Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2017/18. The purpose of this item is to allow the Commissioner to outline his proposals in more detail and to answer any questions that Panel Members might have.

Following consideration of the Commissioner’s proposed precept, the Panel must either:

a)     agree the precept without qualification or comment;

b)     support the precept and make comments or recommendations concerning the application of the revenues generated; or

c)     veto the proposed precept.

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 2017;

(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 2017;

(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 2017;

(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 2017 (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 2017.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced the report by informing the Panel that for this year at least, the proposed precept increase of 1.99% was a carefully considered decision on his part.  It would have been an easy and simple decision to recommend this increase for the financial year 2017/18 if there had been no projected underspend against the current year’s budget. As current projections indicated a year end underspend of more than £3 million the Commissioner said that he had considered very carefully if a rise in the precept could be justified. 

2. On balance the PCC said he had come to the conclusion that a 1.99% was the correct amount by which to increase the precept, as the Force needed to find £5.5 million of savings to balance the budget next year. The proposed increased was in line with the guidance given by the Minister of State for Policing which stated PCC’s who increased the precept by the maximum allowed without triggering a referendum would not suffer an financial reduction to their central government funding.

3. It was noted that a crucial factor in the PCC’s decision making was the under spend in Surrey Police’s budget and whether in these circumstances it was appropriate to increase the tax burden on local residents.  The PCC explained that the primary reason for this underspend was the difficulty in retaining Police Officers. The PCC shared the view that although this had a positive financial impact, this had a negative impact on operational policing.

4. The PCC highlighted that there were good plans in place to manage the retention issue and that the magnitude of the under spend would be a temporary matter going forward.

5. It was further reported that the Surrey Police budget was stable and this has been achieved by both investing, making significant savings and cost reduction.

6. The PCC advised the Panel that there were reports that the technical work for the new policing funding formula was developing well and this would be in place in a year’s time. However it was noted that there was also a huge risk in terms of the final funding formula, which could possibly reduce the amount of central government funding given to Surrey police.

7. The Chairman referred to the new funding formula and requested that Government recognised how much Surrey residents pay towards their Police Force in comparison to other parts of the country where it is significantly less.

8. A Member made reference to the Policing in your Neighbourhood report, Recommendation 1 and whether the PCC had plans to improve the statistics in relation to recruitment and retention. The PCC advised the Panel that there was no difficulty in recruitment and that training courses were fully booked. However the issue was retaining staff when other neighbouring Police Forces were also recruiting.

9. The PCC further informed the Panel that there was a shortage of detectives in Surrey which was a concern for both the PCC and Chief Constable and a priority going forward.

10. There was a discussion around the Home Office top-slicing charges in relation to police forces using the national police computer systems. It was explained this was increased each year by amounts in excess of the prevailing rate of inflation. The PCC advised the Panel that increases above inflation were common and that there was a legal duty to contribute to the strategic policing requirement.

11. A Member sought more information around the new Gang Masters Labour and Abuse Authority (GLAA). The PCC advised that this related to modern slavery which was taken very seriously by Surrey Police who were giving this matter greater priority.

12. It was noted that there were a variety of measures in place to keep Police Officers in post. Members were informed that the Chief Constable had raised the South East allowance payments to Police Officers.  The Government had given permission for this payment to be made but had not given any central funding to pay for it.  

13. The PCC expressed the view that one way to solve the issue of retaining officers is to make Surrey a good place to work in terms of stability and support.

14. The PCC was asked to provide more information around ‘top slicing’ and whether this saves Surrey Police money. Members were advised that ‘top slicing’ allows for the development of the police transformation fund as funding allocated to Police forces by Government was used to develop the Police at a national level.

15. The Panel noted that two new £1 million specific reserves had been established. One of these reserves allows Surrey Police to bid against a Local Innovation Fund which will focus on cost efficiency and better ways of working. The PCC assured the Panel that if this approach did not work other avenues would be explored.

16. Following discussions around ‘top-slicing’, a Member enquired whether the Home Office Police grant would be affected by the forces under spend figure. The PCC explained that the grant amount received by the Government would not be affected by Surrey Police’s under spend. There were concerns Government would reduce funding on the assumption that Surrey Police can raise money for itself because residents pay a higher council tax.

17. The PCC further advised the Panel that the money in ‘reserves’ would allow the Chief Constable to control and regulate risk.

18. A Member queried what savings have been achieved with the collaboration with Sussex Police as nothing had been circulated to show progress. The PCC informed the Panel that in addition to various areas, merging back office functions had made a number of savings.

19. It was noted that cases including rape, assault, cyber crime, new crimes and newly recognised crimes such as modern slavery were listed as of key areas Surrey Police plan to invest money.

20. A Member raised concern with the need to use money from reserves when Surrey Police were already under spending. The Treasurer for the OPCC advised that the under spend was a unique occurrence and a one-off which was not intended to be repeated in the future.

21. Following the above discussion the PCC was reminded that Surrey Police under spent last year and this was not a unique as suggested. The Panel were informed that there was a history of under spend however Surrey Police were not making savings because there was a deficit but making savings because this was a positive thing to do.  The Treasurer for the OPCC went onto say that although the force had a history of under spending, there was a strong belief that the Chief Constable would be successful in using the allocated funding for 2017/18.

22. It was stated that the number one cause for Police Officers leaving the force was work life balance and not necessarily due to salary. The PCC informed the Panel that work was in progress to alleviate this concern and the matter was on the Surrey Police radar.

23. Questions came to a close and the Panel went to a vote. To ensure transparency, Members in favour of the proposed precept were asked to raise their hands. The Panel reached a unanimous decision supporting the PCC’s proposed recommendation.

24. The Chairman indicated that a formal response would be drafted to confirm the Panel’s decision and forwarded to the PCC by 8 February 2017.

RESOLVED:

The Panel agreed the proposed Surrey Police Council Tax Precept of £224.57p for a Band D property for the financial year 2017/18.

ACTIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

R1/17 For the Panel to formally respond to the PCC’s proposed precept which was agreed on 6 February 2017.