Meeting documents

Attached is the Revenue Estimates 2018/19 and the Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22. The Medium Term Capital Plan and Reserves and Balances reports are attached as a supplement.

The PCC responded to the following written questions:-

 

1.       Will this budget mean that you can deliver the key objectives in your Police and Crime Plan?

 

Yes, this budget provides the chief constable and I with the resources we need to deliver the strategic priorities and key aims set out in my Police and Crime Plan.  With the increasing demands and complexities in policing there is always more which could be done but the additional financial flexibility provided within this year’s budget assists in protecting the delivery of the PCC Plans and the CC’s Force commitment.

 

2.       How are holding the Chief Constable to account on the use of this additional funding? Please give us a clear breakdown of how the £12 per head is being used also confirming that the funding increase goes directly to retaining and enhancing the services provided by police officers and that this is ringfenced and:-

 

·           That this extra funding is not being used for the 50 police officers being reinstated from the previous budget

 

The budget provides the force with limited investment in our high priority areas such as vulnerability, maintains our overall strength and provides investment to facilitate increasing the productivity of officers and delivering future efficiency savings.  The financial flexibility provided by the relaxation of council tax capping provides a limited opportunity to invest now and protect our future service without having to make unpalatable cuts.  Savings as in previous years will only be taken when the full implications have been risk assessed and we are confident that there will not be any unintended consequences.  Investing in our officers is critical to maintaining our service delivery given the continued restrictions on our funding and the significant increases in demands and the complexity of crime.  The digital policing vision alongside continuous improvement is vital in these difficult times.

 

·           The number of vacancies the Force are currently carrying that are not being filled.

 

LAs at the end of December the force was 98 officers below its year-end target. Against this shortfall we already have 72 additional case investigators in post and a number more are going through the recruitment and vetting process.  

 

·           The number of efficiencies that are being made elsewhere and the criteria for reducing resources including the Joint Operations Unit 

 

All savings are risk assessed and the implications of reducing the funding in the particular area fully explored before the saving is deemed "green" and included within the financial plans.  We also keep a register of Amber and red potential savings where we need to do further work to ensure we mitigate any knock on effects and that we are satisfied that the implication to the service is understand and accords with our future plans.  Seeking continuous improvement and revisiting where and how our resources are used is a healthy process fortunately the £12 council tax has meant we will not have to remove any savings we do not consider to be "green".

 

Criteria – resource allocation/re-allocation is determined by relative priority of the policing function (re PCC’s Police & Crime Plan and the CC’s Annual Delivery Plan), which is based on public consultation feedback; strategic assessment of threat, harm and risk; legislative requirements and national initiatives (especially where funded by Govt grant)

 

·           Whether case investigators are cost effective?

 

Yes, these are an extremely cost effective short-term.  A number of retired officers who already have the required skills.  From a cost aspect case investigators are slightly cheaper than officers due to their more limited area of expertise.

 

·           Should any of this funding be used to help attract police officers to Thames Valley – with help with housing costs?

 

No, we would not want to go down that route because of the precedent it will set for future recruitments, and serving police officers and staff as well as the potential impact across the service of a race to the most expensive officer.   We are also limited as to what we can pay officers in accordance with Police Regulations. 

 

We are, as part of the Gold Group managing our response to the current situation in relation to police officer numbers, looking at how we can improve our recruitment process and how we can make TVP a more attractive proposition without increasing the long term cost.  These actions include improving the overall recruitment process by speeding up the process so potential recruits do not have to wait so long to find out if they have been accepted and also gaining a better understanding of the potential market, available recruits, so we can direct our efforts in a more targeted approach.

 

3.       What is your Plan B in relation to three years ahead when there are no capital reserves left and further funding is required?

 

We will continue to scrutinise all our capital expenditure requirements very carefully to ensure that we only implement those schemes that are absolutely necessary. We have already included revenue contributions of £13.5 million by 2020/21 and external borrowing of £5.0m. As capital receipts dry up we will inevitably become more reliant on external borrowing and revenue contributions if we are to maintain the necessary assets to support effective operational policing

 

4.       Whilst you got positive feedback on your consultation do you think you could have done more to get feedback from particular demographics with 90% being from a white background?

 

Not in the time available. The Government only announced the facility for PCCs to increase their precept by £12 on 19^th December. The online survey was sent to:

 

·           All users of TVP Alert – at least 80,000 residents

·           All town and parish councils

·           All councillors from county, unitary and district councils

·           All media in the TVP area via a press release

·           Regular social media updates via Twitter

 

According to the 2011 census 85% of the population in the Thames valley were white, so we are only slightly adrift from the regional average.

5.       How much funding are you putting into prevention strategies bearing in mind that 42% of violent crime is undertaken when people are under the influence of drink or drugs?

