Meeting documents

To receive and consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed budget and precept requirement for 2019/20 and to independently scrutinise its content to decide upon its appropriateness.

The Panel considered a report by the PCC’s Chief Finance Officer which set out the proposed precept for the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset.

 

Members were advised that the precept decision for 2019/20 needed to consider both the immediate and the medium-term resourcing requirements to enable the delivery of the Police and Crime Plans in the context of the changing and increasing demands on policing.

 

The final 2019/20 Police Settlement was announced recently which advised that PCCs had been given the flexibility to raise the precept by £24 for a Band D equivalent property.  The PCC urged members to take full advantage of this flexibility to enable the force to continue to maintain the high quality services it was currently able to provide whilst also allowing investment in new capabilities to meet growing demand and the expanding mission of modern policing.

 

The PCC addressed members about the rationale for the proposed precept increase and considerations involved in this process prior to taking any questions and his opening address is attached as an Annexure to these minutes.

 

The Chief Constable updated members on the increasing demand on policing; and what the £24, if approved, would be used for. He circulated a diagram which showed the demands on Dorset policing over the last 12 months along with the daily figures relating to demand over the same period. Overall crime in the county had risen by 8.9% and violent crime by 22%.  Officers were seeing a continuing upward pressure on the 101 and 999 services and these were also expected to rise again next year.  The types of crimes now being investigated were very different to a few years ago and there was still a rise in the defence of non-recent sexual offences. 

 

Unprecedented levels of demand had been seen throughout the summer months and he had briefed the Force to say a better plan was needed in the coming months to address these seasonal demands.  He also highlighted that officers were spending too much time dealing with inappropriate calls which should be addressed by other agencies. 

 

With regards to the recent settlement, the Chief Constable noted that this was the first one for 8 years which would allow him to bring about investment in critical areas that required growth.  He had sent a comprehensive letter sent to the PCC which set out his plans for future budgeting in terms of the precept and a summary of this was included with the report at Appendix 7.  He highlighted his main areas of focus which were:-

 

 

He would also be looking carefully at county and conurbation approaches to homelessness to try and tackle street sleeping in order to offer a more focused approach.  He had managed through the budget proposal to put a small about of money into the innovation fund to help take Dorset Police which was currently judged as a Good Police Force, to an Outstanding Force.

 

The Director of Operations highlighted the outcomes of the consultation exercises that had been carried out and noted all the surveys had been conducted by software this year. The document detailed more responses than last year, although quite similar views were recorded.  There were 4029 responses received which was an increase on previous years. There had been 14 events held with 809 face to face consultations. The result was that 69% of respondents were content to pay an additional £2 per month to support policing in Dorset. It was also noted that the number of comments left this year was higher than in previous years.  In response to a comment about the reasons why 31% of responders said that they didn’t want the precept to go up, the Director of Operations advised that a number of people felt the additional funding should come from central government, some people couldn’t afford it whilst others felt that the police could make additional savings elsewhere.

 

One member commented that a number of the consultation respondents felt they were going to see a greater police presence and queried how this was dealt with.  The PCC advised that although there were a large number of responses received on this people were not promised extra police and were told quite clearly the additional £24 would result in a standstill position.

 

The PCCs attention was drawn to the increase in government grants that had been received and one member felt therefore that the standing still statement was really more about moving forward.  The PCC advised that the felt that the government was saying these grants were basically a bridging loan until the police funding formula was rectified.

 

The Vice-Chairman suggested that the responses to consultation be added to website to show people’s comments, which the PCC felt was a good idea as he appreciated the high number of responses.

 

The Chief Finance Officer highlighted the precept required and highlighted to members the proposals for the various council tax bands.

 

Following a question from the Chairman regarding the cost of demand, the Chief Constable advised that whilst some areas were able to be costed i.e. call centre costs, a day in the life of a frontline police officer was more difficult and would not help to drive the business forward.

 

Members of the Panel asked the following questions to the Police and Crime Commissioner, who responded accordingly:

 

Question 1: In a nutshell can the Police and Crime Commissioner set out how he proposes to invest the resources he can expect to generate from his £24 per annum proposed increase in the 2019/20 police precept for a Band D property (e.g. £9.15m section 4.2).

