Agenda item

1.    The Commissioner introduced this report explaining that it was extremely difficult to plan for the future when there was limited information about how much funding would be received, although confirmation was expected near to Christmas. There had been £61.4million cuts to police funding in Kent since 2010, there were reasonable Reserves and recorded crime had reduced. A decision had been made by the Home Office not to pursue the revision of the funding formula at this time and this introduced a further continuing element of uncertainty. The Commissioner considered that there were likely to be further cuts of between 25-40% to the Force budget over the next 5 years. There was an increasing focus on better use of and developing technology, such as Body Worn Cameras; reducing numbers of Police Officers would be a last resort, however this would be difficult bearing in mind 80% of the Force’s budget was staffing costs. 

2.    A Member referred to the non-pay efficiencies and the references to restructuring within the report. Mr Nolan explained that non-pay efficiencies related to procurement savings, better utilisation of property, and targeted use of specialist facilities and lease arrangements etc. Responding to the restructuring question the Commissioner explained that an example of such restructuring had been the criminal justice units, there were previously two units and these had been rationalised to one, staff had been offered the opportunity to move with the unit. 

3.    One Member referred to the Government’s commitment of more investment in specialist services by 2020, however in his experience Parish Councils were concerned about not seeing police on the streets and police response times. There was also a query about the ‘delayering’ of local policing. The Commissioner explained that the present police model was the local district model and this would remain in the short term. Delayering referred to the removal, for example, of one Chief Inspector rank where there was the opportunity for two divisions to share a Chief Inspector. 

4.    Following a discussion about the responsibility of district commanders it was suggested that if there was dissatisfaction with the levels of service received from the district commanders this be discussed outside of the meeting.

5.    In relation to the savings from further assumed staff turnover of £2.5million the Commissioner was asked about dissatisfaction amongst staff. The Commissioner disagreed that there was general dissatisfaction and explained the £2.5million represented the money saved when officers or staff left at the top of their pay scale and were replaced at a lower pay scale. One Member considered that there were added difficulties with the loss of experience and operational knowledge. The Commissioner stated that Kent’s workforce should reflect the county and new officers benefitted the Force. Another Member referred to the previous dissatisfaction comment and it was established that this related to police staff and the Commissioner offered to discuss this with the Panel Member who raised it and the Chief Inspector. 

6.    The Commissioner was asked whether she had explored the potential savings from combining police forces. The Commissioner explained that there were close links with Essex Police and millions of pounds of savings had been made by sharing services and close collaboration. The Commissioner confirmed that while it was possible to formally integrate and combine police forces she was not sure that this was what the people of Kent would want. 

7.    In the short term the Commissioner considered that the current policing model was sustainable, however she said this was unlikely to remain the case in the medium term if cuts were to the levels suggested.

8.    One Member referred to problems within the Thanet District, which he represented, where there was a concern about a lack of policing. The Commissioner explained that the Force had lost a huge number of officers due to funding cuts and the demand for policing had unfortunately not reduced. In response to a further comment about the problems in Thanet the Commissioner explained that there was a Task Force in each district which would deal with persistent issues and the problems described by the Panel Member should be discussed with the relevant district commander. 

9.    The Commissioner said that the planned budget for 2016/17 assumed a 1% increase in receipts from the precept due to new buildings. The Commissioner said she intended to stick to her plan of increasing the precept by 1.99% if the Government continued to set this as the cap above which a referendum would be needed. If the cap was removed there would be further discussions with the Panel over the appropriate level of increase. 

10. The Chairman congratulated the Commissioner on the ‘outstanding’ grading that Kent Police had received from HMIC for financial planning. He said that the lack of clarity about funding and increased demand was understood and it was essential that the Home Office were aware of the demands on Kent Police. The Chairman urged the Commissioner to make this point strongly to the Home Office. 

RESOLVED that Members note the Financial Planning for 2016/17 Onwards report.