Agenda item

11.00am

The Panel will consider the budget papers which were presented to and agreed at the Performance and Accountability meeting between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable on 18 January 2024.

 

The Panel will be given the opportunity to question the PCC on the detail contained in the papers and the Panel will be asked to approve the Police and Crime Commissioner’s precept for 2024/5 as set out in the OPCC budget papers.

The Panel considered the budget papers which were presented to and agreed at the Performance and Accountability meeting between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable on 18 January 2024.

 

The PCC introduced the item and explained the reasoning behind the proposed £13 (Band D) increase to the Council Tax precept. Reference was made to the PCC’s responsibility to ensure that Thames Valley Police has the resources to effectively prevent and investigate crime, support victims and protect communities from harm.

 

The PCC commented that he was conscious of the current cost of living pressures on households, however, alongside this, economic pressures such as high utility, fuel, and vehicle costs are also continuing to significantly impact policing budgets despite a rise in government funding.

 

The investment in policing would focus on the priorities that mattered to residents with strengthened neighbourhood policing and crime prevention. The budget included investment in an additional 150 police officers across the force, including neighbourhood officers, priority crime teams to tackle burglaries, theft and shoplifting; and an increase in the Rural Crime Taskforce.

 

Reference was made to the plans enabling continued investment in programmes to improve forensics, crime investigation, safeguarding and the training of new officers.

 

In relation to the capital plan, funding would be provided for long-term investment in technology and infrastructure, with sustainable funding support.

 

The revenue plan is balanced over the four-year timeframe and would be maintained through the ongoing Force Productivity Plan saving £20m in the first two years of the Plan, with the bulk of the savings coming through the Force Review project. There were savings of £7m in 2024/25 which have been identified in detail.

 

For 2025/26 there was a £13m savings target which had been largely identified at an outline level by department, and detailed plans were being worked through with external expert support.

 

Members’ Questions:

 

(1)   The PCC was asked about the proposals to reduce the number of officers in the Roads Policing Unit which was concerning as they were a front-line service and the optics of this would not be good.

 

[The PCC replied that there was no clear decision made on this. There would be a look  at what savings could be made in the second year.]

 

(2)    Reference was made to a later agenda item (Topical Issues) relating to HMICFRS  who had sent a warning to TVP after an Inspection highlighted problems with the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (Clare's Law) which included resourcing issues and long delays. Also, the report 'Tools and Strategies for Domestic Abuse', detailing that a number of bids for a centralised team, after a small successful pilot to address the issues with the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme ... have been unsuccessful.

 

The PCC was asked to confirm funding will therefore be made available to address this failing, as highlighted by HMICFRS, to avoid continued reliance on external bidding applications, which have so far been unsuccessful?

 

[The PCC replied that there was an increase in resourcing although the bidding for funding had been unsuccessful. Regarding the HMICFRS report on safeguarding, they had come back and acknowledged that there had been improvements made.

 

In relation to the league table which had been produced in relation to Clare’s Law, the PCC said that the stalking comparisons were difficult to compare as they looked at the number of revisits which had been made.]

 

(3)   The PCC was asked what residents were getting out of their increase in Police precept. There was an increase in the Police precept of funding, with a reduction in government grant and proposed savings of £2m.

 

[The PCC replied that there had been a sizeable increase in Government funding although with inflationary and other financial pressures caused by the cost-of-living crisis, this had affected budgets. Alongside the proposed £2m savings there was also unidentified growth of around £1m.

 

The proposed £13 increase (Band D Council Tax) would generate around £30m; an increase of £10 would be around £3m less.

 

There would be 150 posts funded out of this increase as part of increased numbers in neighbourhood policing. The move to 5 local command units will enable TVP to put more resource into where the policing demand was with a proactive team focusing on County Lines crimes and Serious Organised Crime.

 

Reference was made to increasing resource into cybercrime with the increasing digital/ social media crimes and increasing retail crime investigators.]

 

(4)       The PCC was asked about outside agency staff having training?

 

[The PCC replied that this facility was not used often as it was not practical due to the technicalities.]

 

(5)   Reference was made to TVP’s future plans which indicated a reliance and expectation of increases in the Police Precept and that the increased funding would partly pay for more neighbourhood policing. How was the PCC going to be accountable?

 

[The PCC replied that this was entirely fair. The consensus from the public was that an increase in the Police Precept was welcomed. TVP had 5,000 plus police officers and people wanted visibility in community policing and more Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). There would be a drive to fill the PCSO vacancies.

