Agenda item

This paper is provided to the Police & Crime Panel for information only to give Panel Members information on the budget to fund the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for the financial year 2022/23. 

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The PCC acknowledged that any increase in any budget was not taken lightly but she needed to ensure that the OPCC as an organisation was suitably equipped to meet increased demand and deliver her and the Office’s statutory functions. The increase in operational budget would fund new posts where the OPCC was currently at its weakest. Investment would mean those contacting the Office would have their case dealt with in a timely manner, which was not always the case currently. The PCC believed that greater work could be undertaken with Criminal Justice System (CJS) partners, and this would require a new role within the Office. Increasing the visibility of the PCC and OPCC to the public was necessary to further transparency and public understanding of their work and thus, investment in a communications role was also proposed. Commissioning services and giving grants to support victims required additional resource to secure funding and achieve value for money. The PCC highlighted that Surrey’s OPCC was considerably smaller than other OPCCs in the region, with only three being smaller within England and Wales.

2. It was raised by the PCC that the Office owed considerable amounts of overtime to almost all staff members and the PCC shared her concern that this could result in a loss of staff members. The PCC assured Panel Members that the proposed increase in the operational budget for the OPCC was to the benefit of both Surrey Police and residents and following the increase would account for 0.5% of the total Police budget. It was noted that £270,000 of the increase was to fund new posts and the remainder was to meet other costs including cost of living and pay increases for existing staff. The PCC provided Panel Members with an overview of the work of the OPCC, including new initiatives since her election. The services that the OPCC commissioned were said to directly support vulnerable residents within the community. The OPCC had successfully bid for over £2.3 million of government funding, which included £1.1 million for domestic abuse and sexual violence support and had worked with partners to secure £2.8 million from the Changing Futures funding.

3. A Panel Member recognised that there was a lack of understanding by the public regarding the role and functions of the PCC and her Office. The Panel Member disagreed with the idea that an increased budget for the OPCC would take away from front-line policing services, when rather, their work supported that of front-line services. The Panel Member highlighted the importance of understanding where to go with a concern about policing and receiving a response in a timely manner. The Panel Member expressed his support for the OPCC budget proposal. The PCC shared that since May 2021, the OPCC had received 2,222 contacts from residents and the average number of complaints per month had increased to 169, from 45 when PCCs were first introduced.

4. A Panel Member congratulated the OPCC for successfully bidding for a number of government grants, acknowledging the requisite time and effort . The PCC agreed and informed the Panel that her Office had begun work to bid for part of the government funding that had been made available for ‘Safer Streets’ as part of the ‘Levelling Up agenda’.

5. A Panel Member noted that every £1 increase of the precept equated to a £500,000 increase in the budget and the increase the OPCC had proposed was £500,000, with half funded by reserves and half by the precept increase. It was highlighted that it would be difficult to ‘sell’ to residents that equivalent to 1/10^th of the precept increase would be funding the OPCC. The Panel Member questioned whether the proposed balance of funding between the OPCC and the Police was correct. The PCC explained that although it was a substantial increase, this was due to a historic lack of investment despite increased demand. The PCC recognised that the commissioning work undertaken by the OPCC was crucial in supporting residents and delivering the Police and Crime Plan. The CFO noted that the Panel Member made the distinction between the PCC and the Police as two separate entities, when in reality they worked together for the same cause.

6. A Panel Member raised concern over justifying an increase in the precept to fund a service which residents may consider to be administrative and thus, he could not fully support the proposal. The Panel Member felt that the OPCC should be aiming to maximise the efficiency of its resources rather than increase its budget.

7. The Vice-Chairman emphasised that the only decision the Panel had was regarding the precept and it was the PCC’s decision to allocate the funding from the precept and remained her decision to justify. The Vice-Chairman shared that the discussions held at the Finance Sub-group focussed on proportionality and prioritisation of resource allocation. It was understood by the Vice-Chairman that the PCC was trying to address the lack of resources of the OPCC as a result of former decisions, but acknowledged that all Panel Members were part of organisations which reflected historical funding decisions. The Vice-Chairman stated that the current balance of funding proposed was not right. He noted that the ringfencing of police officer numbers also had an impact on budgetary decisions which then impacted Police Staff. The PCC responded that it was through prioritisation that she had decided to increase the size of the Office by three posts.

8. A Panel Member noted that he was shocked at the amount of overtime the OPCC owed its staff members, as this would not be tolerated at his Borough Council. The Panel Member acknowledged that the size of communications departments in many Councils had risen over the recent years and were now a crucial part of an organisation and so required investment. The Panel Member expressed his support for the budget proposal.

9. A Panel Member explained that he could not accept the proposal on behalf of his community, as his residents wanted more police officers on the streets and thus, all additional funding should go towards front-line policing. The PCC understood the desire for more front-line policing but also explained that one of the most important roles of the OPCC was working with partners to reduce reoffending and prevent crime.

10. A Panel Member noted that the work of the PCC and OPCC was complementary to that of the Police. The understaffing of the OPCC needed to be rectified and the amount of overtime owed to staff was not acceptable. The Panel Member expressed his support for the proposal, despite going into the meeting unsupportive, as it would improve outcomes for residents; although, it was acknowledged that the proposed increased precept would place financial pressure on some residents. The CEX explained that her staff were passionate about their role in policing and that was why they had worked so many additional hours. This was the third PCC that the CEX had worked for and over the years she had witnessed a growth in the role and responsibilities of the PCC, whilst the OPCC had remained small. The OPCC’s resourcing was such that it was now increasingly difficult to effectively fulfil its role.

11. A Panel Member shared that she had previously been sceptical of the proposal but felt that the PCC had adequately justified the budget increase. The Panel Member sought assurance that the posts the PCC planned to introduce would help support front-line policing.

12. A Panel Member raised concern over the unsustainability of drawing from reserves and queried how the new staff members would be funded in future years; and noted that an increase of £10 a year would add to the strain on some residents’ budgets. An increase of £10 a year could only be justified by the Panel Member if it ensured that fewer police staff would be lost. The CFO confirmed that if the precept was increased by £10, no significant reductions in police staff would be required for 2022/23. The Panel Member acknowledged the hard work of the OPCC staff and the pressures they faced but she could not support an increase in their budget in conjunction with a precept increase in the current financial climate. The CFO clarified that the actual increase in the OPCC budget from the precept was £200,000, which was the equivalent to a 40p a year increase for a resident. The use of funding from reserves was designed to phase the increase of the budget over a number of years.

13. A Panel Member thanked the OPCC for their answers to his questions submitted in advance. The Panel Member queried the proposed 33% increase in OPCC staffing and suggested that some pressures on staff members would ease in the short term as there would not be a new Police and Crime Plan to develop and the PCC and DPCC were now familiar with their roles. The Panel Member asked whether the OPCC had any externally funded staff members and it was confirmed that there were none. The CEX acknowledged that there was always more work prior to and following an election. The PCC had been highly visible since being elected which resulted in an increased workload for the Office. The CEX did not agree with the Panel Member’s assertion that the OPCC’s workload would stabilise, rather she expected demands on PCCs to continue to increase. It was noted that not all OPCCs were completely transparent regarding the staffing numbers shared. The number of staff on the website of Surrey’s OPCC was accurate and they did not have any externally funded posts. The CFO contextualised the OPCC staffing percentage increase quoted, explaining that it appeared large due to the small size of the Office.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted and commented on the report.