Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2014-15.

Note:

In accordance with the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012:

(a)        The Commissioner to notify the Panel of his proposed precept by 1 February 2013;

(b)        The Panel to review and make a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept (whether it vetoes the precept or not) by 8 February 2013;

(c)        If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner is to have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish his response, including the revised precept, by 15 February 2013;

(d)        The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying it of his revised precept, to review the revised precept and make a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2013 (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/her response by 1 March 2013.

The Panel were informed that with the announcement of the precept ceiling the Commissioner’s precept proposal had been amended to be 1.99% rather than the 2% stated within the report. This amendment meant the precept would be £211.68 for a Band D property for the financial year 2014/15. This would result in a £9,433 loss in funding which would be made up by reserves.

·         Members suggested that the manner in which the budget was formed did not lend itself to making savings.. The Panel felt that the Commissioner could have taken a zero-based budgeting approach to inform the amount of precept required, as opposed to a simple incremental increase The Commissioner stated that he anticipated cuts to the Police budget, with increases to National Insurance and pension contributions, and so felt he would need a 2% rise. Furthermore, a £1.2 million top slice had taken place which caused further problems, however the reserves would continue to be maintained. The Commissioner stated that he was keen to use the experience of the Panel to inform decisions for the next financial year.

·         The Panel queried whether the financial schedules provided to the Panel were the ones used by the Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable to account. The Commissioner confirmed that he regularly discussed the budgets with the Chief Constable. The Chief Finance Officer informed the Panel that the appendices within the agenda were high level summaries of more detailed reports which the Commissioner discussed with the Chief Constable.

·         Members were surprised that the majority of the budget appeared to be for ‘business as usual’ and that there did not appear to be any movement of funds to support the Commissioner’s People’s Priorities. The Commissioner stated that the majority of the budget was for ‘business as usual’ and that he saw the People’s Priorities as a change in ethos rather than changes in budgets.

·         Members stated that, similar to the previous year, they were still not comfortable with the level of detail being provided, and that this made it difficult to scrutinise the precept proposals. In particular, Members stated that the lack of actuals for 2013/14 made it hard to determine whether proposed budgets for 2014/15 were appropriate.

·         Members queried whether there had been a pension under spend in recent years and were informed that every three years the Local Government Pension Scheme was reviewed.

·         The Panel queried details around the Collection Fund Surplus, which had been recommended within the report to be used to make up a short-fall in funding if the precept ceiling had been lower. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Collection Fund was a joint collection pot used by the precepting authorities in Surrey and went up and down during the year, with a final report being collated at the end of each year. He informed the Panel that he would provide them with details of the financial status of this fund.

·         Members raised concerns that many residents did not want to see a rise in council taxes, but wanted to see improvements within Surrey Police. Concerns were raised regarding the increase in wages for the Assistant Police and Crime Commissioners with one being paid via a contract rather than a salary. The Commissioner explained that due to their effective work their hours had been increased and therefore the wages within the budget reflected this. The Assistant PCC for Equalities was a self employed consultant and was paid through a contract.

·         The Panel suggested that in the future the Finance Sub-Group work closely with the PCC to inform the development of the budget, to ensure they were able to effectively scrutinise and challenge. The Commissioner agreed that the Finance Sub-Group should meet with his office to discuss how the process could work.

·         Members enquired how the PCC was attempting to increase income for Surrey Police and were informed that he was working to improve awareness of the funding formula problems. Unlike other police forces, Surrey Police had few opportunities to increase income as there were, for example, no Premiership football stadiums in the County which the Police could charge for policing. Surrey Police currently had an income from policing the Derby and assisting other forces, such as during the fracking protests in Sussex in 2013. The Commissioner was, however, working with Sussex to create training schools which could be used by other forces nationally for a fee.

·         It was stated that the collaboration allocation was for use mainly with Sussex Police, and it was hoped that the benefit of this collaboration would be seen in revenue savings. The Commissioner agreed to share details of the expected indicative savings with the Panel.

·         The Panel queried the membership amount the PCC paid to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners as it was understood that Sussex PCC paid £19,000 last year compared to £30,000 paid by Surrey PCC. The Commissioner stated the membership fee was nationally set.

·         Members queried why the Assistant PCCs had training budgets when they had been hired for their expertise within their specific areas. The Commissioner stated that this was a fair challenge and confirmed he would look into this detail.

The Panel adjourned from 1.05pm to 1.10pm.

·         The Panel raised concerns that the details provided within the reports did not give them the opportunity to fully understand the budgets of Surrey Police, especially as they received the papers only a week before the meeting. The Finance Sub-Group stated they would have liked to have had more time and information to properly consider the finances, but understood that Surrey Police was chronically underfunded. The Members requested in future there was a more collaborative process between the OPCC and Finance Sub-Group when developing the budget and precept proposals

·         The Panel voted, by a show of hands, on whether to approve the proposed precept for 2014/15. The result was:

o   For – 8

o   Against – 2

o   Abstained – 1

Resolved:

·         That the Police and Crime Panel agree the proposed precept of £211.68 for a Band D property for the financial year 2014/15.

·         That in future years the Commissioner look to involve the Panel in the development of his budget and precept proposals, as opposed to the very late scrutiny required by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

·         The Panel receive details regarding the Collection Fund and its financial statues.

·         The Panel receive details regarding expected savings made from collaboration with Sussex Police.

The Panel adjourned from 1.15pm to 1.40pm.