Councillors and committees

Agenda item

SURREY POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONERS PRECEPT SETTING PROPOSAL FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2016/2017

Papers to follow.

 

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2016/17.

 

Note:

 

In accordance with the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012:

 

(a) The Commissioner must notify the Panel of his proposed precept by 1 February 2016;

 

(b) The Panel must review and make a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept (whether it vetoes the precept or not) by 8 February 2016;

 

(c) If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish his response, including the revised precept, by 15 February 2016;

 

(d) The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying it of his revised precept, must review the revised precept and make a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2016 (there is no second right of veto);

 

(e) The Commissioner must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s second report and publish his response by 1 March 2016.

Minutes:

Key points raised during the discussions:

 

1.    The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) informed the Panel that he was required to set a budget for the next financial year and proposed to increase the council tax precept element by 1.99 per cent. The PCC noted that they had followed advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s financial statement in Autumn 2015 which advocated PCCs raising precept levels to ensure police funding remained stable. The PCC noted that he had used his media profile to lobby for better resources for the Police and that he was pleased with the announcement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

2.    The PCC noted that during his time as the PCC there have been difficult challenges with diminishing resources and that the PCC proposed to the Panel to increase the council tax precept. The PCC also emphasised that Surrey Police were the only force in the country that had increased its police officer numbers. The PCC opened the discussion for questions.

 

3.    A Panel member noted that there was no problem with an increase in the precept, however the member queried how Surrey Police were going to spend this money and stated that savings should not be spent on paying the pensions deficit.

 

4.    The PCC agreed and noted that there had been an underspend this year due to ceasing recruitment and reducing back-office functions and that Surrey Police had taken the step to use some of this underspend to reduce the pension deficit.  There was no plan in the budget to pay off pension deficit.  The PCC noted that in the year ahead, Surrey Police were planning to spend money on more police officers as well as financing mobile data terminals. The PCC also noted that they had signed a contract to introduce body-worn video cameras that will benefit police officers and the public by reducing paperwork, more visibility and to keep the police officers and the public accountable through recorded video.

 

5.    The Chairman still challenged the PCC on the amount of money being spent on pensions with the PCC reiterating that there was no budgetary provision to pay off the deficit.  Additional monies raised through the precept would be for frontline policing including an additional £2 million for improving public protection. The PCC noted however, that paying of the pension deficit would enable the force to recruit more officers in the long term.

 

6.    A Panel member noted that there was still too much money being spent on pensions and that money should be left aside for emergency purposes as well as investing money into the 101 call service as it needed investment.

 

7.    The PCC emphasised that there was no plan to put any money into the pension fund however Surrey Police will continue to reduce the debt as well as reduce the long-term funding. The PCC informed the Panel that Surrey Police have a reserve minimum of £6 million as well as an operational reserve of £1 million and £1.5 million of reserves to be spent on training.

 

8.    The PCC noted the Panel member’s concern regarding the 101 service and emphasised that 101 was important for the public however the force had faced issues with retaining staff at the contact centre and the PCC had asked repeatedly for a special Surrey allowance to alleviate this problem. The PCC would continue to lobby government for additional allowances.

 

9.    A Panel member asked for more information around the public consultation on the precept. The PCC responded, stating that the public had not changed their view since 2015 with 66 per cent of the public supporting the proposal to increase the precept.

 

10.  Further to this the Treasurer informed the Panel that the precept was collected per authority; the tax base was notified by each individual district and borough council who also advised Surrey OPCC of how many band D properties there were. The Treasurer noted that the districts and boroughs informed Surrey Police how much they would receive in the collection fund. This stood at £1.8 million.

 

11.  A Panel member informed the Panel that she had visited (along with other Panel members) the Police Contact Centre and was very impressed and confident that the 101 service was getting better. The Panel member also asked whether it was possible for the media to report accurately regarding Surrey Police’s finances.

