Agenda item

107.        The Panel received a report from the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC) which provided details of the draft budget for 2015/16. Carl Rushbridge, Chief Finance Officer of the OSPCC introduced the report and advised the Panel of the current financial position which took account of the provisional finance settlement. The final settlement would be known in March and at this time final assurances on the budget could be provided. The report set out the level of spending and savings required; £57million worth of savings were required over the next four years. Sussex Police operated a star chamber programme in relation to realising savings, heads of department were tasked with identifying savings from across the budget as a whole.

108.        The Panel raised the points below in the discussion that followed:

·         The use of the term savings and if the term reductions could be employed in respect of the budget.

·         The salary of the Commissioner in light of the average wages of local residents. It was acknowledged that the Commissioner’s salary of £85,000 was a good salary and it was highlighted that the Commissioner did not claim expenses or allowances in order to reduce the cost of her position.

·         The collaboration between Surrey and Sussex forces and the differences in the financial position of the two forces was noted. The Panel asked if, in light of the distinction between Surrey and Sussex, if consideration of cooperation extended to other local forces including Hampshire and Kent. Confirmation of the split in resources and investment in collaboration between Surrey and Sussex Forces was requested. The Sussex force was involved in a regional group of local Forces including Hampshire, Kent, Surrey and Thames Valley which considered forms of cooperation between the Forces. The Commissioner explained that there were no constraints on collaboration with Surrey. The areas of collaboration between Sussex and Surrey, contained in the report, were outlined and it was explained that £5million in savings would be achieved through the arrangements with Surrey. The split between Surrey and Sussex Forces was 45/55 respectively.

·         The significant investment committed to the replacement of the current Airwaves System. The new system was a national contract that was led by the Home Office in a project that would run until 2019. It was recognised that the new system would produce savings but that transition costs may be significant which may not be reflected in funding received from the Treasury.

·         The Panel queried the Red/Amber/Green system to monitor the achievement of savings initiatives. Projects with a green rating were achievable, those with a red or amber rating required contingencies or alternative projects to introduce if the original savings proposal proved unfeasible.

·         The Sussex Target Operating Model (TOM) was referred to and when the Panel would be provided with a detailed briefing on the initiative. The TOM would be addressed by the Future Model of Policing Working Group that would be formed by members of the Panel.

·         The cost of the OSPCC was queried and whether any savings could be realised in the operation of the Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner explained that her office was relatively small and had been considered the most cost effective Office in the country in an assessment conducted by HMIC. It was confirmed that the cost of the Commissioner’s Office had been frozen which had been achieved, even with the additional cost of inflation and whilst maintaining funding to the Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs).

·         The transfer of forensic medical examiners from the NHS to policing was raised and the likely cost to the force. Sussex Police was currently awaiting guidance from the Department of Health regarding the financial implications to the Force.

109.       Resolved – That the Panel notes the draft budget for 2015/16.

Police and Crime Commissioner’s Proposed Precept

110.         The Panel considered a report from the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner which set out the investment priorities for 2015/16 and the proposed precept of 1.98%. The report was introduced by The Commissioner who advised the Panel that the proposed precept would enable the full generation of investment funding envisaged under the proposed 3.6% precept last year, as supported by the Panel, but precluded by the referendum cap. The Commissioner outlined the investment priorities of safeguarding and cyber-crime that the proposed precept would fund  and informed the Panel of the outcomes of the public consultation exercise.

111.         The Panel raised the issues below in the discussion that followed:

·         The difference between the freeze grant and the proposed precept was £800,000 and concern was expressed regarding the additional council tax local residents would have to pay during a continued period of depressed wages. It was felt that the consultation responses may not have been as supportive of the increase if local residents had understood that the precept increase would only generate £800,000 on a budget of £249 million. It was recognised that the current financial climate was still challenging. The proposed precept would equip the police force with the necessary skills and resources to address those crimes of greatest threat to residents of Sussex. Without the additional investment envisaged in the proposed precept of the capability of Sussex Police to address such threats would be less effective.

·         The Panel supported the Safeguarding priority and asked for more information on collaboration with local agencies with responsibility for children’s services in Sussex. The Commissioner was involved in regular meetings with children’s safeguarding boards, multi-agency safeguarding boards and pan-Sussex group  that looked at Serious Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence. The level of partnership working ensured that any duplication of effort was identified and addressed and that detailed information was shared between responsible agencies.

·         The proposed precept for 2014/15 had been supported by the majority of the Panel and it was disappointing that the referendum cap had prevented the Commissioner from undertaking the levels of investment she had planning in the areas of safeguarding cyber-crime.

·         The Commissioner was asked for detail on the function of the cyber-crime unit. The unit had only been launched recently and had already dealt with a cyber-attack on the Sussex Police website. It had also recently secured the arrest of five individuals suspected of involvement in cyber-crime. The Commissioner advised people who were aware of cyber-crime activities to report their concerns to Action Fraud through the 101 telephone service. The Panel was offered the opportunity to visit the cyber-crime unit.

·         Some members of the Panel commented that the proposals advanced by the Commissioner were compelling and justified the proposed precept 1.98%.

·         The Panel referred to the public consultation which demonstrated support for the proposed precept from a majority of the respondents.

·         The Panel asked about officer recruitment, and if this represented an increase in the creation of t eh filling of vacancies. Concern was expressed regarding the retention of PCSOs in local communities where their presence was appreciated highly. Investment had been allocated to front line policing and mobile technology to ensure that officers could spend greater time in their communities. There were no plans beyond 2015/16 for recruitment of officers; the number of officers on the Force was not of foremost significance currently as the new model of policing was discussed and developed.

112.        The Panel proposed and seconded a motion to accept the proposed precept of 1.98%. The motion was agreed by a clear majority of the members of the Panel.

113.        Resolved – That the Panel agree the proposed precept 1.98%.