 

Answer

To be clear, the resources that will be generated by a £24 precept increase will provide c.£7m and will largely backfill costs elsewhere.  These include:

·         Pay inflation and cost inflation;

·         reductions in security grant;

·         increases in pensions costs;

·         training costs arising from the implementation of the Police Education Qualification Framework;

·         higher charges for the National Police Air Support service;

·         increases to safeguarding funding, and

·         forensic services cost increases.

 

However the Chief Constable’s letter outlined a number of areas of investment; including:

 

·         6 x new police officer posts which will return establishment to 1200

·         The piloting of a Dorset Police Cadet Scheme

·         The introduction of a Bobby Van Scheme.

·         A strengthening of the Force road safety enforcement capability.

·         The recruitment of a Streetsleepers’ Champion.

·         A Forcewide focus on vulnerability.

 

Following a question about the number of officers in Dorset Police, the Chief Executive advised there was funding for 1201.  They would be able to maintain this and expect it to grow by 6.  Numbers remained static going into next year and progress on the innovation and efficiency programme would be reported to the PCC in quarter 3.  With regards to PCSO numbers there were 84.

 

The Chairman highlighted the reduction in the police pay budget and queried the reasons for this.  The Chief Constable advised that this was around pay and increments which shifted the cost of the workforce in conjunction with the retirement of long serving officers who were paid more than junior officers. 

 

Following a question about who owned the Innovation Fund, the Chief Constable advised that it was a joint enterprise between him and the PCC with the Deputy Chief Constable and the Chief Executive jointly managing the process.

 

Question 2: Can the Police and Crime Commissioner outline the alternatives that he considered before coming to the decision to propose a 11.6% increase in the 2019/20 police precept.

 

Answer

Thinking is outlined in the Chief Constables letter - £12, £24 and £36 increases. Significant national work has been undertaken to describe the need for an increase in the police settlement.

 

However, as with previous years, I am very clear that whilst the Government continues to state that its "first priority" is the safety and security of its citizens; our brave men and women who are charged with that protection have yet to see any meaningful support from Government, and instead this burden has once again been shifted to local taxpayers.

 

I, alongside my fellow PCCs, of all parties and none, continue to press Government for relief to enable the service to get ahead of the demand curve and to narrow the gap between the service we would all like to deliver, and the service we are able to deliver.

 

Question 3: In light of the future pressures on the service why did the Police and Crime Commissioner decide not to hold a public referendum (e.g. £4.4m section 11.1, table 9).

 

Answer

The Localism Act 2011 introduced the power for the Secretary of State to provide that any rise in council tax above a set threshold must be approved by a binding local referendum. However, in the years since this enactment, no precepting authority has successfully held a local referendum to increase council tax above the stated thresholds.

 

The most relevant learning comes from Bedfordshire, where taxpayers voted overwhelming (69.5%) against a proposed increase by the then PCC.

 

The legislation makes it difficult to achieve a successful referendum result due to precise limitations on how the referendum question must be posed. For example; the question in Bedfordshire was as follows:

 

For the financial year beginning on 1st April 2015 the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner has set an increase of 15.8% in the amount it charges.

 

If most voters choose 'yes', the increase will be 15.8%.

If most voters choose 'no', the increase will be 2.0%.

 

Do you want the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner to increase the amount it charges by 15.8%?

 

Legislation does not permit the question to specify the actual increase in monetary terms, only in percentage terms. This meant that many members of the public did not appreciate that the increase being sought was relatively modest (48p per week for a Band D property).

 

Separately there are strict rules about the nature of public engagement that can be carried out in support of a referendum campaign, including that the OPCC and Force must remain neutral, and therefore could not support a PCC-led campaign.

 

Finally, the cost of a failed referendum can be considerable, estimated at £1m in Bedfordshire, due to council tax rebilling. Based on previous costings by the PCC a referendum in Dorset would also cost in the region of £1m.  Legislation dictates that a precepting authority must make provisions for changes to happen ready for an increase in April, but any referendum would not be held under the local government elections in the following month. 