 

12.  The PCC thanked the Panel member for the positive feedback of the 101 contact centre however the PCC noted that Surrey received the smallest proportion of government grant funding. Some Members stated that the working environment of the 101 contact centre could be improved for staff.

 

13.  A Panel member queried the collection fund from Runnymede. The PCC explained that this information had been submitted to the Treasurer from the finance team in Runnymede.

 

14.  A Panel member emphasised the point that there was a concern that frontline services may be sacrificed to pay off the pension deficit but that the Panel member fully supported the introduction of technology to frontline officers. The Panel member was also concerned with the salary of the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner especially as victims of child exploitation had been failed.

 

15.  The PCC emphasised the point that there was no budgetary plan to pay off the pension’s deficit. The PCC noted that the Assistant PCC was a full paid employee and civil servant and hence was entitled to a pension. The PCC’s Consultant Advisor on equalities and diversity did not receive a pension. The PCC noted that £1.8 million was funded to support the domestic abuse victims, to fund domestic violence centres and refurbishments for refuges.

 

 

16.  It was explained that the Assistant PCC was a trouble-shooter and unlocks the issues faced by victims. In terms of failing victims of child exploitation this was not the role of the Assistant PCC. The PCC emphasised the work done by the APCC merited the salary she received. 

 

17.  The Chairman asked if the Assistant PCC looks in to the elderly and vulnerable people being dealt with harshly by the police. The PCC responded that there were 44 thousand crimes, some were minor cases and some involved violence. The Panel asked for details around how many victims Surrey Police supported every year. The PCC stated that he would provide the Panel with these figures.

 

18.  The PCC also emphasised that Surrey Police oversee the victim support scheme with Thames Valley Police and Sussex Police. The PCC informed the Panel that the Victim Support budget came from Government and was separate to the overall budget.

 

19.  A Panel questioned the lack of transparency of the reserves regarding the total amount of reserves and how much money was left over. The Panel member also noted that two employees had been transferred over to the Victim Support budget over the precept.

 

20.  The PCC noted that there was a forecasted underspend of £250,000. He went onto further explain that three per cent of the annual budget was put aside as part of an emergency reserve.

 

21.  Further to this, the Treasurer noted that it was cheaper to insure the police vehicles themselves. The PCC explained that he had made a policy statement to leave three per cent in the reserves in case of emergency. Additional money from the reserves had gone to the Chief Constable, £1.4M had been set aside for the Deepcut investigation and £1M for the operational training reserve 

 

22.  The Panel member asked regarding a reduction of £153,000 of the budget for the next financial year in which the Treasurer responded that the budget had not changed, the budget was re-categorised into the appropriate categories, which is why two employees were moved and re-categorised in the budget.

 

23.  The Vice Chairman queried the update to the fingerprint machines in police vehicles as he believed this would happen in May 2016 as part of the joint commissioning with Sussex Police. The PCC informed the Panel that the fingerprint machines were being explored and that the PCC was supportive in introducing the fingerprint machines into the force.

 

24.  A Panel member noted that he was pleased with the budget and was happy that the service was being delivered however was concerned with the Policing in Your Neighbourhood scheme (PiYN). The PCC noted that the PiYN was significant in tackling sexual-related crime and that the force needed more people trained to solve those types of crimes. The PCC noted that some of the money saved will be invested into helping victims of these crimes.

 

25.  The Chairman took a vote on the recommendation. The Panel unanimously agreed the proposed precept for 2016/17.

 

26.  Furthermore ten Members of the Panel agreed the precept without qualification or comment, whilst two members abstained as they wanted to make comments and recommendations regarding the precept.

 

27.  The Panel noted and agreed the budget for the OPCC (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner).

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

a)    The Police & Crime Panel agreed the proposed Surrey Police Council Tax Precept of £220.19p for a Band D Property for the financial year 2016/17.

 

 

ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

 

·         For the PCC to provide the Panel with details around how many victims are supported by Surrey Police every year.

PANEL NEXT STEPS:

 

None.

 

Supporting documents: