Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner. 

Members of the Panel are asked to review the performance of the Police and Crime Commissioner against objectives in the Police and Crime Plan.

The Panel considered a report by the PCC which informed members of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2013 -17 for Quarter 4. The PCC highlighted elements of performance against the Plan during this quarter.  He also provided commentary for members on a few key areas of activity and highlighted the priorities in the Plan.

In respect of the recording of repeat victims the Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) confirmed each incident was treated separately, not just as one crime.  Work was ongoing to establish a repeat victim champion as this area had been highlighted as an area of concern.

The Chairman highlighted the increase in recorded drug offences to which the ACC responded this was as a result of proactivity in dealing with drug offences and was therefore seen as a positive increase. It was a similar case for the increase in public place violence as the recording practices had improved significantly. The PCC advised members that he had engaged nationally with the drinks industry, who had funded some research with 8 other PCCs, looking into the effects and impacts of street drinking. One member felt that if the PCC was struggling to lobby the industry in relation to alcohol awareness perhaps members of the Panel should explore supporting the lobbying. The PCC advised he would embrace this and felt that the lack of any feedback was telling so this would be very helpful.

Following a question from a member from North Dorset District Council about the issue of ‘cuckooing’, the ACC advised officers were working to understand how these drugs groups worked.  They were very aware of the issue and resources had been dedicated to look at this problem to reduce dealers infiltrating vulnerable people’s homes to trade drugs.

One member from the Borough of Poole highlighted an issue of the appropriateness of police procedures in relation to the finding of property. The PCC advised that the Police Property Act was in statute and that lost property was not in the Police statute.

In relation to Fraud and Cyber-crime the PCC advised that one of the biggest risks currently was online fraud and telephone fraud.

One member from Bournemouth Borough Council highlighted the issue of police recruitment.  The PCC advised there was a national issue of police officers leaving. Recruitment of police officers would now continue following his re-election. Transferees were becoming more difficult to find and he highlighted that new recruits took 3 years to get trained and ready for service.  In relation to officer satisfaction surveys, the PCC advised these were dealt with locally through their managers at force levels and all officers completed an exit survey before they left. The PCC undertook to share with members a report on staff surveys but highlighted this was a national issue not one just for Dorset. The ACC added that officers were looking at training requirements and also at innovative ways of recruiting staff, a well-being agenda was also a big consideration.

A member from Dorset County Council highlighted the lack of response the PCC had received to his letters to the Home Secretary regarding ports security and the PCC undertook to circulate the letters he had sent for members’ information.

In response to a question from a member from North Dorset District Council regarding income generation, the ACC confirmed that officers conducted themselves within the local code of ethics.

Following a discussion, one of the independent members highlighted that members had in the past been critical of the level of reserves in the past and urged caution.  The Treasurer advised that reserves had not been reduced just moved and these were reviewed annually. The PCC felt that whilst he would rather have more in reserves, overall he was content they were in about the right place.

Members of the Panel asked the following questions to the PCC, who responded accordingly:-

A) Accepting that it is in line with a national trend, can the Commissioner give his view to the panel as to why police officer numbers are reducing faster than was assumed in the budget.

The number of police officers leaving before their 30 years’ service has increased nationally.   This appears to be related to changes in pension benefits, and terms and conditions under Winsor, alongside a national decline in officer numbers.  In addition, pay growth in private sector compared to public sector has widened the gap making police service pay less attractive.  As an example, Dorset Police had a top spine PC trainer leave the organisation to become a trainer in Asda on more money.  The fact that this is a national issue makes the position slightly worse – this position, combined with the 2016/17 settlement, means that forces have increased their recruitment plans.  Officers are therefore leaving forces to join other forces as transferees.

B) Can the Commissioner clarify to the panel why the £155k overspend on Information System Networks predicted at the end of the 3rd Quarter has risen to £254k at year end.

The implementation of significant new ICT infrastructure, including systems such as NICHE, and the work to increase systems further over the short term, led to the identification of a software licencing issue.  The Force needed requirement was identified and purchased in the fourth quarter, after the South West Regional Police Procurement Department had negotiated a significant discount. 

C) At the end of the 3rd Quarter the Commissioner was forecast to spend 79% of his £9.7m capital programme. At the end of the 4th Quarter it is established that he only spent 38% of the programme leading to slippage of over 2/3rds of the programme and £4m more than just 13 weeks ago. Can the Commissioner clarify his position in regards to this performance.