 

Question 4: Can the Police and Crime Commissioner outline the impact that a lack of a merger with Devon and Cornwall has had on both the requested precept and proposed areas of investment for 2019/20.

 

Answer

There was is no impact of the decision not to merge on the requested precept for 2019/20. Even if the decision would have been to merge, the two PCCs would have remained as separate precepting authorities until May 2020 at the earliest, meaning that the 2019/20 budgets would have also remained separate.  Discussion on harmonisation of precepts would possibly have been discussed if the merger had gone ahead.

 

Question 5: Why does the £9.2m extra resources not equate to an increase in the number of employed Police Officers (Section 1.2 in Appendix 2 which shows 1,201 for 2018/19 going down to 1,200 in 2019/20).

 

Answer

I have explained at Question1 the cost pressures the Force is having to deal with.  Ensuring that the force has the capacity to deal with the changing demand has been a key consideration in setting this budget which has led to the introduction of the Innovation Fund.

 

One member expressed concern that out of 1200 officers, only 12% were available to undertake frontline activities at any one time and asked if that was normal or would it be something that should be looked at in respect of police modelling.  The Chief Executive confirmed this figure was from the HMIC report ‘Demanding Times’ and made reference to this national policing survey and applied the Dorset officer figures to their figures. The methodology was robust and unfortunately this was a reality of operating a 24 hour, 365 days a year service.  The Chief Constable added that he was relentless in his pursuit of improvements but in respect of days off, leave, training etc 12% availability was a reality.

 

Following a conversation about the forecast of no pay rises for 3 years, the Chief Executive advised that the OPCC was under the same inflationary and cost pressures as the Force. OPCC costs were being held level but officers were looking to reduce specific non-pay costs.

 

The local member for Sherborne Town now understood the pressures for the Force but was concerned that all police officers seemed to be deployed in the south of the county and residents in the north of the county felt under resourced. The Director of Operations advised that the roadshows had visited Sherborne and he reported that there had been a 73.4% positive responses from that area.

 

Question 6: Can the Chief Finance Officer for the Police and Crime Commissioner explain why £1.7m (£3.1m extra cost less a £1.4m specific grant) of the extra resources generated by the 2019/20 precept is required to pay for additional contributions to the Police Pension Scheme.

 

Answer

As a consequence of the last actuarial valuation all employer contributions for Police Officer pensions will increase from 1 April 2019.  The main reason for the increase is a reduction in the forecast values of future investment returns, so that contributions therefore have to increase to meet forecast future liabilities.

 

Previously the Government carried such risk for unfunded pension schemes but this is being transferred over time to employing bodies. 

 

For 2019/20 £1.4m specific grant has been provided towards this but this does not fully cover the additional costs of £3.1m.  It is assumed in the future year forecasts that this grant will continue but there is a risk that it may not. 

 

Therefore the additional £1.7m of costs for 2019/20 will fall to be funded from the overall increases in funding which comprise additional government grants, and council tax income.

 

Question 7: As the capital programme includes an investment in 2019/20 of £6.1m into ICT, can the Police and Crime Commissioner outline the benefits of this investment and the savings and efficiencies that it has been assumed that it will generate.

 

Answer

Central to the 2019/20 ICT capital investment is the enhancement of mobile policing and replacement of legacy systems. 

 

Investment in mobile policing devices and solutions will allow greater efficiency in provision of operational policing, increasing visibility, providing a more responsive service, and ultimately enabling and supporting estates rationalisation.  It is also a requirement of the recently introduced Organisational Business Design model.  Provision of mobile devices includes the replacement of desktop computers with laptops, allowing more flexible working, increasing productivity, reducing use of paper, and again facilitating estates savings.  Such mobile and flexible working is key to the future estates strategy, with the potential for cashable and efficiency savings to be realised.

 

Replacement of legacy systems, such as the Command and Control system, is required where older systems are no longer fit for purpose, and maintenance is no longer an option.  Legacy systems represent a barrier for collaboration, often carry significant risk, and will rarely support efficient working.  The 2019/20 includes funding to replace the existing Command and Control system, gazetteer and mapping systems.  While these replacements will not lead directly to cashable savings, they will enable significant efficiencies through joint working – particularly within the Alliance, and an improved operational service.

