Agenda item

To consider the budget update of Surrey Police and the Office of the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner.

Surrey Police Financial Report                              Page 29 -36

Report on the budget for the OPCC                     Page 37 - 40

The Commissioner informed the Panel that the budget for Surrey Police was on track for the financial year end with a potential underspend of around £180,000. The Chairman confirmed with the Commissioner that he was willing to work with Members of the Finance Sub-Group on the formation of the budget for 2015/16, ahead of the precept deadlines. Member of the Finance Sub-Group were invited to ask questions relating to the reports submitted.

·         Members felt the summary report did not contain enough explanation to the figures within the annexes. There was also some concern that it appeared the reserves had risen by £1.5million during the financial year despite the norm being to evaluate reserves contributions at the end of the financial year. The Chief Finance Officer stated that the Commissioner had a policy to put aside 3% to reserves, and during the last year had been able to put more into reserves due to an underspend in budgets.

·         The Commissioner informed the Panel that Operation Franklin, the flood response operation, had cost in the region £600,000 which the Police were hoping to reclaim from the government. At the time they were developing their claim with all the figures related to the Operation.

·         The figures provided to the Panel were for up to the end of January 2014 and had been updated in March 2014.

·         Members queried the £1million savings from the Learning and Development budget due to the Commissioners commitment to development. The Commissioner stated that he would look at this budget saving.

·         The Chief Finance Officer explained that the costs associated with the cancellation of Project Siren was capital, however the costs discussed within the report were revenue expenditure as they were for the maintenance costs related to the maintenance the system.

·         Members queried why the budget for the Officer of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) had three budget headings for audit – internal, external and independent. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the external audit fee was a contractual fee which was agreed by the Audit Commission which they were required to pay. In addition, the external auditors had been contracted to audit Project Siren. The internal audit was a joint audit committee with the Chief Constable, while the independent audit fee was for the expenses of members on the independent audit committee. The Panel were informed that one member of the independent committee had previously sat on the Police Authority.

·         The Commissioner informed the Panel that it had been a year since he had cancelled Project Siren and that there was a draft report out to consultation. He hoped the final report with lessons learnt within the next two months, and he would circulate the report as soon as he was able.

·         Members queried the £1.3 million underspend on specialist crime and were informed that due to the reconfiguration of the Force to a more regional focus some budgets and staff were still being recoded. It was hoped the recoding would be completed with variances being balanced by the year end. The Chief Finance Officer stated that he would look at the specialist crime budget in particular.

·         Members were concerned that the Police had £280,000 of accounts payable which were over 90 days overdue. The Chief Finance Officer stated that these were generally from low risk bodies, such as other public sector bodies and that the Police had a relatively low level of write-off monies. Members felt that the Police should chase public sector bodies for monies due as much as they did the private sector.

·         The Panel raised concerns that there was an overall underspend for overtime, despite the overtime put in during the flooding. They were informed that the overtime for the flooding response had been separately recorded for the reimbursement claim for the Project Franklin costs.

·         Members questioned the £15,520 expenditure on an internet cafe and were informed this was a staff facility by the staff canteen, but that the Commissioner would look into the spending of this budget.

·         The Panel thanked all the agencies involved for their work during the flooding.

RESOLVED: That,

1.    The Police and Crime Commissioner re-examine in-year revised savings for Learning and Development.

2.    The Police and Crime Commissioner provide more information regarding the variance for Specialist Crime.

3.    The Police and Crime Commissioner examine actions that can be taken to reduce late payments from other public sector bodies.