Agenda item

Report author: Angus Macpherson, Police and Crime Commissioner.

To formally consider the PCC’s proposed precept for 2014-15

The Commissioner introduced his precept proposal, drawing attention to the detailed information already presented to the Panel at the 15 January meeting which gave further details.

He noted the need for careful use of language as it was the police precept which was being debated and not council tax which was determined by a different organisation doing different work.

He detailed his extensive public consultation through a variety of means including email, media and visiting the locality meetings and area boards throughout the county. 130 responses had been received and over half had been in support of his proposal.

The advice of the Chief Constable and the OPCC Chief Finance Officer had also been considered in the paper before the Panel today. The Commissioner noted that the Chief Constable had asked for a 10% increase to be consulted on which would provide more money for policing.

An additional investment in the National Crime Agency had seen available grants further topsliced, in addition to contributions to the IPCC, HMIC and the Minister’s Innovation Fund, and his proposal was to increase the local tax base which would allow policing to be maintained in the face of further government cuts.

The difference in the balance of funding between local authorities was explained with Wiltshire 60% funded by local taxation and 40% national funding and Swindon 52% funded by local taxation and 48% national. This was compared to the OPCC which was 64% funded by government grants and only 36% funded locally.

The effect of grant cuts was disproportionate with the spending level being reduced by 6% to 7% for Wiltshire and Swindon against a reduction of nearer 12% for the OPCC.

He drew attention to the difficulty in consulting when the referendum threshold limit was unknown, and there was no certainty on the future of freeze grants.

In responding to a query on reserves he drew attention to the reserves paper that was circulated at the meeting (and attached to these minutes). £2.5 million was being put into estates transformation reserves and any money made from the move out of the Salisbury Police Station would be re-invested in the estate and new accommodation.

Clive Barker, Chief Finance Officer, confirmed that the 1.99% increase would generate £770,000 and explained that the strategy was to allow funding to be available in the future as there was no certainty on the future of the freeze grant, which was worth £435,000 in 2014/15 which would be forfeited if the 1.99% increase was implemented.

He explained that reserves were projected to decrease over the next three years as capital projects will not be completed by the end of the first year. There was no statutory requirement on the level of reserves held however it was maintained at a level of 3% to 5%. The general reserve had been reviewed and would now hold a level of 3% rather than 4% of the spend.

Policing numbers would be maintained at a minimum of 1,000, however the management structure was being reduced and the Chief Constable’s operation review had not been finalised so this was a working assumption. There would be no reduction in PCSO numbers and these may be increased in the future.

The Commissioner was asked about the credibility and public perception of setting the precept at 1.99% knowing that the referendum threshold limit was 2%, and he explained that he had consistently consulted on a figure of £3.15 or £3 for three years to protect frontline policing, and not a percentage figure.

When asked what the impact in terms of delivery the additional 8% would have had a 10% increase had been consulted on the Commissioner explained that there would be no increase in money, only a reduction in savings.

There were no public questions asked.

The Panel debated the credibility and perception of the 1.99% increase. They appreciated that the public perception on the proposal being the maximum permitted without triggering a referendum could be viewed negatively and voiced concern on the effect to neighbourhood policing.

They welcomed the extensive consultation carried out and supported the Commissioners view that the government’s delay in announcing details of the referendum threshold and freeze grant frustrating and unhelpful in his efforts to consult communities

It was noted that in the short term the Commissioner had ample reserves to cover the difference between the freeze grant and the income generated by the proposal. The Commissioner’s focus was long term and sought to build the tax base and reduce the savings, making savings easier to find.

Decision

The Panel voted to support the Commissioner’s proposed increase to the police precept.