 

Following concern about the slippage in IT as reported in the monitoring report the PCC advised that both Deputy Chief Constable’s were involved in this.  The Chief Constable added that it was difficult to guarantee there would be no slippage in major programmes as there often was but assured members there were robust and rigid governance processes in place.

 

Question 8: Can the Chief Finance Officer explain why it is proposed to borrow for the first time in 2019/20.

 

Answer

The budget report for last year identified a number of unfunded potential capital growth requirements.  During this year an extensive review of the capital programme has been undertaken which has resulted in the planned programme for capital investment now being increased.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the recently updated Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities a Capital Strategy has also been developed this year, which is now published on the OPCC website.  This sets out, amongst other things, the governance process for determining the capital programme and the methodology for identifying and prioritising capital projects.  It also sets out the funding approach to be adopted for the capital programme, which includes borrowing.

 

The borrowing strategy is set out in the Treasury Management Strategy for 2019/20 which has also been through internal governance and will be published in due course.

 

The first application to fund capital expenditure is capital grant.  The amount receivable from the Home Office for 2019/20 is £421k.  Historically this used to be at a much higher level (£1.3m in 2010/11).  Whilst the capital grant has reduced, the need for capital investment has increased.

 

Capital receipts from asset disposals are the second source of funding for the capital programme, but these are finite, and are forecast to be fully utilised more or less as soon as received.  Revenue contributions to fund capital expenditure have also been reviewed and increased from £0.7m to £1.1m in 2019/20.

 

Finally the balance of capital expenditure, after all other funding has been exhausted, will be funded through prudential borrowing.  The current forecasts show that although the underlying need to borrow will increase (Capital Financing Requirement) it should not be necessary to externally borrow in the plan period and the impact of the proposals on the Capital Financing Requirement by the end of the period will be minimal; from £32.8m at 31/3/18 reducing to £30.8m at 31/3/23 i.e. indicating that total net debt will have reduced over the plan period.

 

In respect of the different rules attached to borrowing a question was asked if there was anything dramatic that could happen if this didn’t go to plan.  The Chief Financial Officer advised that the borrowing had to be paid back and this added pressure to the revenue budget.

 

Question 9: In respect of General Fund Balances how concerned is the commissioner that this is dangerously close to the minimum 3% level advised by the Home Office, especially as he is forecasting to overspend in the current 2018/19 financial year (section 14.1, Table 11, £4.315m balance 31 March 202 which is 3.2% of the 2019/20 net revenue expenditure).

 

Answer

The recent Home Office focus on reserves relates to PCCs being asked to justify where there are perceived excessive reserves being held.  This is clearly not the case for Dorset, where the General Balance is forecast to be £4.3m and the total Revenue Reserves £5.4m. 

 

There is a balance to be struck between providing a reserve to cover the possibility of higher costs arising from the various underlying budget risks and making valuable investment in the Force, and I believe we have struck that balance in these budget proposals.

 

The proposals are in line with the Reserves Strategy (provided at Appendix 3) and supported by a budget risk assessment.  £4.3m is considered to be an adequate contingency amount to provide for any unforeseen shocks. 

 

In addition, there is a plan to replenish the reserves over the term of the plan towards a target of 5% of net revenue expenditure and a cautious estimate of the future amounts of the Collection Fund surpluses has been made, which in all likelihood will turn out to be higher.

 

Following a question about the use of apprentices, the Chief Constable advised the aim was to be in a netted position by the end of next year.

 

Following a vote the Panel were unanimous in their decisions to:-

 

Resolved

1. That the increase in the precept of £24 per annum on a Band D property for 2019-20 be supported.

2. That for the purposes of issuing a report to the Commissioner on the proposed precept, the Panel endorsed the council tax requirement and the basic amount of council tax for police purposes in Dorset for 2019-20.

 

Reason for Decisions

The Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments)

regulations 2012 required the Police and Crime Commissioner to notify the panel of their proposed precept for 2018-19 by 1 February 2019. This then needed to be considered by the Police and Crime Panel who could either approve the proposed precept or veto it. A two thirds majority of the Police and Crime Panel was required to veto any precept proposal.