The Surrey Police and Crime Panel met to discuss the Police and Crime Commissioner's (PCC) response to a HMICFRS¹ report, the PCC's annual report, an update on the police and crime plan, and the medium-term financial forecast. The panel approved the HMICFRS report and requested a written update on progress against AFIs² by the end of 2025. The panel also agreed to formally write to the PCC with any comments and recommendations regarding the annual report, and that future annual reports include a clear summary of progress against the priority objectives, deliverables and commitments in the new crime plan.

HMICFRS Report

The panel discussed the Police and Crime Commissioner's response to the HMICFRS report into the effectiveness of Surrey Police, published on 30 May. The PCC noted that the issues raised were largely process-driven rather than reflective of wider cultural or ethical failings. The inspection focused on internal procedures within vetting and professional standards functions, particularly around staffing levels and the timeliness of certain processes.

Councillor Borough Richard Wilson asked why the panel had not been kept in the loop about the report and the failures that had been found in it, such as a significant proportion of personnel having incorrect vetting. The PCC responded that all HMIC reports are listed in advance on HMIC's website, and that it is not her role to play down criticism or put a positive spin on the reports.

Councillor Borough Barry J F Cheyne asked about the increase in conduct investigations and complaints. The PCC said that there has been a renewed focus on police conduct, and that the previous government's uplift programme brought a large number of new recruits into the force, who are still developing their judgement and professional practice. She also said that public awareness of professional standards has grown enormously, and that the complaints process has become far more accessible.

Samantha Sheriff, independent member, asked why local investigations were taking 303 days on average, significantly above the most similar force and national averages. The PCC responded that for the period 1 April to 30 June, the figure stood at 138, which is better than Surrey's most similar force and well below the national average.

Councillor Borough Richard Wilson asked about drug testing and whether the PCC shared the inspector's surprise about the lack of drug testing in Surrey Police. He also asked if it was worrying that the force was allowing people to resign rather than face misconduct. The PCC did not comment on individual cases, but said that there have been significant changes to the misconduct regulations that have been introduced over the last year, giving chief constables more power to fast-track cases and have more say in the ultimate decision of misconduct panels.

The panel approved the report and requested a written progress update on the commitment to address AFIs by the end of 2025.

Police and Crime Commissioner's Annual Report

The panel discussed the Police and Crime Commissioner's Annual Report.

Councillor Borough Richard Wilson asked whether the activity aimed at educating to prevent violence against women and girls had been successful in reducing violence against women and girls. The PCC responded that there is a very long history of supporting work to tackle violence against women and girls, and that the approach is continuing to evolve. She said that women are far less likely now to ignore inappropriate behaviour, and that there is a much greater trust that reports will be taken seriously by the police, meaning that there is much increased reporting.

Councillor Borough Barry J F Cheyne asked whether the Bridgley Gap project to support people facing multiple disadvantages had any specific policing benefits, such as a reduction in crime and homelessness, and whether there were any negative areas that were affecting the effect. The PCC responded that the findings of the independent evaluation of the project have highlighted both the benefits and the challenges, and that the feedback from clients has been overwhelmingly positive. She said that it is very difficult to quantify the measurable impact on operational policing at a relatively early stage, but that re-offending rates are being tracked.

Councillor Borough Fiona White asked whether the extra patrols delivered had delivered reductions in antisocial behaviour, and whether the £1 million of funding which has been secured from the Home Office for additional patrols is one-off or will it be repeated. The PCC responded that the vast majority of the funding that is received in the OPCC³ for initiatives is one-off or time-limited, but that the government does usually make funding available for specific priorities each year, and that bids are submitted to government where it is believed that there is a benefit in government spending taxpayer money on them.

Samantha Sheriff asked how the PCC aimed to keep the dialogue going following the success of the Policing Your Community Roadshow, and whether there were any plans for a new roadshow. The PCC responded that plans are underway to repeat the success of last year's roadshows next year, and that there is a wider and broader engagement work which happens, including data transparency, direct contact with the PCC's office, one-to-one surgeries, and residents meetings.

Councillor Borough Mike Smith asked for more information on the timing of the consultation with the business community regarding retail crime, and whether it would come to the next meeting of the panel. The PCC responded that the report is imminent, and that it will be available before the next panel meeting.

Councillor District Raj Haque said that the confidence amongst the community is extremely low on antisocial behaviour, and asked whether the PCC could make her presence sometime within his community with the borough commander to regain people's confidence back. The PCC responded that she frequently visits Mull Valley, and is always very happy to attend regular meetings or to work with him to set up a meeting.

