Witnesses:
Ian
Perkin, Treasurer (OPCC)
David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Key points
raised in the discussion:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
RESOLVED:
That Members note the
report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
-
R6/20 - The Treasurer
would provide the Panel with the breakdown of costs generated from
the Camera Partnership at a future meeting.
-
R7/20 -
The PCC was happy to provide the Panel with regular
updates on the progress of the EQUIP project in Part 2.