Agenda item


The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the Surrey Police Group (i.e. Finances of both the PCC and Chief Constable) financial position as at the 30th November 2019, comparing the expenditure and income incurred by both Surrey Police and the Office of the Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner, with the revenue and capital budgets approved by the Police & Crime Commissioner in January 2019 for the financial year 2019/20.





Ian Perkin, Treasurer (OPCC)

David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner


Key points raised in the discussion:


  1. The Treasurer outlined that the report showed a satisfactory financial position as of November 2019 with an over spend of £312,000, he was confident that there would be an under spend of £642,814 by the end of the financial year.
  2. He also noted the difference in the presentation of the financial report due to a new software package. The software listed portfolios that better reflected the current management arrangements as opposed to the previous breakdown by department.

A Member sought clarification on why there was a greater income than expected from the Camera Partnership under ‘Operations’ and the over spend in Transport within ‘Commercial & Finance Services’ - he asked that the Panel would be informed on the number of police vehicles, as it was raised at some community engagement meetings. In response, the Treasurer explained that the money from the Camera Partnership was generated across the county in terms of speeding and the Panel would receive the costs in detail at a future meeting.

  1. The Member also queried the unnecessary £1.3 million cost within ‘Commercial & Finance Services’ to fund the replacement of Airwave handsets. In response, the Treasurer explained that the replacement was needed to keep the existing emergency communications system operational before the Emergency Services Network (ESN) was in place which was delayed nationally. The PCC added that it was a waste of money as it did not improve the current service and all forces faced the same unexpected cost.
  2. In response to a Member query on the assumption that the over spend on the ‘Local Policing’ costs would decrease when more police officers were in place, the Treasurer commented that the ‘Local Policing’ costs did not include the cost of police officers as those costs were managed in totality under the Non Delegated - Police Pay portfolio which gave greater flexibility for deployment.
  3. A Member raised the concern of over-budgeting and the use of temporary staff and overtime to compensate which was not an efficient use of the budget. In response, the PCC explained that overtime was necessary in some cases and the overtime budget has reduced in recent years due to greater resources. The PCC stressed that it was difficult to ascertain how many new police officers would be in place over the next few months due to the nature of the police.
  4. In response to a Member query on the reasons for the over spend in the EQUIP project on staff pay and agency costs and the project’s expected date of completion, the PCC noted that EQUIP was reported in detail at the last informal meeting of the Panel. Due to the over spend and delays the project remained a large risk, but it had been under control and the PCC noted that the force hoped to reap its benefits in the autumn. The PCC was happy to provide the Panel with regular updates in Part 2.




That Members note the report.





Actions/further information to be provided:


  1. R6/20 - The Treasurer would provide the Panel with the breakdown of costs generated from the Camera Partnership at a future meeting.
  2. R7/20 - The PCC was happy to provide the Panel with regular updates on the progress of the EQUIP project in Part 2.


Supporting documents: