Um, and I, I, I can't remember whether it was Councillor Kennedy, but there was certainly criticism last year that the consultation was too complicated and there were too many questions. So, um, I think this was a really simple one. I'm not conscious that we got any criticism that people didn't understand it. Um, you could agree with it or not, but, um, I think it was easy to understand and, um, I think the numbers, um, in terms of people who responded and, and the overall response of 59 to 41 speaks for itself. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no more questions, then we will, oh, sorry, Councillor Cat-Shane. Sorry, I didn't see you. No, that's all right. I'm touching it out of the way here. Um, can I just, um, ask the Commissioner if she could clarify a couple of things? Because there's been an awful lot of press comment about, uh, precepts and where they should be set across the country. Um, and it's been my understanding, uh, but up until, um, just before Christmas, I think, you know, meeting before Christmas, we were under the impression that the precept would be 2%, perhaps 3%, but then went up to, the government decided to take it up to 14%. Now, my understanding is, and I think the understanding of a lot of people is that government grants have been set on the basis that policing authorities will raise by the maximum of 14 pounds. And that's how they worked out the grant. Now, if, if, if the Commissioner could consider that point, and also, I think as far as the possibility of devolution is concerned, and there's, there's several, several ways of looking at this at the moment, but I think, you know, surely with the police, it's, it's got to be the same as it's got to be with district and borough councils, that we must carry on as though devolution was not on the table at the moment. And, and therefore we, um, you know, we must be looking at this as though we were in a normal year. Short comment, but I know that our members have been struggling with this one, particularly this year, between the support for the police that we all want to do. There is no doubt that every member of the panel wants to support the police. However, as councillors, we hear time and time again about how our community is struggling with finances. This is not just us, it's right across the country. So it is a very difficult decision that we're going to make today. However, I would ask you all to look in your consciences and decide which way that you think you can vote, uh, the community in mind and the police in mind. Thank you. So going on to the recommendation from the report, that the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, that they endorse the proposal to increase the 225-26 band D Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner precept by £14, being a 4.3 increase to £337.57. Now that's the recommendation. So as I say, the panel has to decide whether it supports this recommended proposed precept or not. So what I'd like to do now, if we have a... Mr. President, Chair. Sorry to interrupt. I request a recorded vote. I think at the, uh, the first meeting I attended, we didn't have a recorded vote and there were massive complaints that we should have done out of accountability. So, uh, I'm not necessarily, I don't necessarily feel the need, but, but I think given that, that obligation, I'm happy to support the request. Okay, but that's only two supporting and I'm afraid we need three. So, no, uh, uh, Galsy-Smitha, are you proposing that you take the recorded vote as well? In the interests of openness, I am happy with the recorded vote and will support that proposal. Okay, in that case, we have, uh, uh, got to the three that we require for a recorded vote. So this will be a recorded vote. So I will now hand over to Jake to run that recorded vote in favour, uh, of this recommendation. Thank you very much. Um, so if you can just vote by raising your hands. Councillor Azad. In favour or against? In favour. Thank you very much. Uh, Councillor Baker. In favour. In favour. Thank you very much. Uh, Councillor Chain. In favour or against? Very well. Uh, Councillor Greentree. Against. Against. Against. Councillor Kennedy. Against. Against. Councillor Rubini. Against. Councillor Smith. I would like to, I would not like to, but I feel I have to abstain. Abstain. Thank you. Councillor Richard Wilson. Against. And Mr. Samantha Sheriff. Four. Four. So I make that four in favour of the recommendation, uh, four against recommendation and one abstention. Um, which means that, um, of course have the chairman's casting vote should he wish to use it. As I say, this is such a difficult decision. We keep getting cut either way. Um, I feel as chairman, if I'm going to make a vote, and I've always had to make a vote, I feel, because abstaining doesn't, doesn't help much, um, then I, I didn't ought to change my vote. So I will be against, thank you. So I make that four members in favour of the recommendation, one abstention, and five against. Against. Thank you. Right, so we've had a majority not in favour, so a majority of members have indicated they do not support the proposed PCEPT. In accordance to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act of 2011, the panel does have the power to veto the PCEPT. However, before we move to formally vote on whether to exercise this power veto, I suggest that we adjourn the meeting to allow the panel time to deliberate. I will reconvene the meeting after a short private deliberation, at which point the panel will vote formally on the matter. The committee room opposite the entrance of the chamber is available for non-panel members who wish to wait for the resumption of the meeting. So if I could ask those non-members please, if they could vacate the room and we will, I won't say summons, we will let you know when we've had our debate, thank you very much, to veto the proposed PCEPT. So I'm going to ask members to vote in favour of the exercising the veto over the PCEPT. Now, do we want to do this on a show of hands? OK, therefore then, can we have a show of hands for all of those that want to see the favour of exercising the veto? I make that four against the recommendation