 

The demands of the Night Time Economy continue to require bespoke activity from TVP in addition to business as usual. Alcohol and the recreational use of drugs inevitably form a part of night time activity for a significant number of people. 

 

The demands of the night time economy are met at a local level with activity appropriate to the issues.  Inevitably this requires resourcing varying from a few extra staff working to reassure taxi drivers and licensees in small market towns to a larger operation involving ten to fifteen dedicated officers in some of our larger towns and cities.  There are some good examples of engagement with partners to take ownership of potential issues created by new developments.  Some areas have also reduced overt presence in traditionally busy areas in order to encourage ownership by establishments driving demand. 

 

 However overall TVP continue to provide additional staff specifically to prevent, reassure and if necessary deal with the Night Time Economy and drink and drug related crime and violence. We are also seeing the potential for an increase in illegal raves with links to organised criminality where drugs can be prevalent.  Whilst primarily a London phenomenon at present we have seen an impact in Thames Valley and work is underway with other Forces to improve our intelligence.  This is driving a prevention and disruption approach aimed at reducing the requirement for the significant number of resources needed to deal with these events if the occur.  

 

6.       Your report says that collaboration will continue to be a main focus of both improved services and reduced cost. How are your formal collaborative agreements under Section 22A of the Police Act 1996 performing and how can Panel Members scrutinise your performance in this area. Please can the Panel have information on your Joint Collaborative Oversight Boards to illustrate how these agreements are providing an efficient and effective police force?

 

Rather than provision of ‘information’ on joint collaborative oversight boards – which would require agreement of partners and would also effectively represent the Panel seeking to undertake the PCC’s responsibility to scrutinise & hold to account the CC for the performance of the collaborative functions, we could, by way of example, provide an example of the JoU and IT monitoring which goes to the joint PCC governance board 

 

7.       Your report says further investment in national programmes, and delivery of major technology investment programmes like the Contact Management Programme, ESMCP and ERP will all continue to receive scrutiny and challenge to ensure they deliver the required service improvements and savings as planned and expected. However, a number of these programmes have been delayed, including the Contact Management Programme (this has had a number of delays and savings have been moved back to the final year of the plan, resulting in a cost of £1.66m in 2018/19). How are you providing robust scrutiny of this investment in technology?

 

·           Scrutiny and approval of a business case (operational need; cost & savings, organizational / regional / national collaborative benefits)

·           Attendance at, and participation in, Force management/project board meetings (inc. collaboration governance boards) where progress and delivery of projects is scrutinized

·           Incorporation of planned savings in medium-term budgets

·           Oversight of adequacy & effectiveness of governance arrangements by Joint Independent Audit Committee

·           External assurance – ERP has been reviewed by Public Partnerships Limited at the request of the three CC’s

·           Internal assurance – Internal Audit e.g. ERP is currently undergoing an audit by the Surrey and Sussex internal audit team (delivered by HC) as requested by the PCC’s

·           ESN is a Home Office lead programme and has been the subject of a number of major reviews by Government

 

8.       Does this budget take account of the impact on policing from Brexit including procurement of specialist equipment and services which are coming from EU countries?

 

We scrutinise all contracts when they are due for renewal to ensure we continue to receive value for money. We include inflation for specific contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions and also areas of expenditure where the industry information indicates that the inflation will vary from the general CPI rate.  We have not made a general allowance for procurement costs post Brexit 

 

Further questions were asked to the PCC as follows:-

 

·         Cllr Mann expressed concern that some of her fellow Councillors were not aware of the public consultation. She asked what the public would see for the extra £12 per year? The PCC reported that they would not see a cut in policing and that it would be kept at a level state.

·         Cllr Egleton asked about the £450m additional funding for the service. The PCC reported that this funding was top sliced and funding went to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the HMICFRS and funding to help combat terrorism. It was up to PCC’s to raise the police precept to help fund other areas. This money was being used to plug a hole and there was a concern that there would be increases in council tax for years to come.

·         Cllr Webster asked about when the case investigators would all be appointed and their areas of expertise. The PCC commented that he hoped that it would be a matter of weeks rather than months. The Chief Constable reported that because of the loss of 100 police officers, 95 case investigators were being recruited because of retention issues. They had a full range of duties but no powers of arrest. Local Area Commanders were very grateful for the extra resources that this provided. They had good experience and were being appointed on permanent and temporary contracts. Some case investigators were retired police officers but some investigators were younger who had the necessary experience and wanted to test out policing as a career. The Chief Constable was looking at the workforce mix to ensure that it was fit for purpose and adjusting numbers for each local area to ensure there was a balance across the Thames Valley.

