Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Acting 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 Acting PCC which informed members of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2013-17 for Quarter 2.  The Acting 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.

He updated members on the current Establishment numbers which stood at 158 Special Constables and 176 volunteers which was a reduction from the last quarter.  Exit interviews continued to be held. In total 7,163 hours worked by Special Constables and volunteers, were recorded which was higher than the same period last year.

Following a comment from a member about the value of Special Constables and volunteers, the Acting PCC advised they were both very valuable to the Police and were very valued.  Members of the Panel noted their appreciation of the hard work and commitment of all of the volunteers also.

In response to a question about ‘victim code compliance’, the Interim Chief Executive advised this was a national code of guidance for victims and undertook to share this with members outside of the meeting.

Following a discussion about the increase in total crime, the Interim Chief Executive advised that clearly there were areas of concern but an increase in figures reflected the increase in reporting which was not necessarily a negative sign.

In response to a question about a continuity plan for recruitment, the Interim Chief Executive advised they were trying to level out the peaks and troughs.  They recruited at 110% to try and allow for this. The Force had a long term strategic workforce plan which the PCC had sight of. All forces were actively trying to ensure the diversity of the Force represented the local population.

Following a question about Project Genesis and with perhaps a lack of PCSOs one member queried how this would move forward.  The Interim Chief Executive advised that whilst PCSOs were still recruited it was a balance which had to be decided by the Chief Constable as this was an operational issue.

In response to a question about the Home Office Police Transformation Fund and what scrutiny of Dorset Police was being undertaken by the OPCC should these awards be rejected, the Acting PCC advised that a number of projects would not go ahead if the  funding was not successful, some would still go ahead but funds would have to be allocated from elsewhere.

The Treasurer noted that a small overspend was predicted for the end of the year.

Finance Questions, submitted in advance of the meeting, to the Acting PCC / Treasurer to the PCC were responded to below:

1.     The Panel would like to record its disappointment in the continual inconsistencies in the presentation of financial information which impedes its ability to carry out effective scrutiny. Examples would be the differences in the original plan revenue budgets for 2016/17, the overfunding of the revised 16/17 capital budget and a reserves statement which does not tie up to the capital programme. Could the Acting Commissioner confirm that he would welcome the opportunity for financial representatives of this panel to meet with the Treasurer of the OPCC and the Assistant Chief Officer responsible for Finance from Dorset Police to resolve these matters moving forward?

We have worked very closely with the panel over the past year or so to get the financial monitoring into an agreed format. There were some presentational issues in the Q1 figures and the classification of a number of the budgets has subsequently been changed to align better with the budget holders e.g. South West Forensics costs are now shown under "regional collaboration" and uniform costs moved to being centrally managed. These are just presentational changes - meaning that some of the mapping of the budget lines has changed rather than being virements. These will be consistent going forwards, in line with the Q2 figures in the report today. If there are any presentational changes in the future, we will add a footnote to explain it. The carry forward figure in the capital funding should read 6,287 not 6,376. This was an error in the table provided. We will also give some further consideration as to how we can report the reserves position during the year. These are set as part of the budget and are not normally amended until the year end. The Treasurer confirmed he was content to meet with financial representatives from the Panel.

2.     Can the Acting Commissioner provide the panel with reassurance of the financial management arrangements within the OPCC and Dorset Police as the concern would be that if the expenditure being shown as spent in the period to the end of September 2016 is doubled it would indicate a potential £7m overspend for the 2016/17 financial year and not a relatively balanced position as shown?

We are very happy to provide that assurance. At present there are several budgets where a significant proportion of the expenditure has been made in the first half of the financial year such as Premises costs and Communications and Computing. Despite this, the outturn position will show only a small variance. Third Party Payments would also appear to be fully spent already but the reality is that a significant proportion of this will be recovered from other forces later in the year. We are therefore content that the reported position is accurate and reflects all known issues at this point of the year.

3.     Section 3.12 of the report highlights that almost £6m of an approximate revised capital budget of £11m (56%) is being slipped into future financial years. Can the Acting Commissioner provide the Members of this panel with assurance as the process of determining capital need and the timing of that need? 

The capital programme was reviewed periodically and any new capital bids went through a prioritisation process. Once in the capital programme, it was quite common for the schemes to move between financial years. Some of the ICT programme had been delayed until 2017-18 whilst national initiatives such as those being undertaken by the Police ICT company were fully understood and strategic alliance considerations were also taken in to account. The need for the capital projects still remained but the timing and method of delivery may be amended. The Vice Chairman also asked that slippage in this area be looked and examined as a specific element in the PCC’s scheduled efficiency review of procurement.

4.     Section 3.20 of the report references the Bear Scotland legal case. Can the Acting Commissioner provide a brief outline of this case and the impact it has had on the finances of Dorset Police?   

Following legal action (Fulton vs Bear Scotland), it was now necessary to make payment to reflect the additional entitlement to holiday that accrued on additional hours worked, primarily overtime. The financial impact on Dorset Police was £200k which was included in the current year and future year’s budget.

Noted