There was further slippage of £3.9m on the capital programme compared to where we thought we would be at the end of Q3. All of this will still be spent, but timescales for that expenditure have changed. The key areas of change from the Q3 projections are explained further below.

Work is continuing to implement key systems, some of which have a long lead time.  Significant systems, which are being progressed, and have a budget allocation, but on which funds have yet been spent are the replacement Command and Control systems (£1m), andreplacement Integrated Communication and Control System (ICCS, 0.5m).  At the end of the third quarter, it was anticipated that there may have been some spend on each of these systems in the 2015/16 year.  However, the procurement process required for Command and Control is such that this was an ambitious assumption, and similarly, the links between the ICCS and wider contact management work, meant that neither scheme will incur expenditure until 2016/17.

Similarly, the profile of spend in relation to ongoing work in the delivery of hugely complex mobile policing solutions will see more expenditure deferred into 2016/17 than had previously been expected (£0.5m). 

On estates, work to relocate functions from Ferndown is progressing, and will take place over 2015/16 and 2016/17 as previouslyanticipated.  However, the actual spend incurred in 2015/16 is less than had previously been expected, with carry forward of £1m into 2016/17.  There are numerous reasons for this slippage, which primarily relate to the need to ensure services are appropriately located following the move, and the need to secure alternative accommodation. 

The final area of significant variation relates to the long lead times required in the purchase of vehicles, and a subsequent carry forward of £0.6m relating to vehicles that were on order, but not delivered by 31/03/16.

D) Can the Commissioner clarify the reason for the £356k transfer to the Body Armour reserve and why it is not shown in the table 3.22.

A review of reserves took place as part of the 2016/17 budget cycle and Medium Term Financial Strategy.  The reserves positon was further reviewed over the past month with a view to rationalise reserves to better reflect risk and liabilities, and follows up on the comments made by HMIC under the 2015 PEEL inspection regarding level of General Balances.  Certain reserves, which had been created to deal with known risks, but which were uncertain in terms of actual liabilities, have been transferred to General Balances.  This included the Major Operations Reserve, the Insurance Reserve, the Protective Body Armour reserve, and the PFI Reserve.  Specific earmarked reserves remain for Workforce Change (where funds are expected to be drawn down into revenue over the next three years), and for Capital (which relates to the longer term funding of the capital programme, and primarily relates to slippage).

The Insurance Reserve has been removed entirely, with the risk of unknown significant claims transferring to General Balances.  The reserve is replaced by an insurance ‘provision’, which represents estimates of known insurance liabilities.  This is in line with the approach taken within Devon and Cornwall  with whom we now have joint insurance arrangements and is a more common method of accounting for insurance risks and liabilities.

E) In regards to the table in 3.22 the Commissioner was forecasting to have £7.4m in earmarked reserves as at 31/03/16 as part of his 2016/17 Budget report. This table indicates the reserves have reduced to £4.2m. Can the Commissioner indicate what has happened to the £1m PFI reserve, the £1m Major Operations Reserve, and why the Insurance Reserve is £1.2m lower?

Please see above.

F) The OPCC introduced a new post last year for maximising income opportunities, can the Commissioner outline what success this post has had and how he views the 2015/16 outcome will be built on?

The income generation post has had mixed success over the past year. Some of the areas which were envisaged as potential income streams, such as sponsorship have proved very difficult due to potential conflicts of interest related to the companies / organisations offering sponsorship and also the PCC elections. Applications were submitted to the Police Innovation Fund but our bids, together with South West partners were unsuccessful this time around.

However, there are some areas which have been successful, such as:-

1)     The Safer Dorset Foundation has been registered with the Charities commission and is almost ready to be launched. It is hoped that this will provide a significant contribution towards the running cost of the Victims Bureau / Victims Hub.

2)     The grant application process, for the PCC’s Community Grant Scheme, has been significantly improved and many of the grants offered are now match funded by recipients, thereby increasing the value of projects supported.

3)     The new OPCC website was developed with a view to it being used by other PCCs, for a fee. So far two other PCCs have adopted our format to date (D&C and Thames Valley), but this is expected to increase as newly elected PCCs start to review their existing branding and communications platforms.

4)     The postholder has been helping Dorset County Council with applications for Social Impact Bonds. Private sector investors have expressed interest in this offer

5)     Several posts {mental health, streetworker etc} have been established using matched funding with other LAs and with Dorset Police

6)     3 additional fully funded Cambridgeshire Master placements were funded through the academic partnerships

It is hoped that all of these together with further opportunities will be explored this year.