Issue - meetings

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.

1.    The item was deferred due to unforeseen procedural issues.

Each year, as part of the budget setting process, a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) is prepared in order to show that the Force is financially sustainable in the medium term.

Witness:

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The Chief Finance Officer outlined that the major change since the last report presented was the government-announced pay award for police officers. This added £3.3 million to the overall cost for each year. The Home Office had provided a grant of £1.8 million to offset some of that cost. The grant was allocated on the same basis as the formula grant, of which Surrey received the lowest share in the country.

2. A Panel Member asked about the likely situation of continued pay increases beyond 2% and whether this could result in discussions on the holding of a Council tax referendum. The Chief Finance Officer responded that the level of police officer pay was set centrally by the Pay Review Body and agreed by central government and was not subject to local judgement. The Government had implied that any percentage increase that was above the percentage included in Force budgets would be covered by additional funding, as had been the case in the current year (2022). The Government could also impose pay restraints on the public sector which would limit costs, thus, the need for a referendum was unlikely. In the past, the Force considered having a referendum but discounted it due to the significant cost of holding one.

3. A Panel Member asked about the impact of reductions in police staff and which roles were likely to be cut. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Force was unable to make police officers redundant and it was likely that the Government would say that the increase of officers achieved through Uplift would need to be maintained. Therefore, savings would need to be found within police staff. Currently, the Force was running a high vacancy rate as they were struggling to recruit, particularly in areas such as IT where they were unable to match the pay of the private sector. The Force would try to minimise the impact of any staff savings by changing ways of working for example.

4. A Panel Member enquired about the likelihood of the Force issuing a Section 114 notice and the impact if that took place. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Surrey was no worse position than any other Force in the country. No Force had issued a Section 114 notice before, however, it was a tool that was available if required. If actioned, all non-essential expenditure would stop but day-to-day policing itself would not be impacted.

5. A Panel Member asked whether more than one scenario had been considered. The Chief Finance Officer reassured the Panel that five different scenarios had been considered and the one presented in the report was a reasonable mid-point. In the spending review, the Government had promised extra funding for the police, but it was unknown currently how this funding would be divided. Therefore, no additional funding had been included. The Panel Member queried the recruitment freeze for Police Community Support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57

The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the Surrey Police Group (i.e. OPCC and Chief Constable combined) of the financial position as at the 30 November 2021, as well as a prediction for the situation at the end of the year.

Witnesses:

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The CFO introduced the report and highlighted that the revenue budget was predicted to be underspent by £1.9 million (0.7%) by the end of the year. This was largely due to police officer salaries being lower than budgeted, due to the new recruits starting at the bottom end of salary bands and the phasing of recruitment. If the underspend was as predicted, it would be used to fund a number of one-off change projects. The Force had predicted that it would meet the target for uplift investment officer numbers by the end of the year. The CFO noted that uplift was worked out by the increase in headcount against a baseline set two years ago. Gross recruitment was higher than it appeared in the report as the Police had to replace those retiring as well as the uplift numbers. The capital budget was forecast to be underspent largely due to the phasing of the Building the Future and ICT projects.

2. A Panel Member queried the variance for Corporate Services capital expenditure. The CFO explained that included within Corporate Services were Building the Future project, estates, and vehicles. The majority of the underspend in this area was due to the rephasing of the Building the Future project. The Panel Member highlighted that leasing would need to be recorded as a debt on balance sheets in the future and queried the impact this would have on Surrey Police. The CFO explained that this was to be introduced from the end of this financial year and stated that the Police had few leases and thus, this change would have a minimal impact.

3. In response to a question on other sites included in the Building the Future project, the CFO explained that work on the other sites was paused whilst deciding a strategic direction to prevent the incurring of unnecessary costs.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted and commented on the report.