Meeting documents

To receive an update report from the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC on the specific issues raised by the Panel, when agreeing the 2018-19 Precept, in order to assess the impact and effect achieved through the application of these funds.

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Finance Officer, OPCC which provided an update in relation to the Panel’s endorsement of the 2018/19 council tax increase of £12 per annum for a Band D property in order for members to assess the impact and effect achieved thought the application of these funds.

Members asked the following questions:-

1. (Para 2.2) - Whilst acknowledging that these events maybe being co-ordinated at the national level:

o   What action is being taken at the local level in order to assure the Dorset tax payer that the raise in precept 18/19, and the proposed 19/20 rise, meets the 2018 Central Govt directive on:

                                          i.    Improved efficiency and increased productivity, making better use of the money held?

                                         ii.    Smarter Procurement?

                                        iii.    Improving productivity?

The PCC advised that he had tried to address all 3 areas and was working hard to secure smarter procurement. There was a move to a demand model locally in policing.

2. (Para 2.3) - What changes are being proposed for the Reserves Strategy?

The draft Reserves Strategy has been updated with only minor presentational changes plus the inclusion of an additional table to show the analysis of reserves as required by the Home Office guidance.  No significant changes are being proposed and the Policy Statement is unchanged from 2018.  The final Reserves Strategy and an updated budget risk assessment will be part of the budget papers presented in February 2019.

3. In terms of the other bullet points contained in the ‘2018/19 precept letter’ from the Panel to the PCC:

-  What specific action has been taken on:

a.    Alliance savings continue to be under considerable scrutiny. However, it is fair to acknowledge that we are in limbo between decisions having been made on the basis of progressing with a merger, and waiting for the next Alliance Exec Board where those decisions can be reviewed in light of the current position.

For example, members received a presentation at the June meeting that highlighted the interaction between the alliance and merger programmes – and noted that the four corporations sole had determined which elements of the Alliance programme should continue as planned, which should be paused, and which should be moved into the merger programme (pending future decisions).

Post merger decision, those have yet to be formally reviewed.

At the same time, Dorset has taken the decision to remove some alliance savings from the current MTFS – namely criminal justice, victims/witnesses, estates and contact management and communications, given the likelihood of those savings being realised within the current MTFS are minimal. This is prudent, and will allow the business better visibility of the challenge ahead.

The contingency plans are straightforward, albeit sub-optimal, in that they largely involve the removal of some discretionary growth areas from the current MTFS, a further pressure on establishment numbers (particularly continuing to hold over a number of police staff vacancies) or relying on a precept increase.

b.    Notwithstanding the discussion here today, the visibility of delivery against the police and crime plan has improved significantly over the past 12 months, and of course we will continue to work with the Panel to further improve the product.

With the FMS also being piloted this year, opportunities have been taken to ensure better alignment of the forces and OPCC’s reporting procedures – in this case through the auspices of the SPB. This dual focus on both force and OPCC delivery will enable a shared approach to PCC and Chief Constable aims and objectives right across both organisations, and ensure as efficient and effective a process as possible.

Similarly, with respect to the OPCC commissioning budget, steps are now being taken to ensure the stronger alignment of commissioning objectives the THR matrix that policing uses to assess priorities. This will enable OPCC to prioritise against demand areas, hopefully providing support to policing in those most critical delivery areas – such as missing people, and wider vulnerabilities such as mental health, drugs and alcohol. This will also include a focus on areas such as county lines and violent crime, particularly through a prevention and early intervention focus – again delivering a better return on investment than would be achievable by spending against crisis care.

c.     Members have heard from Supt Lyne about the demand work the force is undertaking, this will cost demand – albeit in terms of police officer time spent, rather than financially.

Nationally, work has been undertaken as part of the spending review and the HO-led frontline review to set out the current levels of police demand, with a view to putting the case for further funding to HMT. Given the outcome of the recent budget, members will appreciate that work was unsuccessful in its endeavours.

Therefore, the Policing Minister and the Home Sec are now taking a different stance, and want to make a ‘more for more’ argument – i.e. if there is more investment in policing, then we can invest more in preventative and early intervention capability and try and turn off the demand.

Therefore, there is both work underway at the local and the national level to consider and cost demand, both of which will be reporting shortly. It is also worthwhile mentioning a couple of factors:

·         HMICFRS has set out broad areas for forces to consider as part of the FMS process – this is less about quantifying demand, and more about assess the force’s ability to meet the demand – so called security of supply

·         HO has majored on productivity and efficiency as its key factors. Whilst we are yet to receive clear advice about how we should assess our productivity or efficiency - we continue to tackle this issue locally, but this does mean that we still do not have an easy way to compare or contrast our demand with that of other forces.

Following the Chief Executive’s response members offered the following comments:-

• With regards to Prevention, it was highlighted there should be more regard from partners who withdrew services; i.e. Local Authorities, that resulted in the Police having to step in;
• With reference to any Home Office bid to the Treasury, could the Panel lend any support to confirm that prevention was better than any cure;
• The cost of the demand model in order to measure the demand cost in relation to the funding meeting the requirements;
• In respect of the national pictures of what good looks like could this be replicated, the PCC noted that they could have initiatives that could apply to anyone which could be a nationally led process;
• Following a raft of press releases, a member asked if they could be alerted in advance in order to advise their residents.  The PCC noted that he had advised the Panel earlier in the meeting prior to the releases going out to the public.

4. Is it possible for the PCC to include the key headlines, learning and actions included in the latest HMICFRS Value for Money profiles to the Dorset Police and Crime Panel for their informal Finance Briefing on 10^th January 2019?

The PCC undertook to provide members with this information at their training day on 7 December 2018.

Noted