 

Town centre police teams would be more visible and neighbourhood police officers would be doubled. The Rural Crime and Task Force was increasing, and the PCC said he was accountable for all these decisions.]

 

Written Questions submitted by the Panel’s Budget Task and Finish Group

 

(1)        At the first meeting of the Budget Task and Finish Group on 10 November 2023, preparation for the budget was based on a £10 Police precept increase. PCCs were then given flexibility for a £13 Police precept increase. Could the PCC provide full details of what would not be in the budget if the flexible £13 proposal had not been given?    

 

[The PCC replied that the Chief Constable has a very detailed and in depth process for scoring new demands and bids across the priorities of the force and my own.  Each proposal has to be sponsored by the appropriate chief officer before it is considered by the wider CCMT.  This process provides a priority list of all the new demands. 

 

The Chief Constable then decides where the critical line is drawn and if sufficient funding is not available additional savings would have to be identified to meet these demands.  If the £13 precept increase was not available some new demands would not have been met in conjunction with taking additional savings.

 

During November and December significant work was undertaken by the GSI team to scrutinise all critical and essential bids to fully justify their ranking and ensure all alternative means of delivery had been explored.  Also during this time, the Finance Department was critically analysing all the items within the MTFP especially the inflationary elements to ensure they were based on the latest information and the assumptions were justified.  This resulted in a reduction in the inflation provision for 2024/25 of almost £1m along with numerous other updates.

 

Due to the volume and scope of this additional work there is not a straight read across from Novembers additional demands to Januarys. However, November’s notional £10 precept increase did not provide sufficient funding for the demands identified at that time.

 

If I had not approved the £13 precept increase, the shortfall would have to be met by not approving new activity, making additional savings or additional use of reserves.

 

I reviewed the prioritised list of new activity with the Chief Constable to gain assurance that the proposals are for essential growth. Given the significant savings plans underway, additional savings would be difficult to deliver without disproportionate impact on delivery, particularly in the short term. Additional use of reserves would increase financial risk for future years.]

 

(2)         How can the PCC justify asking residents of Thames Valley for an increase of Council tax for the Police Precept (Band D - £269.28) during a cost-of-living crisis? Also, there are planned savings as part of the Force Review such as a reduction in Road Policing officers when residents complain about car cruising and meets which impacts on communities? The perception of residents is that they are paying more and received less. How can residents be assured that this will not be the case?

 

[The PCC replied that the MTFP and the Chief Constable letter to myself (appendix 4) sets out how this budget addresses the force priorities and the benefits for our communities including: Improving Victim Services, Improving Public Contact, Strengthening Community Policing and protecting Vulnerable People.  This is supported by an additional 150 officer posts, which comes on top of the doubling of neighbourhood officers I funded last year.

 

The MTFP makes realistic assumptions about future levels of funding and cost increases, along with committed growth items.  These assumptions include savings identified as part of the Force Review and wider cross force savings all of which, are part of the overall financing of the MTFP.  All savings are considered by the CCMT in the context of the force priorities and service delivery to determine the risks associated with taking them verses the risks attached to not delivering the overarching savings target and hence our priorities.  All savings are difficult decisions but without this focus we cannot redistribute our resources to our highest priority areas. 

 

Road’s policing is part of the Joint Operations Unit (JOU). Like all departments, the JOU needs to find savings and identify priorities for additional investment. CCMT has not yet made the decision as to how JOU savings targets are to be met. I will continue to hold the Force to account for roads policing, as I will for all force activity.]

 

(3)         What environmental and sustainability initiatives, such as solar panels, wind turbines etc are being looked at in terms of a capital strategy which will provide energy savings in the long term?

 

[The PCC replied that TVP has an Environmental Strategy led by an Environmental & Sustainability manager.  Solar Panels are present at 5 sites with additional units coming online in 2025.  TVP’s strategy regarding solar panels is to review the opportunity for solar panels on new builds and when significant building work is undertaken e.g. roof replacement.  Other Opportunities are identified as a need or opportunity arises.] 

 

A Member expressed disappointment with the answer given, as there were long term benefits with renewable energy.

 

[The PCC responded that TVP were tied into long term energy contracts and there were issues with some of TVP buildings. Reference was made to TVP buildings in Oxfordshire where decisions needed to be taken on which buildings were to be retained. There was no capital available on some of the environmental initiatives.]

 

(4)         Recruitment and retention within TVP remains very high on the risk registers of the force and impacts on the budget. Could the PCC outline what are the financial implications of on average 44 officers leaving every month and what is being done to reduce this, particularly with the costs involved in training officers and the gaps in the service to the public this creates?

 

[The Panel was informed, as of the end of November the average TVP leavers was 39 per month, significantly higher than wanted.  A high turnover of police officers affects virtually every aspect of the force for example, by increasing the need for recruitment, training initial and specialist, mentoring taking skilled officers away from the frontline, decreasing the skills and knowledge of those officers available for deployment as the average length of service decreases, decreasing the number of officers available for deployment because more are in the training process.  As well as the direct additional costs of travelling, accommodation, and subsistence for those in training.

 

The Force is tackling this problem by multiple means, for example, we have introduced face to face interviews before our new recruits join us to ensure both from our perspective and theirs, that they are right for the force and the force is right for them.  This will reduce the number of new recruits resigning early in their career.  The 1st trance of 42 interviews resulted in 6 no shows and 3 not progressed.  We have a retention team who are focused on “problem solving / intervening at an early stage to address issues and keep officers within their teams.]

 

(5)         A particular issue amongst all Police Forces is officers can retire at a relatively young age. Is there any opportunity to look at retaining some of the officers with inducements which will retain the experience they possess?

 

[The PCC replied that the retirement age for Police officers is now 60 (increased from 50 and 55).  The Force (as is true of most forces) has a 30+ scheme whereby officers can retire, take their lump sum, and then return to work on their previous grade, their annual pension is abated.

 

This local scheme is being replaced imminently with a new national NPCC scheme “Retire and Return” which provides more flexibility for the force and the officer.

 

We also employ a number of retired officers on zero hours contracts so we can call upon their skills and knowledge as and when required for specific cases. We also encourage retiring officers to apply for police staff roles.]

 

(6)         Reference was made to £2m of unidentified savings and the PCC was asked for more information on this.

 

[The PCC referred to appendix 4 which explains how the £2m unidentified savings is matched by an equal and opposite provision for unidentified essential growth.  This is to indicate that any additional growth will need to be funded by additional savings.  If the savings cannot be found the growth cannot be delivered.  The £2m additional growth is low compared to recent years.]

 

(7)         This budget relies heavily on the use of reserves to support the funding of one-off short-term growth and investment items. How sustainable is this, particularly if reserves are dipped into to cover items such as energy costs and inflation going forward?    

     

[The PCC explained that General Reserves are maintained at the CIPFA recommended level of 2.5% - 3% of NRE. Reserves ae only used to fund one-off items or items of an exceptional nature such as the energy spike.

 

The Improvement & Performance reserves is designed to support the force in developing for the future, building the force for the future.  This reserve is designed for application to benefit the force service and not a saving mechanism, i.e. the intention is not to build the reserve but to use it for the benefit of the service.  This year I have agreed to support the force in the use of this reserve to support a number of long-term investment opportunities such as the Force Review which is designing the structures and delivery mechanisms to provide flexibility to address the current and future policing challenges and complexities.  Other one-off investments include the Network modernisation and response to the BT transformation work.

 

The Force also has an Estates Reserve which the MTFP contribute to with the expectation of the current and potential schemes within the Estates Strategy.

 

The significant productivity savings over the next two years mean that short term use of reserves is sustainable. My CFO and myself are confident that the force is making reasonable and appropriate use of the I&P reserves.] 

 

The decision taken on this item was made after the Panel considered the following item on the agenda:- Report of the Budget Task and Finish Group. 

 

RESOLVED – (1) That the Police and Crime Panel approve the Police and Commissioner’s precept for 2024/25, to increase the Council Tax precept by £13 (Band D), as set out in the OPCC budget papers.

 

(2) That, subject to final tax base notifications, the council tax requirement for 2024/25 be set at £262,294,520.

 

(3) That any variation in the final amount of council tax income be appropriated to or from the Improvement & Performance Reserve.

 

(4) That the revenue estimates for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix be noted.

 

(5) That the police element of the council tax for 2024/25 be set at £269.28 for properties in Band D (an annual increase of £13), with the charge for other bands as set out in Table 1, for comparison Appendix 2 shows the comparison band D precept across all forces.

 

 

 

 

Property Band	Relevant Proportion	PCC Element of the Council Tax
A	6/9	£179.52
B	7/9	£209.44
C	8/9	£239.36
D	9/9	£269.28
E	11/9	£329.12
F	13/9	£388.96
G	15/9	£448.80
H	18/9	£538.56