Minutes:
1. The Policy Officer, KCC, explained that the Panel had a statutory duty under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and associated Regulations to:
- Review and report on the Commissioner’s proposed level of precept.
In addition the Panel may:
- Make any recommendations on the draft plan or proposed precept; and
- By a two thirds majority, veto the proposed precept.
2. The Commissioner advised that Panel that, after widespread consultation, she had found public support for an increase to the precept without triggering a referendum. The Commissioner explained that she had not yet received confirmation of the rules relating to when a referendum trigger was required before a precept increase could be implemented. Last year’s Police & Crime Plan assumed a 2% percept (increase £2.80 per year ) each year but if the commissioner could go to 3.5% (£4.95 per year per household in a Band D property) without triggering a referendum then this would be the percept level proposed. The Commissioner asked the Panel for flexibility and would they agree to a percept maximum of 3.5% or an increase to the trigger level.
3. The Commissioner explained to the Panel that the costs of a referendum, together with the fact that there would be restrictions on what could be said to explain the proposal during a campaign, meant it was not sensible to propose an increase that would require to be put to a referendum. The Commissioner, therefore, proposed a precept increase of 3.5%, or the maximum permitted without calling a referendum if this was lower.
4. Panel Members sympathised with the Commissioner’s difficulty in not knowing the rules relating to a referendum at this late stage but pointed out that the draft budget which the Commissioner had presented assumed a 2% increase in the precept and questioned the Commissioner as to why she needed an additional 1.5%. The Commissioner said that the extra money would be used to keep 20 Police Officers or a larger mixture of Police Officers and PCSOs who might otherwise be lost due to anticipated reductions in Government grant in 2015/16. The Commissioner also confirmed that Kent was in the bottom quartile for its policing precept in the Country, significantly less than the national average.
5. Panel Members sought clarification of the consultation which the Commissioner had carried out and which had led her to state that there was support for a precept increase for local visible policing
6. . The Commissioner referred to a range of events and activities, including a large stakeholder event in December 2013.
7. Panel Members questioned the Commissioner on whether the Force had explored every option to reduce costs exhaustively, pointing out that many Councils in Kent and Medway had looked to reduce costs further rather than increase Council tax. The Commissioner explained that every budget line had been closely scrutinised. HMIC also completed Value for Money profiles and in terms of efficiency these showed Kent Police as being good.
8. Panel Members said that they were supportive of the need to maintain officer numbers and asked in the Commissioner could give a guarantee that, if they supported a 3.5% precept increase, the money would be “ring-fenced” for more police officers. The Commissioner explained that it was her intention that the money be used in this way and that additional funds would be used to offset the anticipated loss of Government grant.
9. Panel Members asked whether there were opportunities for income generation rather than a precept increase and were advised by the Commissioner that Kent Police was currently above average for income generation but that she has plans for more work in this area which she would share with the Panel later in the year.
10.Panel Members pointed out that the Commissioner’s Plan was based on precept increases each year of her term of office and that, since these increases would be compounded, they amounted to a significant increase taken together.
11.The Panel voted on a veto of the Commissioner’s precept, 8 Members voted for the veto and 6 against. In accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act regulations the Panel would be able to veto the Commissioner’s proposed precept with a 2/3 majority (14 Members of the Panel) therefore this was lost.
12.Mr Dearden then proposed that the Commissioner should increase her precept by no more than 2% (£2.80 per year per Band D household), provided that such an increase was permitted without a referendum.
13.This was seconded by Mr Pugh.
14.The Chairman put this to the vote and it was carried.
15.The Panel also noted the Commissioner’s assurance that they would be provided with details of her final budget, if it differed from the one presented to the Panel.
RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel recommend that the Commissioner should increase her precept by no more than 2% (£2.80 per year per Band D household), provided that such an increase was permitted without a referendum. The Panel also noted the Commissioner’s assurance that they would be provided with details of her final budget, if it differed from the one presented to the Panel.