Councillor Borough Shanice Goldman asked what steps the PCC would take to improve feedback loops, so that residents know that their reports have been logged, they're acted on and have led to a result or outcome. The PCC responded that it is a really good question to ask the chief constable when he is here next month, because it is something that he has been working very closely with the contact centre on.

Councillor Borough James Baker asked for an update on progress and delivery of the police estate, and whether estate rationalisation is critical to delivering future efficiencies against potential future council tax increases. The PCC responded that one of the key premises of the estate strategy is that the current estate cannot be afforded to be maintained and operated as it is now, particularly where buildings are outdated and inefficient. She said that the strategy is a dynamic document which has got to be able to be flexible and it's got to meet the operational needs of the force, and that while they are looking to maximise cost savings where appropriate, they obviously cannot compromise operational performance or public confidence.

Councillor District Robin Spencer asked when there would be more clarity on the future of police stations that are closing, and more specifically, where he would direct a question about the long-term future of Caterham police station. The PCC responded that these are all parts of the wider estate strategy and the upcoming question around the force operating model, and that the most responsible thing to do would be to bring a fuller report to the panel.

Councillor Borough Fiona White asked where the commissioning funding is delivering the greatest difference, whether there were any areas where she would like to target spending in the future, and on the basis that these are all percentages, if there was something she wanted to target, what would she reduce. The PCC responded that they are currently in the process of developing a new commissioning strategy, and that it would be helpful to bring that strategy to panel for consideration in due course.

John O'Reilly asked how the success of the serious violence strategy is evaluated. The PCC responded that the strategy will be known to be working when clear progress can be pointed to against the four priorities that are set out within the strategy: leadership, evidence, relationships and focus.

Councillor District Robin Spencer asked when the force operating model review would take place, what areas it would cover counter-reduction, and how the panel could be engaged in the process. The PCC responded that it is an ongoing, very large-scale piece of work that is looking right across the force, and that she gets regular updates on its progression.

John O'Reilly asked what areas had not done so well, that perhaps are causing concern, that the PCC regarded as a challenge that has not yet been fully addressed. The PCC responded that there is always more to do, and that one of the constant challenges is around the wider criminal justice system.

The panel agreed to formally write to the PCC with any comments and recommendations regarding the annual report, and that future annual reports include a clear summary of progress against the priority objectives, deliverables and commitments in the new crime plan.

Police and Crime Plan Update

The panel received an update on the Police and Crime Plan 2025-28.

Samantha Sheriff asked what difference the Surrey Community Safety and Prevention Board would make, and how its success and effectiveness would be monitored, ensured and measured. The PCC responded that the board has been set up to drive a more coordinated countywide approach in terms of tackling crime and preventing harm, and that it brings together the key local partners, statutory partners, which includes police, fire, local authorities, crown prosecution services, probation.

Councillor Borough Mike Smith said that there were some really encouraging figures and stats about improvements in performance regarding retail crime, and asked whether the PCC would agree that there was scope to go even further on this, and whether the results of the survey would be used to inform that process in the future. The PCC responded that there is an awful lot more that can be done, and that an awful lot of that is going to be around encouraging people to report.

Councillor District Raj Haque asked what steps were being taken to maintain and improve neighbourhood policing visibility, especially including smaller districts. The PCC responded that an awful lot of work has obviously gone on around neighbourhood policing, helped enormously by Uplift, and that the ongoing rollout of the National Policing Guarantee is part of that work as well.

Councillor Borough Tony Burrell asked how the success of the new Surrey knife crime strategy launched in May would be measured, and what the target was for reducing serious knife crime offences. The PCC responded that the aim is quite simply to keep Surrey one of the safest counties in the United Kingdom, and that progress is measured through three measures: total knife crime, knife crime, and knife possession offences.

Councillor Borough Shanice Goldman asked for sight of the internal reporting framework and the KPIs⁴ and metrics that are being used to assess success in delivering the plan. The PCC responded that each priority outlines a specific strand of work and who is going to be delivering on that strand, and that the intention is to review each of them on a quarterly basis, both through direct engagement with the lead officers and then the wider metrics.

Councillor District Robin Spencer requested a borough-level breakdown of performance data to residents in each district, and asked what the outcome of the safer streets summer initiative was, and how it would be used to develop and improve policing strategy outcomes in Surrey. The PCC responded that the ONS publishes crime data broken down by CSP area, and that the OPCC data hub also draws on police.uk API, which allows crime and antisocial behaviour to be mapped by ward and by date.

