Agenda item

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

a)    Revenue and Capital Budget

The draft budget is attached for information, to inform the discussion on the proposed precept.

The Panel is asked to note:

·         the draft revenue budget for 2017/18;

·         the latest Medium Term Financial Forecast;

·         the latest savings schedule to 2020/21; and

·         the draft capital budget for 2017/18 and capital and investment programme 2020/21.

b)    Proposed Precept

Report by the Police and Crime Commissioner

The Police and Crime Commissioner will update the Panel on the proposed precept  and draft budget for 2017/18. The Panel is asked to consider the proposed precept of £153.91 (on a Band D property), an increase of £5.00, equivalent to 3.36%, and make recommendations.

Under Schedule 5 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 the Panel is responsible for reviewing the Commissioner’s proposed precept and making reports and recommendations. If the Panel does not accept the proposed precept the power of veto is provided under this Schedule. The power of veto can only be exercised with a two thirds majority, at least, of the current Panel membership, i.e. 14 members or more, voting in favour of a veto.

In the event of a veto the Commissioner most produce a revised precept by 15 February. A provisional meeting date of Monday 20 February 2017 has been arranged for the Panel to meet to consider a revised precept and make reports to the Commissioner if required. The Panel does not have the power of veto over the revised precept.

Revenue and Capital Budget 2017/18

71.   The Panel received the report by the Police and Crime Commissioner providing the draft budget 2017/18. The report was introduced by the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC, and explained that the draft budget set the context for the Commissioner’s Proposed precept. There had been an effective cut to funding announced in the settlement which did not take account of inflation. The precept proposal was to increase the Band D charge by £5.00; Sussex was in the lowest quartile of charging. Greater clarity surrounding medium term planning would be possible once the review of the Police Core Funding model had been completed, expected in May, and would impact on the grant received from central government. The risks to medium term planning were presented in the report including inflation and interest rates. Capital investment during the year would focus on fleet, estate and IT and would be funded initially through capital receipts and reserves. A policy existed to retain reserves at 4% however earmarked reserves would be utilised for capital investment.

72.   At the invitation of the Chairman, Susan Scholefield joined the meeting at 11:30a.m.

73.    The Panel made the points below in the discussion that followed:

·         The potential savings relation to a review of specialist crime teams was queried on how this would impact on the work of units such as cyber-crime and sexual crime teams. Concern was expressed that there were critical areas and the impact of any savings needed to be carefully judged. The Commissioner explained that there was an intention to look at potential efficiencies particularly in the services shared with Surrey. An example existed in the collaboration of Surrey and Sussex homicide teams. Examples of the specialist teams included in the review would be provided in the Commissioner’s Annual report.

·         The level of underspend contained in the report and the likelihood of additional underspend in the current year. The Chief Finance Officer reported that there was some underspend with the recruitment of new officers.

·         The Commissioner had projected a budget surplus over the next two financial years therefore the savings requirement was a political choice and represented unnecessary cuts to front line policing. Recruitment of new members of staff was misleading as it involved new employees to staff the Commissioners new initiatives.  The investment case for the new initiatives was not felt to be compelling and scrutiny  of the Commissioner’s budget was considered to be rushed; at local authorities savings proposals were published and considered months in advance of the approval of the final budget. There had not been sufficient time for the Panel to consider and understand the budget proposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner explained that the savings targets had been set at a level to ensure that the actual savings requirements over the medium term could be achieved in a shorter time frame. The time given to the Panel to consider the budget was felt to be sufficient and if members wanted greater sigh of budget proposals at an earlier stage they were encouraged to join the Working Group.

·         The likelihood of further precept increases in future financial years would present a paradox in respect of the savings targets in the report. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the medium term plan made no assumptions about the precept in future years.

·         The forecast level of uncommitted reserved by 2021 was nil; a query was raised to ask what level would be ideal and if this projection may result in an increase to the precept. Concern was expressed that the depletion of reserves could result in a need for borrowing. Capital investment would be funded by reserves initially, then capital receipts would be utilised and borrowing if necessary. Any increase to the precept would be considered at the relevant time. The reduction of the estate and generation practice which would be supplemented by borrowing if necessary.

·         It was queried where in the budget spending on agencies by Sussex Police was contained and whether spending had increased over the previous two years. The data was summarised into general categories, information would be made available after the meeting.

·         There was concern that the proposed savings and the new policing model would diminish the provision of a local policing service and residents’ experience of policing would suffer. The reduction in the number of PCSOs represented a diminution in local policing. The Commissioner responded to explain that the reduction of PCSOs was consistent with the introduction of a new local policing model. Spending on local policing in Sussex represented 31% of the budget, above the national average of 29%. Spending plans and savings for the Force were subject to robust scrutiny including the Governance Map which would be circulated to members of the Panel.