of, therefore, in favour of using the veto. Thank you. Now I'm going to say those against exercising the veto. If we could do that please. I make that four again. And those abstaining? Thank you. As we've said several times, we need nine people of this committee, the total committee, before we can have a veto, therefore there will be no veto against that. So therefore, Commissioner, we will obviously be writing for you to explain. Now, as I've said, a majority of two-thirds have not voted to veto the Commissioner's proposed PCEPT. The proposed PCEPT will, therefore, be applied. A letter of response will be sent to the Commissioner by the 8th of February, 2025, setting out the panel's views and feedback on her proposal. So that will be circulated to the members. The minutes will record that the PCEPT was not endorsed by the panel, but was not vetoed. Thank you very much. Over to the officer now for a statement. Thank you very much. So just on the screen there, you can see the form of words that ultimately we will adopt in the correspondence back to you, Commissioner, which essentially just sets out that the majority of the panel in the first vote did not vote in favor of the proposed PCEPT, but ultimately did not excise also their power of veto, and that we will write back to you by the state of date, if that's all right. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Have you got that? Do you want a minute just to read it properly? No. Okay. I think it's the same format as last year anyway. I thought it might be somehow. Thank you. Thank you. So, Alison. Sorry, Chairman, it's disappeared, but just to clarify, I think the first point said a majority of the panel. Strictly speaking, it would be a majority of those present. The first part was the... Yes. I can add that clarification. Thank you. Okay. If there's nothing else on the PCEPT, I don't see why there will be. We've had a lot to say about it, so we're now going to item nine on the agenda, which is the PCEPT forward plan and key decisions. As you know, the report provides information on the formal decision taken by the PCEPT from March 23 to present and details of the PCEPT's ongoing forward plan. The PCEPT is required by the elected local police and bodies, order 2011, to publish a record of each decision of significant public interest arising from the exercise of the PCEPT's functions. We refer to these as key decisions, and these are published on our website, so they can then be scrutinised to the public and at the police and crime panel, us. Commissioner, is there anything you want to say? Yes. Okay. In that case, I have a question from Councillor Kennedy. Apologies, I wasn't aware I had a question. But was this... It is written down, I'm afraid. Do you want me to read it, or can you? Yes, I see it. Yes. Could the Commissioner please provide an update to the panel on the award of a... I mean, this was left over from last time, I think. It was the last time. Yeah. So I think it's all resolved, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. In that case, we have no further questions. Is there any member of the panel who wishes to ask a question? If not, can we note it, please? Is that agreed? Yes, that's agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So item 10, which is the Commissioner's question time, and this is for the panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with Commissioner. Three Commissioner's questions have been received, so if I could start with Councillor Wilson, please. Thank you, Chair. I don't have any supplementary question to this. Would you like me to read the original question, or we just have it on record? No, it's fine with us. Thank you very much. Question 2 and 3 from Councillor Kennedy, if you take question 2 first. I think these have been dealt with. Thank you. Any supplementary? That's it? No supplementary? Okay. We asked a supplementary. I thought you might, but I've got to ask you. Question number 3. Do you have a third one or not? I think Councillor Wilson asked a supplementary on this one. Okay, so in that case, we've finished with questions for the Commissioner, which is very quick. In that case, we've gone for complaints received since the last meeting. To note complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner received since the last panel meeting. Two complaints were received, and two were considered by the Complaints Subcommittee. Was there anything else you wanted to add to that, Jack? No, let's clarify. The outcome of that meeting was circulated just afterwards. So no, that's just a note, Chairman. Thank you. In that case, can we note that? Can we agree that, please? Not there was much to note, but there we are. Thank you. Okay. Recommendations, Item 12, Tracker and Forward Work Programme. For the panel to track recommendations and actions made at formal panel meetings, Tracker Appendix 1, and to review upcoming agenda items, Forward Work Programme, Appendix 2. Now, what I'm going to suggest is that members may wish to undertake a forward planning workshop to identify items for scrutiny and consideration throughout the year and add them to the plan. That way we may get to, you know, have a look at it properly and try and decide what we want in that particular report. So is there anything anybody wants to ask? No? We're suddenly being very quiet. Thank you very much. In that case, can we therefore note the report, please? Great. Thank you very much. And that's it. I mean, we've finished early. Now, that's a surprise. I thought we were going to be very tight for time, but we're not. So the date of the next meeting is the 24th of April, as we haven't vetoed the precepts that we don't need that extra meeting. Therefore, I'd like to thank the Commissioner and the team for coming along and giving some very good answers to some of the questions. Thank you very much. And obviously, thanks to the panel for coming along with a healthy debate. And hopefully, if you wish, you can advise your members and community to look at the debate on the webcast where it is to be found. Thank you very much. And I look forward to you to seeing on the 24th of April. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.