Agenda item

1.      Mr Nolan presented the report to the Panel with two powerpoint slides which are appended to these minutes. 

2.      Mr Nolan said that the annual revenue budget was just under £317million a year, 70% was financed by Government grants and 80% was spent on employees.  The grant cut for Comprehensive Spending Review 1 (CSR1) which ran to the end of 2014/15 was 20%.  This required £50million savings, and involved the loss of 500 police officers and 700 police staff.  The Force and former Kent Police Authority worked hard to make the savings and was well on target to meet the savings requirements for CSR1.  Work was now being undertaken on CSR2 which was timed for 2015/16 and was in theory just one year.  CSR2 implied a 5% grant cut but  the Government’s intention to increase the employer National Insurance (NI) costs also needed to be considered.  The increase in employer NI would have the similar quantitative impact as the grant cut.  Mr Nolan also advised that there was a risk  that the Government might also  redistribute the Police Grant and deprivation factors were due to be introduced.  It was expected that these combined factors would result in a budget gap of £20million in 2015/16.   This gap could increase if there were further grant cuts in 2016/17.  The Commissioner would be presenting her Police and Crime Plan for 2014/15 in February to the Panel. 

3.      The Commissioner explained that the Force and Office staff were working hard on the implications of CSR2.  The Commissioner was offering every councillor in Kent and Medway the opportunity, including Panel members, to come and discuss with the Commissioner’s Office the budget issues in early December 2013, further details would be supplied. 

4.      In relation to the re-distribution of the Police Grant and the potential for this to be influenced by deprivation factors in the north of the country a Member commented that areas of Kent had high levels of deprivation and it was assumed that this point was made very strongly to the Government. 

5.      A Member asked whether there had been any analysis to measure the impact of the previous cuts to the Force and Police staff, to inform any future cuts.  The Commissioner confirmed that this piece of work was underway and would be shared with Members at the Commissioner’s budget briefing in early December. 

6.      Mr Nolan explained that of the £317million around £2million was spent with partners, the Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan set out her vision which would determine her partner priorities.  Key to the Plan was ‘victims being at the heart of the process’.

7.      Mr Nolan said that the Commissioner’s emerging priorities were set out on page 15 of the report.  Staff within the Commissioner’s Office were trying to provide as much certainty as possible to partners.  The Commissioner gave some one off support during 2013/14 but it was not possible to do this in future years, beyond this 5% per annum cuts were expected for the next three years and partners had to bear this in mind.  It was not considered acceptable by the Commissioner to impose further cuts on the force to subsidise community budgets.

8.       Mr Nolan explained that the Commissioner was minded to set up a Commissioner’s Fund to work with smaller bodies to give them opportunities and these plans would be brought back to the Panel in the future as part of the overall budget proposals.

9.      The Chairman welcomed the priorities which aligned almost exactly with the Kent Community Safety Partnership priorities, the commitment to work with key partners was also welcomed. 

10.A Panel Member noted that the police precept was used to fund an additional 60 Police Community Support Officers in 2013/14, was it possible to retain this? It was considered that visible neighbourhood policing was vitally important.  The Commissioner agreed and confirmed that visible community policing was key to Kent residents.  The only way to get more officers on the street was through local taxation.  To save another £20million in CSR2, on top of the £50million in CSR1, it was necessary to look at creative ways of policing including investing in technology, predictive policing and mobile police stations.   

11.In response to a query on the precept the Commissioner explained that to increase the precept over and above 2%would require a referendum to be held.  This would be costly, and further consultation would be undertaken with Kent residents to determine their views and requirements.

12.In relation to reserves, a Member asked if it was likely that money would be taken out of reserves.  It was understood that other Commissioners had used reserve money to fund police officers, The Commissioner said that Kent Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office had general reserves at 2% which was considered best practice.  Mr Nolan confirmed that the Government had no current legal power to single out those authorities with high levels of reserves to disproportionally reduce their future grants.  

13.The Commissioner said that it was vital to have an honest debate with Kent residents around the precept, to enable the issues to be fully understood.  In relation to a query around the Commissioner’s Fund, there would be a Governance structure surrounding the fund and charity providers would be considered. 

14.The Chairman explained that local authorities were currently engaged in transformation, looking at every single service to see if there was a better way of delivering that service.  Members asked for confirmation that the Commissioner’s Office was doing the same.  For example in relation to Community Wardens which had delivered an excellent service, it was important to engage with the Wardens to determine whether parts of operational policing could be delivered in a different way.  The Commissioner explained that there was a joint platform for support services between Kent and Essex Police Force, and work was being undertaken, successfully, to find further savings.  Operationally a joint Serious Organised Crime division existed with Essex Police Force and the other protective services were also being looked at with a view to increasing resilience as well as making savings.  The Commissioner also highlighted that one of her election promises was not to privatise Kent Police.  The Commissioner confirmed that she was not averse to having outside agencies reviewing services to see if it was possible to provide them in a more efficient way.     

RESOLVED that Members note the report on the Commissioner’s Initial thinking on Budgets, Grants and Commissioning for 2014/15 and request further information on the Commissioner’s Fund when it is available.