Councillors and committees

Agenda item

SURREY POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER'S PRECEPT SETTING PROPOSAL FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2015/16

 

The Police and Crime Panel is required to consider and formally respond to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept for 2015/16.

 

Note:

 

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

 

(a) The Commissioner must notify the Panel of his proposed precept by 1 February 2015;

 

(b) The Panel must review and make a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept (whether it vetoes the precept or not) by 8 February 2015;

 

(c) If the Panel vetoes the precept, the Commissioner must have regard to and respond to the Panel’s report, and publish his response, including the revised precept, by 15 February 2015;

 

(d) The Panel, on receipt of a response from the Commissioner notifying it of his revised precept, must review the revised precept and make a second report to the Commissioner by 22 February 2015 (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 2015.

Minutes:

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

The Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) briefly introduced the report providing Members with the rationale behind his decision to seek an increase in the precept to £215.89 for a Band D property equating to a rise of 1.99% on the 2014/15 precept of £211.68.

 

·         The Panel was made aware that market research conducted by the OPCC to assess public support for a referendum there is certainly not enough support among Surrey residents to hold a referendum to raise the precept above the 2% cap. The PCC, however, stressed that he would continue to argue the case for raising the precept above the 2% threshold and may seek a referendum in the future if research suggested support among the Surrey public for his proposal. The Panel endorsed the PCC’s decision not to pursue a referendum in setting the precept for 2015/16 and suggested that any future proposals to hold a referendum should be accompanied by a detailed business case which includes the costs incurred by holding a referendum.

 

·         Panel members suggested that the PCC focus his attention on securing fairer funding from central government by highlighting the need for a review of the police funding formula. The PCC gave details of efforts made to implore the Home Office to rethink the outdated formula which includes drawing the Home Secretary’s attention to independent research demonstrating that the force is under-funded by central government to the tune of £6 million annually. The Panel was further advised that attempts have been made to garner support on the issue from Surrey MPs but that these approaches have gained little traction.  Panel members committed to stand in support of the PCC’s efforts to secure fairer funding for Surrey Police by making contact with the Home Secretary and lend the Panel’s collective voice to the call for an urgent review of the police funding formula

 

·         Concern was expressed that Woking residents have not been afforded the opportunity to articulate their views on the precept proposals put forward by the PCC and asked why Woking’s Police & Crime Summit is not taking place until March. The Panel was informed that the schedule for each summit is contingent on the availability of officers and Members in the district and boroughs and that ideally all of the summits would have taken place before the PCC was required to submit his proposal for the precept rate. It was stressed, however, that the summits were just one of many methods used to gauge public support on the issue and that Woking residents were given the opportunity to make their views on the subject known through the wide-range of market research conducted.

 

·         Panel members noted that the precept increase required to maintain current levels of service is 12% and enquired about the additional savings which have been earmarked to meet the budget gap created by a 1.99% precept increase. The deficit was confirmed at £6.9 million for 2015/16 excluding inflation and any money lost through top-slicing. The PCC drew the Panel’s attention to the savings plan on page 4 of the report and indicated that these will ultimately have an adverse impact on the delivery of frontline policing in Surrey.

 

·         There was a general consensus among Panel members that much of the rhetoric used by the PCC to generate public support for a 24% increase in the precept had been tantamount to scaremongering, especially given the Surrey Police’s financial position in relation to other forces in England and Wales. The PCC stressed his responsibility to communicate to residents the implications that further budget cuts will have on the level of service that the police are able to provide and indicated that he will continue to highlight the consequences of continuing cuts to police funding. A Member of the Panel did highlight that, in his opinion, it is important for the Panel to be able to listen to concerns put forward by the PCC even if they are uncomfortable to hear.

 

·         Attention was drawn to the £1.6 million that has been identified as a saving in local policing and the Panel enquired about the plans in place to mitigate these savings. The PCC confirmed that these savings would ultimately equate to a reduction in the number of staff working on local policing but that money would be taken from the reserve fund to train police to tackle a broader of range of crimes. The impact of this, however, will be that neighbourhood Police Constables (PCs) will have less time to spend on developing relations with local communities while the loss of 37 police support staff will result in police officers being required to take on more administrative functions.

 

·         The PCC was asked to expand on plans to increase the number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) given previous indications that there was to be a reduction in PCSO numbers. It was stressed that while PCSOs are considered a great asset their associated costs are not significantly less than that of regular PCs, despite PCSOs lacking certain powers, and so the general inclination has been to spending the small amount of extra money to employ PCs. The reason for this planned increase is that a number of backroom police staff have been given the opportunity to train as PCSOs or Police officers.

 

·         Reference was made to a comment on page 2 of the report which claims that police officers and staff are being ‘worked into the ground’ and Members asked why so many officers and staff have second jobs if this is the case. The PCC conceded that this was an unfortunate choice of words and that the phrase should have been omitted from the report. In relation to those officers and staff with second jobs, the Panel was advised that there are no restrictions prohibiting those working for the police from having more than one job and in fact for many having a second job is a necessity due to the fact that they are not paid a living wage. This problem is particularly acute in Surrey where house prices and the cost of living are both so high. This coupling of low wages and the high cost of living has resulted in Surrey Police now having the worst attrition rate of any force in the country.

 

·         The Panel requested assurances that, in light of the death of Surrey teenager Breck Bednar, the PCC is confident that the police budget is being spent in the right areas to address the challenges that arose from this case. It was advised that a further £1 million has been released from the reserves to improve training and to ensure that staff and officers are able to manage the increase in demand more efficiently. This raised questions amongst the Panel about plans to utilise the £13 million in the force’s general reserves more widely to mitigate financial pressures. The PCC advised that, despite having more than the mandated 3%, Surrey Police has significantly less in its general reserve than many other forces. As well as training, there are also plans to use some of the additional money in the general reserves to reduce the force’s pension deficit thereby reducing the interest they are required to pay on this.

 

·         The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) highlighted the additional budget pressures created by top-slicing and indicated that the money levied by central government through top-slicing means the loss of the entirety of the money that would be raised through a 1.99% increase in the precept, as well as removing an additional £0.5 million from the police’s budget. Members inquired as to whether Surrey Police get anything back from initiatives funded through top-slicing. It was confirmed that a bid was currently being prepared for submission to the innovation fund to provide money for a project being conducted by the OPCC on cybercrime, although indications were given that the innovation fund could be used to bail out police forces that are unable to balance the books and so slashing the amount of money available through this fund. In general, the PCC indicated that police forces across England and Wales derive little benefit from top-slicing but rather feel that it just further constrains their budget.

 

·         The Panel asked whether the PCC had considered bringing in a management consultant to provide a fresh perspective on Surrey Police’s spending. The PCC advised that consultants have already been brought in to look at specific areas such as operating models and that he would report back to the Panel on how the consultancy process is progressing.

The Panel voted by a show of hands to approve the proposed precept for 2015/16. The result was:

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstained – 0

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That the Police and Crime Panel agree the proposed precept of £215.89 for a Band D property for the financial year 2015/16.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1.    That if the Commissioner decides that he needs to increase the precept above the cap in 2016/17 which would trigger a referendum, that this be based on a detailed business case across all activities carried out by Surrey Police, to be shared with the Panel’s finance sub-group.

2.    That if the Commissioner decides that he needs to increase the precept above the cap in 2016/17 which would trigger a referendum, that he makes Surrey residents fully aware of the total costs of holding a referendum.

3.    That the Commissioner consider an independent review of the expenditure of Surrey Police and report back to the Panel in due course.

 

ACTIONS/ FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

 

None

 

PANEL NEXT STEPS:

 

None

 

Supporting documents: