Agenda item

Report to follow

Procedure note attached

Matthew Ellis, the Police and Crime Commissioner presented details of the proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2014/5. Members were advised of his intention to maintain Council Tax precept at 2013/14 levels, and his acceptance of the Council Tax Freeze Grant from central government. The Commissioner explained his wish to ensure that current levels of funding were used to maximum effect prior to seeking additional revenue. Members were advised of 35-40 projects ongoing intended to bring down costs and ensure value for money.

A member referred to a forecast underspend of £1.042 for 2014/5 to be added to Reserves and a contribution to be taken from Reserves to fund the new £2m Innovation Fund for 2014/15. A request was made for the presentation of such information in a clearer  format in future budget reports , whilst acknowledging that the current format satisfied the “Statutory Funding Requirements”

Referring to the money available from the underspend the Commissioner saw it as an opportunity to incentivise other agencies and partners to work differently to achieve greater impact.

The Commissioner was asked to explain the Capital Programme and in particular what the revenue from the sale of the old Police Headquarters would be used for. He informed the Panel that it would be a capital receipt and used to offset current deficit, adding that until the buildings had been demolished there had been a financial liability of £1m for security and maintenance per annum. As a result of the demolition it was anticipated that there would be savings of £0.5m to be returned to funds.

A member raised the issue of savings related to staff restructuring and asked what effect there would be on Police resources, in particular were redundancies anticipated and where there was risk how did he intend to mitigate it.

The Commissioner explained there was an ongoing review of warranted officers deployed in staff roles as part of the measures to address a reduction in overall police officer numbers. The deployment of these officers to front line policing would mitigate a reduction in numbers without significant negative   impact on frontline policing numbers. He added that in the long term through collaboration with other services redundancies could not be discounted but it was anticipated that natural wastage would take up the numbers; ultimately front line numbers would not be affected. In respect of mitigation of risk he advised members that there were arrangements in place, his senior team had a number of projects on going, and that he was comfortable with the arrangements.

In relation to the Strategic Property Partnership, the Commissioner was asked if there had been a reconciliation of the Police Property Portfolio, and if so was the Chief Constable confident that operational policing capability would not be adversely affected. The Panel were assured that operational policing would not be affected but that operational needs could not as a matter of course override financial considerations. The Commissioner added that the major investment in Information technology would change the way patrolling officer’s work with more time spent on patrol resulting in efficiency savings. To sum up operational policing was at the heart of the process and this was always the first consideration tempered with financial awareness.

When asked if there were any plans to increase Neighbourhood Policing numbers, the Commissioner advised that that were no guarantees of an increase but it was his wish that numbers should remain the same as he shared the Chief Constables recognition of the importance of visibility across the County and Neighbourhood officers were an important part of strategy. For the immediate future numbers would not change. Returning to the issue of visibility and Neighbourhood Policing he explained the intention to re-introduce Police Posts and stage a recruit drive for Special Constables to serve in their own communities which would offer obvious advantages.

In respect of the Community Fund, Innovation Fund and Local schemes the Commissioner was asked to comment on their financial viability and long term sustainability.  He assured members that it was a three year programme specifically intended to influence how other agencies worked and address the challenges which the current fragmented approach created. It was expected that the change in culture would result in better outcomes, a reduction in re-offending and payment would be by result against the “Four Priorities”. In apportioning funding he advised of a strong and robust vetting process to ensure that the bids supported his priorities and were subjected to staged revaluation through the life of the programme.

Referring to the allocation in the OPCC budget to Third Party funding a member asked the Commissioner for an explanation of this item. He responded and advised that it included things such as analysts, consultant’s fees and the development of new areas of expertise necessary to address the issues arising from the reconfiguration, new ways of working and service delivery. The work often took the form of short projects; mental health was a prime example.

The Commissioner  had reported that his grant from the Home Office was less than originally anticipated due to top slicing  to fund HMIC “initiatives “He advised that he had written to the Home Secretary seeking further funding and calling for a review of the proposals for the HMIC.

RESOLVED- that the Police and Crime Panel support the Police and Crime Commissioners draft Budget and Precept 2014/15, and a formal report of the Panel’s deliberations be forwarded to the Police and Crime Commissioner.