Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner (attached). 

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 1.  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.

Members’ noted the slightly different format of the report and the Chairman undertook to discuss further with the Chief Executive to look at areas that he felt were missing. Cllr Andrew Kerby (North Dorset District Council) offered to lead a small task and finish group to work with the Office of the PCC to develop the report to ensure it met the Panels’ requirements.

A member highlighted the loss of over 50 Special Constables and wondered if there was any particular reason for this.  The PCC advised this was unfortunately a national trend, all forces reported having problems recruiting and retaining Special Constables. Reasons for leaving included juggling work life balance and a number left to become PCSOs and Police Officers.

Following a request for an update on the Ferndown and Christchurch situation. The PCC advised that in respect of Christchurch, this was in the hands of the local authority as it was complicated who owned what part of the site and was not likely to be resolved for a further 6/9 months.  In respect of Ferndown, the decision made was to split it into 2 parts, the sale of one part fell through but work was still ongoing to negotiate to sell it as 2 sites.  The plan was to use the first floor for a training wing until the building was sold. 

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

1.     Section 3.11 of the report highlights a forecast almost £1/4m overspend on supplies and services which includes a reference to consultants. Can the Commissioner provide more detail as to how much is being forecast to be spent on consultants and why.

The total forecast spend on consultants is £55.8k against a budget of £6.3k. There is therefore a projected overspend of £49.5k which relates mainly to additional external support brought in to enhance some of our IT system, including the Agresso finance system shared with Devon & Cornwall and to fund a leadership development for the Chief Officer team within the force. A full breakdown is shown below:

2.     Section 3.10 of the report highlights a forecast overspend of over £1/4m overspend on IT systems as a result of new requirements since the budget was set. Can the Commissioner explain why for example the extra £177k being spent on something referred to as the 2016/17  Startraq Licence was not known about when the budget was set.

The Startraq system provides the central ticket processing software for speed enforcement.  A procurement exercise was anticipated to replace the existing system, with an expectation originally that a new contract would be in place for 2016/17 at a lower cost, with either the same or different supplier.   Unfortunately, his procurement process proved unachieveable in the timescales available, and a further year of Startraq was required.  This additional year support came at a much higher cost than in previous years, largely due to the short term of the extension (1 year).  The procurement exercise is ongoing for a new contract for 2017/18.

Following a supplementary question from the member from North Dorset District Council regarding whether separate software for the 2 forces were required.  The Treasurer advised that in most cases this was necessary and was a common problem with a lot of IT systems. The PCC added that the Police ICT company was now starting to change the landscape in regard of licences.

3.     Can the Commissioner explain the implications of a negative Capital Cashflow on the 31/3/2020 (section 3.22).

The negative capital cashflow in future years has been a feature of the MTFS for the last couple of years. This represents a risk that with the current set of assumptions, the capital programme may not be fully financed at the end of the MTFP period.  There are a number of options to mitigate this risk, including:

-           increased capital receipts

-           Increased revenue contributions

-           Reduced capital expenditure

The risk and potential mitigation will continue to be assessed each year with the refreshed MTFS.

The Treasurer confirmed that part of the £4m from the Alliance would be utilised.

4.     Can the Commissioner please clarify for the panel how much of Dorset Council Taxpayers money he intends to spend on the digitisation of speed camera's, why he thinks this will represent good use of local taxpayers money and the extent to which any income generated will be retained locally (3.19 of the report).

A budget of £330k currently exists in capital for digitisation of speed cameras.  This existing funding is for only a limited replacement programme.  The PCC has requested further work to consider a full replacement of analogue speed cameras with digital camera across Dorset, and a business case setting out the full costs and benefits, is currently in preparation.  This will include the consideration of average speed cameras.  It should also be noted that the two cameras in Chideock are supported by the Highways England network, who will be responsible for any replacement costs.

The PCC commented that these analogue cameras still used 35mm film which resulted in a cost to convert.  With digitisation this would be reported immediately and the PCC did not feel this would result in an increase in staffing but could result in less.  He needed to agree with the local authority as to which were the high priority sites. The PCC reassured members that reducing deaths and serious injuries in the county was very prominently on his radar but his preference would be for mobile or average speed cameras.

5.     As part of the February 2016 Report by the Treasurer to the Police and Crime Panel on the 2016/17 Budget (Agenda No.7 – Table in Appendix 2 – Appendix A) an amount of £2.0m was set aside to cover the costs of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Quarter 1 Report identifies the original budget at £2.248m. Can the Commissioner explain the £248,000 apparent increase in the budget for his office.

The approved base budget for the OPCC is £2.034m the same as previous years. The difference is made up of two sums. Firstly £114k relates to the audit and assurance team which, following the merger of the teams through the strategic alliance, now come under Dorset OPCC. This is therefore a simple transfer of responsibilities and budget from elsewhere on 1^st April 2016 which had not been done when the budget reports were written. The balance of £100k is a one-off sum added to the Innovation fund to deal with some of the PCCs manifesto commitments, such as the drug driving kits highlighted in the PCCs first 100 days report.

The Treasurer highlighted the administrative costs for Safe Dorset Foundation, but noted this was very much work in progress and was not shown at present.  The aspirations for it was to be self -funding as a stand- alone charity.

Resolved

That Andrew Kerby (North Dorset District Council), in conjunction with the PCC’s Chief Executive, would make arrangements to form a small task and finish group to discuss and agree the content of future monitoring reports.