Witnesses:
Lisa
Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner
Kelvin
Menon, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner
Key points raised during the discussion:
- A member
noted that according to the Medium-Term Financial Forecast (MTFF)
paper £3M of the £6M savings required for 2024/25 had
been identified and asked where these savings would come from and
how they would affect the Force and its capabilities. The
Commissioner explained that of the £3m only £250000 had
so far been delivered. The rest would flow from a review of
contact, fleet and back-office services as well as a longer-term
review of Custody. The ambition was to ensure that savings and
efficiencies did not impact Force capabilities or the level of
service the public received. It may be necessary to use reserves to
cover the gap whilst these reviews were taking place. The
Commissioner highlighted the importance of the reviews and assured
the panel that these were discussed regularly with the Chief
Constable who was equally focused on delivering value for money
without detriment to the service to residents. On the possible use of reserves a member asked if
there would be a plan to rebuild the reserves if they had to be
used. The Chief Finance Officer
explained that the priority was to address the savings needed, and
that the reserves provided welcome contingency for this, but that
it was intended that reserves would be rebuilt when the finances
allowed.
- A member
questioned what assumptions had been made about the level of
precept increase required for 2024/25 and over the remaining MTFF
period. The Commissioner responded that a decision on the precept
would be made at an appropriate time after consultation with the
public and the Force. For the medium-term forecast it been assumed
that the precept would increase by £10 for 24/25 and rise by
2% after that. Each additional pound
raised £0.5m for the Force. The CFO explained his view that
from a financial standpoint the level of precept should be
maximised in order to maintain services. Precept changes were cumulative meaning that an
increase not taken in a particular year could not be recovered in
future years resulting in a loss of income in every subsequent year
going forward. The PCC would have other considerations as well as
finance to weigh up in coming to her final precept decision. A
member endorsed the comments of the CFO and urged the Commissioner
to follow the advice of her Chief Finance officer to request the
maximum increase and not to be over cautious. His view was that
past precept increases for policing had not caused an outcry in the
County and that improved and continued policing services was the
priority for Surrey residents. The Commissioner highlighted the
importance of the precept consultation with the public in making
her decision. Another member reminded the panel that Surrey
residents already pay the highest level of police council tax in
England.
- A member
asked if the Commissioner was optimistic that lobbying would
achieve a change in the Police funding formula which could benefit
Surrey. Unless the formula changed Surrey would need to make
increasingly high calls on residents through their council tax
bills. The Commissioner explained that all PCCs were making
representations and had different concerns regarding the review of
the formula. However, it was unlikely that a change would occur any
time soon. Both the CFO and PCC were pushing hard through various
channels. They were not optimistic that
Surrey would do better under a change of Government either. The
Chairman highlighted the panel’s past support to the
Commissioner on this issue and the letter sent to the Home Office
requesting redistribution of the funding.
- The PCC
was asked where Police staff costs could be reduced and what the
impact would be on officers. It seemed insanity to boast of
smashing recruitment and uplift targets whilst simultaneously
proposing savings through headcount reduction. The PCC explained that officers’ numbers
were protected under the Uplift programme. However, with over 80%
of costs relating to staffing, Police staff costs were an obvious
place for savings to be found. Whilst the focus was on finding
efficiencies and service improvements it might be necessary to
continue to carry vacancies forward in some staff areas. The CFO
again highlighted the work underway to find savings through fleet
rationalisation, changes to IT and custody services. A member asked for a guarantee that officers would
not be used to take on the responsibilities of police staff. The
PCC replied that this was an operational matter for the Chief
Constable. The decision to move a couple of officers into the force
contact centre was highlighted and had proved to be
beneficial.
- The report highlighted the risks
associated with rising interest rates and suggested some Capital
projects might have to be modified or deferred. A member asked which Capital projects were most at
risk and what the impact of delaying these projects might be in
terms of Force efficiency and effectiveness. The PCC explained that
any impact would be on the phasing of projects such as IT upgrades,
Net Zero and the new HQ building. The projects themselves were not
at risk.
- The PCC
was asked what efforts have been made to change ways of working to
reduce the impact of staff reductions. Was there any further scope
for efficiencies through shared services? The PCC responded that
new technology made a big impact on reducing administrative demands
and saving time. Surrey and Sussex had already achieved savings
through collaboration and may consider further collaborative
opportunities where there was potential to provide a better service
for the same cost or the same service for a reduced
cost.
- The impact of the closure of borough and
district council offices was raised. The PCC explained that his was
kept under review. Positive relationships existed between the
Surrey Police estates team and officers in each of the Districts
and Boroughs. The Commissioner thought there might be further
opportunities to work more closely with Districts and Boroughs and to use shared services. The benefit
of having the Police sited with council services was clear and
could provide value for money for the public. A member commented on
the situation in Woking where there was a risk of Woking council
offices being closed with a potential knock-on impact on the
borough commander and staff. The member asked for the
Commissioner’s assurance that Woking was included in any
conversations with the force. The Commissioner provided assurance
that Surrey Police Estates Office were in contact with Woking
Council officers to ensure any changes had minimal impact on local
policing and the local policing team.
- A member
asked if there was a risk that Surrey Police might need to consider
issuing a section 114 notice. The Chief
Finance Officer explained that the National Police Chiefs Council
had undertaken a survey on financial sustainability for policing
which concluded that nationally there was a £3billion gap for
the sector. In Surrey there was a gap of £15.6M against a
£300M budget. Taken against the
wider £3billion context this was not a bad
position. Moreover, Surrey had reserves
which could be as a last resort and the decision could also be
taken not to fill vacancies. In conclusion the risk to Surrey of
having to issue a section 114 was currently assessed as extremely
low. This was not the case in other forces where bigger savings
were required or there was a larger capital budget.
- A member
asked if there was a Medium-Term Financial Strategy covering the
next 5 years, rather than just a budgetary approach as outlined in
the MTFF paper. The CFO suggested that the assumptions underpinning
the medium-term financial plan provided the strategic approach. The
Chief Constable was developing a strategy to capture the change
needed to deliver the savings required. This would look at custody,
provision of vehicles, usage of assets and changes to IT. As to
whether a single strategy document existed, the CFO said there was
a strategy to attempt to deliver the savings but that this was not
contained in one document.
- A Member
asked about para 9-12 of the report and whether the welcome pay
increase which had been awarded to officers had been covered by the
government Grant. The CFO had provided a response to this question
in writing ahead of the session and it was agreed this should be
added to the Minutes. A member noted that the recent pay increase
for 2023/4 was covered by the Grant but that subsequent increases
were not. The CFO explained that Surrey had the lowest proportion
of the formula grant, and these additional grants were shared out
using the same proportions. Any steps that could be taken by the
Panel to lobby funding formula change on the OPCC’s behalf
would be more than welcome.
RESOLVED: The Panel
noted the report.