Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2019/20. 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 2019;

  (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 2019;

  (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 2019;

  (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 2019 (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 2019.

Key points raised during discussion:

1. The Commissioner presented his report to the Panel and stated that the precept would be set at the maximum increase permitted without a referendum. The precept would amount to a £24 increase for Band D homes.  There had been an unprecedented response to the consultation of just under 7,000.  75% of those that responded supported the increase. The increase would mean an extra 100 police officers or operational staff would be recruited.
2. The Commissioner spoke of the short term cost of moving Surrey Police HQ to the centre of the county but explained that this would mean major efficiencies in the medium and long term.
3. The Commissioner also spoke of the re-evaluation of officers pensions which he had argued should be paid out of central taxation.  The Government had provided some cushion for the increase this year, but next year the Commissioner would have to fight again.
4. The Panel raised several queries and the Commissioner responded:

a)    that Specials had the same powers as the police and received proper training and management.  PCSO’s are not trained in the same way as Specials as PCSO’s only do what they are legally allowed to do within the powers delegated to them by the Chief Constable

b)    that audit services were procured externally every five years and not provided in-house.  He thought that the fees were reasonable given the complicated nature and size of the budget.  It was also explained that costs for internal audit had reduced from last year as it was now an internal provider from a Hampshire local authority.

c)    the 100 extra officers would include PCSO’s and would mean a doubling of numbers on neighbourhood teams.

d)    He did not expect to have any problems with recruitment

e)    IT improvements would cover all areas both frontline and backroom

5.    There was some discussion around police cars being parked up at stations and seemingly going nowhere, especially at weekends.  The police would be asked for an explanation, but the PCC explained that this reflected the fact that officers worked shift patterns.

6.    There was much discussion around CCTV and the Panel asked for detail around the investment to support CCTV.  The Commissioner explained that there was to be a major review of CCTV including new technology to obtain digital evidence.  He noted that in Sussex, all areas were covered by one central control room, based at Police HQ.  He would like to see Surrey local authorities adopt a similar model.  The Commissioner noted the CCTV issues raised regarding Guildford not having the manpower to cover it.

7.    The Finance Officer explained that the police officer pension scheme was unfunded and that the Government has asked the government actuary to consider what employers should be paying if the scheme was a funded scheme.  This was an unexpected additional burden on police budgets and the Commissioner had fought for the extra cost to be paid by the Government. 

8.    The Panel asked for a detailed quantitative report on what the extra money would be spent on.  Details of targets were also requested; for example, how many extra crimes would be solved with the additional budget.  The Commissioner gave an update on crime figures and stated that he was unable to bring a report promising reduced crime figures.  He would however, return with further details of where the additional resource would be allocated and how he expected this to result in improvements.

9.    The Commissioner confirmed that dedicated neighbourhood police would be allocated to all boroughs.  A Panel Member asked for the current neighbourhood police spend to be published.

10. Several members raised the issue of police presence on the streets to which the Commissioner responded that there were different anecdotes from different areas and the surveys he conducted showed the majority of responders said that the police were there when needed.

11. The Panel spoke about IT and the risks involved.  The Commissioner responded that local IT projects would always be high risk but more worrying were the national IT programmes over which he would have no control over the budget or delays.  Also, benefits of IT projects may not be realised for some time following completion.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the proposed Surrey Police Council Tax Precept of £260.57p for a Band D Property for the financial year 2019/20 was agreed.

2.    That the Police & Crime Commissioner be requested to provide a detailed report to the Panel on what the extra funding would be used for.

Actions/Further information to be provided:

Chairman to write to the Commissioner to confirm agreement of the 2019/20 precept proposal.

Cllr Andrew Burley arrived as 11.18am in the middle of discussion on this item.