·         Cllr Webster asked about the salary difference. The Chief Constable reported that a more experienced case investigator was at a similar rate to a police officer but it depended on what shift work they undertook and whether they worked weekends. There was a slight saving with case investigators but they were employing them to help increase resources rather than produce savings.

·         Cllr Egleton asked about the reduction to police officer numbers and referred to the efficiencies being looked at in the Joint Operations Unit with reductions to road policing officers. The Chief Constable reported that they were not losing officers to the Met Police but to other Force areas such as Devon and Cornwall where the quality of living was cheaper. They were providing a bonus payment to firearm officers to encourage them to work in the Thames Valley. The Met Police had a policy to resource their police through people who lived in London. They were undertaking exit interviews to find out the reasons for leaving. They asked officers whether it was the lack of promotion opportunities but this was not a cause. Recruitment agencies were being aggressive in taking officers from other Force areas because the demand was there. In terms of the Joint Operations Unit they still had to look for efficiencies and this Unit was better resourced than other similar Units across the Country. Some of the Roads Policing Officers were being deployed to help boost the numbers in Local Police Areas and these vacancies were not being filled.

·         Cllr McCracken asked for reassurance around the Mounted Unit. The Chief Constable reported that the Mounted Unit would not be reviewed until 2019 and vacancies arising in the dog handling unit would be reviewed as and when they arise, as is the case with all other Force vacancies.

·         Cllr Hayes asked if he could see the data behind the exit interviews to understand the reasons for leaving such as social factors, affordable housing and he also asked the PCC whether he had made representations to the Government Minister about the problems with recruitment and retention. He also referred to the short time period for the public consultation and whether the responses were sufficient to make a sound decision. The PCC reported that because of the government and statutory timetable to consider the precept, all PCC’s had to conduct the consultation in a hurry and that they had an above average response. In terms of representation from ethnic minorities the PCC reported that 10% of 15% responded so they were only out by 5% and there was not much they could do to encourage a greater response. 84.3% overall had voted in favour of the precept increase.

·         The Chief Constable referred to the exit interviews and housing and quality of life was a big factor in the majority of the interviews. In relation to housing he commented that he would need to look at key worker schemes in Berkshire. They were also making it easier for people who had a break from policing to come back into the Force at the appropriate level.

·         Cllr Burke asked about rough sleepers in Windsor and the comments that had been made in relation to the Royal Wedding. She asked whether security for the Royal Wedding had been factored into the precept. The PCC reassured Members that it had and that there was a multi agency group working on this event. The PCC reported that there were some professional beggars in Windsor who were part of a serious organised crime gang and that they were trying to address those individuals with genuine problems to help them. The security for the Royal Wedding would be funded and undertaken by the Met Police. The Chief Constable reported that TVP were working with Local Authorities on drug and alcohol issues to help support vulnerable people. Some Community Safety Funding was being used for this purpose.

·         Cllr Sharp referred to funding for Windsor and expressed concern in relation to CCTV and anti-terror barriers in Windsor. £1.9 million had been allocated for six barriers but the costs have risen since this funding was allocated. A recent article referred to the costs being shared between the police and the Local Authority. He asked for clarification about how much funding TVP would put in the pot as there was concern that TVP were backtracking on the permanent security measures. The Chief Constable reported that discussions about barriers were being held across the Country and that the responsibility lay with Local Authorities. There was also concern that TVP were not contributing towards the CCTV renewal programme which was costing in excess of £1.25 million. The Chief Constable reported that there were discussions about a hub proposal and that they were not clear how much this would cost as yet. The Chief Constable reported that it was important to ensure that there was a balance of funding for CCTV across the Thames Valley but he was pleased that the Council was upgrading the cameras.

·         Cllr McCracken commented that reviewing the CCTV hub was an excellent idea and asked about ANPR cameras. The Chief Constable reported that there were links between CCTV and ANPR cameras. It was important to justify where every camera was positioned and what it was being used for.

·         Cllr Sharp asked the Chief Constable whether he would do anything about aggressive beggars in his area and was given a positive answer.

·         Cllr Hayes asked about inflationary pressures and particularly referred to Brexit. The PCC reported that they were always looking at making efficiencies where possible but there were cost pressures. He referred to the work on the new formula grant and expressed concern that the Thames Valley would not be given a fair slice of the cake because of pressures on urban areas, whilst Thames Valley was a huge area and had its own issues. Cllr Egleton agreed that Thames Valley was in the bottom half of the grant allocation and that residents had to pick up the costs of this.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Panel approve the Police and Crime Commissioner’s precept for 2018/19 as set out in the OPCC report ‘Revenue Estimates 2018/19 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22’ having received satisfactory responses to the questions raised.