·         An update was requested regarding the status of the high risk savings identified in the current year and information on what was being done to achieve the savings particularly with regard to the reported underspends. The lack of this information in the report undermined the role of the Panel to consider the draft budget and determine the proposed precept. Further information would be provided following the meting on the current status of savings in the current year.

Precept Proposal

74.   The Panel considered a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner on the proposed precept for 2017/18. The Chief Finance Officer, OPCC introduced the report and advised the Panel that Sussex had the fifth lowest council tax in the country and the fourth lowest net expenditure per capita. The budget had been drafted on the assumption of a 0% precept and proposed saving in 2017/18 were not reliant on the proposed precept; the precept would fund the investment priorities outlined in the report. A public consultation exercise undertaken on the precept had resulted in 4,504 responses with 80% of respondents in support of the proposed precept increase of £5.00 on a Band D property.

75.   The Panel raised the following issues and questions in the discussion that followed:

·         What consultation was being conducted with officers over the potential role of being armed and has the impact of armed officers in shared facilities been considered? The Commissioner explained that the Chief Constable would look at the process for appointing armed officers but there would be no consultation or survey of officers in the Force. Firearms officers would retain other duties and the arrangements for locating officers in shared accommodation would be resolved by the Chief Constable.

·         The graphic indicating the distribution of Safeguarding Investigation Units (SIU’s) across Sussex indicated a reduction in staff in Brighton and Hove. The Commissioner explained that there would be an increase in public protection investigators who would work across all areas of Sussex irrespective of where they were based. The location of public protection investigators was predicated on the calculation of greatest risk and resources would be deployed where required.

·         The Commissioner was asked where the Community Priority Crime Teams would be based, what form the operating model would take and how they would work in collaboration with the Expert Youth Teams.The Commissioner explained that there would be a Community Team in each Division which would work with the Youth Team to address anti-social behaviour, drug problems and persistent reoffending.

·         The Community Priority Crime Teams were symbolic of a response to local need only and not a credible replacement for local PCSOs. The transition to the new model could lead to operation confusion; the Commissioner was asked how she would learn from previous experience and ensure a fluid and instantaneous transition. The Commissioner disagreed that the Teams were an artifice; the new model would be monitored and scrutinised by HMIC through the PEEL inspections. The Chief Constable would be held to account by the Commissioner for the introduction of the new model.

·         Local residents wanted an improvement in local policing and regretted the reduction in PCSOs, there was no indication in the report where the Local Community and Youth Teams would be based and how they could react to issues reported in local communities. The Commissioner explained that under the new model PCSOs were more effective in their role and it was misleading to emphasise changes to the numbers of PCSOs alone. Youth Teams would be involved in prevention.

·         The average age of the population in Sussex was rising but the increase in vulnerable people living alone was not reflected in the Plan or investment priorities. The Commissioner explained that Sussex Police had introduced Operation Signature as a response to crimes against the elderly.

·         The Commissioner was asked about local authority cuts to youth services, the impact of these cuts on policing and what liaison was conducted with leaders of local councils. The Commissioner responded to explain that cuts at upper tier authorities in Sussex had a direct impact on crime and policing. No local authorities have consulted with the Commissioner prior to the budget setting. The new policing model had been influenced by austerity and the national policing vision 2025 asserted the need for police forces to work in partnership with other bodies.

·         The lack of meaningful consultation conducted by the Commissioner with local communities and Parish Councils regarding local policing was raised.

·         Clarity around the consultation conducted and a breakdown of the response across the areas of Sussex was required. The presentation of the statistics in the appendix to the report was not a credible document in support of the proposed precept. The inclusion of detail regarding the proportion of residents within the policing districts expressing support for the precept would have augmented the statistics in the report. The additional detail concerning the outcomes of the consultation would be made available to the Panel.

76.     The Panel noted the draft Revenue and Capital Budget 2017/18.

77.     A motion was proposed and seconded to veto the proposed precept and consider a revised precept at the provisional meeting date in February. The proposal to veto was moved as a consequence of unresolved concerns regarding local policing and a lack of information regarding the precept and budget. The Panel voted by a majority to reject the motion.

78.     A motion was proposed and seconded to oppose the precept on the grouns that insufficient data has been provided and greater clarity around the investment proposals were required. The Panel voted by a majority to reject the motion.

79.   A motion was proposed and seconded to agree the proposed precept. The Panel voted by a majority to accept the motion.

80.   Resolved – That the Panel agrees the proposed precept of £153,91 (on a Band D property), an increase of £5.00, equivalent to an increase of 3.36%.