Councillor Borough Fiona White asked how neighbourhoods are going to be identified, in order to ensure every neighbourhood has a dedicated police officer or PCSO⁵. The PCC responded that from a policing point of view at the moment, there are 11 borough commanders in the 11 districts and boroughs, and so they do it by ward.

The panel noted the report.

Medium Term Financial Forecast Update

The panel discussed the medium-term financial forecast.

Kelvin, the council's finance officer, said that the forecast did not reflect the police pay increase or the spending review, as they were waiting for actual detailed figures for those. He said that police officers were given a 4.2% increase, and that the government said that they would fund any increase for police officers above 2.8%, but that they were waiting to find out how that funding is going to be allocated and how much they are going to get. He also said that they did not know yet what the referendum limit will be for council tax, but that the government have given some heavy hints that it might be the more recent historical level, which could be £14.

Councillor Borough Barry J F Cheyne asked about the police reform bill. Kelvin responded that the current feeling is that maybe forced mergers are unlikely to be part of the bill, mainly because of the issues the conflict it creates with local government reorganisation, but that it is possible that some of the more regional functions could be hived off into a single organisation.

Councillor Borough Richard Wilson asked whether the service transformation was delivering the efficiencies required to meet savings targets. Kelvin responded that historically they have delivered significant savings and met the targets, but that it is making every year that goes by it becomes more difficult to meet those targets.

Councillor Borough James Baker asked what risks the force would face if grants were reduced or withdrawn, and how the reliance on reserves would affect long term financial resilience and the delivery of strategic priorities. Kelvin responded that the main grant he was referring to was a neighbourhood policing grant, and that if the grant was going to be removed, then they would have to look at how they would be able to phase those costs out of the organisation.

Councillor District Robin Spencer asked how they ensure smaller districts retain consistent resourcing and aren't disproportionately impacted by efficiency savings. Kelvin responded that efficiency savings are generally delivered on a force-wide basis rather than targeting particular districts, and that the total operating model review will take account of the needs of each district and how policing is delivered across Surrey.

The panel noted the initial outcome of the forecast, the likely need for additional savings, and the financial challenge that this represents, and the current assumptions being employed and potential current and future risks.

Proportionality Review

The panel discussed the proportionality review.

Claire, the scrutiny business manager, said that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act places a duty on panels to seek to reflect the makeup of the local police area, including its political makeup, and that the panel does not align with the political makeup of Surrey.

Councillor John O'Reilly said that he had reservations about approaching individual authorities for nominations to be put to the Secretary of State, and that he thought it would be a much easier and more straightforward way to let the political groups that are affected nominate the additional members.

Councillor Borough Richard Wilson said that he was a little ambivalent about the whole process, but that he realised that they had to do it. He suggested that an alternative would be to let the local councils come up with their nominations, and take those nominations to the Surrey Leaders Group to their other nominations on a yearly basis.

Councillor Borough Richard Moyne said that he was worried about losing the cross Surrey balance of the panel, and that he thought they needed to be careful not to change that balance. He also asked whether the quorum for the meeting would have to change.

Councillor District Raj Haque asked how many more than the maximum they should have, and whether there was a limit that they should have a minimum or maximum number.

The panel approved the recommendations.

Commissioners Question Time

The panel discussed the questions that were forwarded to the commissioner.

Councillor Borough Richard Moyne asked a follow-up question on item two, which was about the death rate of motorcyclists. The PCC responded that it is a shocking statistic, and that it is something worth talking to the chief constable about next month.

Councillor District Raj Haque asked a supplementary question on question four, which was about the intensification week. The PCC said that it was an operational question, and that Damien could work up a response to him on that. He also asked a supplementary question on question five, which was about community engagement. The PCC said that it was quite complicated, and that she was sure they could work with Damien to try and see what they could pull together.

Councillor Borough Mike Smith asked a supplementary question on question six. The PCC said that she had to be a bit careful because it was an operational matter, but that she understood the concern behind it.

Councillor John Robini asked a question about the multi-agency approach. The PCC responded that it was something they were doing in other parts of the county, and that they were not quite ready to talk about yet.

Finance Sub-Group

The panel agreed to reconstitute the finance subgroup for 2025-26, with Councillor as chairman, Councillor Borough Mike Smith as vice chairman, Councillor Borough James Baker as a member, and Samantha Sheriff as a temporary independent member.