Agenda item

1.    The Commissioner introduced the Statement of Accounts for 2016/17.  He expressed thanks to all staff at the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), in particular his Chief of Staff and Chief Finance Officer; Adrian Harper and Rob Phillips.  He also highlighted the helpful contribution of Paul Curtis, the Chief Constable’s Chief Finance Officer and Sonia Virdee, Kent Police’s Chief Accountant.

2.    The Commissioner explained that the impact of flat cash settlements was still being felt, with ongoing requirements to find savings and efficiencies.  He noted the significant impact of reduced public sector funding across a range of organisations, some of which had faced more difficult situations than the Police but he commented that this did not diminish the challenge policing was facing.  He reassured the Panel that the Force had done well in this respect, noting that HMIC had praised Kent Police’s financial management.  The Commissioner commented that work already done by the Force to address financial challenges meant that Kent Police’s finances were in a relatively strong position, and combined with the council tax increase last year, there had been sufficient funding to support increasing Police Officer numbers (3181 up to 3260).  The strong financial situation also allowed for the protection of PCSO numbers and for future planning around maintaining them as it was expected that some may leave their post to become Police Officers. 

3.    The Commissioner explained that the Auditors reviewing the accounts had provided an ‘unqualified opinion’, which was a positive endorsement of the state of the financial management.

4.    The Commissioner advised the Panel that he was lobbying government in relation to the ongoing inflationary pressures and recent pay rise for Police Officers, his view being that the increase should be funded by central government and not a savings pressure on Forces.

5.    Mr Phillips, the PCC’s Chief Finance Officer, provided an overview of the accounts report, explaining that it represented an attempt to make the financial information more accessible, including more context and explanation.  He advised the Panel that the Kent Police Finance team had been able to complete all the accounts earlier in the year and he was hopeful the information could be reviewed and approved earlier in future years, which was positive as the statutory deadline was expected to be brought forwards.

6.    A Member asked about the £5m worth of capital spend ‘slippage’; the Commissioner explained that most of this was in relation to national projects such as the Airwaves radio replacement.

7.    A Member congratulated the Commissioner and his team on achieving an unqualified opinion from the auditors but noted the potential risk around actively seeking to advance deadlines in terms of finalising the accounts.  Mr Phillips reassured the Panel that the recommendation to advance the deadlines from their auditors had been taken as a compliment on the efficiency of the finance team, but it would not happen at the expense of accuracy.

8.    A Member asked about the appropriate level of spendable reserves.  The Commissioner explained that the majority of the reserves were earmarked for large spend capital projects, with the end reserve level expected to be back to around £6m.  He commented that £6m would fund Kent Police for around 7 or 8 days in the event of an emergency, so the amount was not unnecessary or excessive.  Mr Phillips advised that Kent Police maintains a 2% level of reserves as standard and that this was low compared to most other Forces who usually held between 3% & 5%.

9.    In response to questions regarding staffing levels, the Commissioner explained that the figures did not include volunteers.  He also recognised the limited representation, particularly in terms of ethnicity but advised the Panel that additional work was being undertaken in relation to positive action for recruitment and broader diversity activity.

10. In response to questions about the efficiency of Kent Police and the percentage of revenue for the Commissioner’s office, the Commissioner advised that HMIC had commented positively on Kent Police’s efficiency, with ‘relatively efficient’ showing them in a good light when compared to other Forces.  The Commissioner also clarified that the OPCC represented 1.3% of Kent Police revenue, which was in line with other Forces.  He also highlighted that he has committed to transferring any underspend from the OPCC to the main policing budget.

11. Responding to questions about vacancies being carried at the OPCC, the Commissioner explained that the vacancies had been filled and that while the associated underspends could no longer be invested directly into projects, work was being undertaken to identify other efficiencies in the office which could contribute to future projects.  He reassured the Panel that projects funded by the previous underspends had normally been time-limited and would therefore not suffer from a lack of ongoing funding due to the vacancies having been filled.

12. Responding to questions about financial monitoring, the Commissioner reassured the Panel that work to improve processes had been continuous.  Mr Phillips explained that recent improvements highlighted in the report represented new attempts to increase transparency and more clearly explain some of the important details contained within all the data.  He advised that the improvements were worth noting but they did not represent such as change as to be cause for concern regarding previous monitoring activity.

13. In response to a question about the pay increase for Police Officers, the Commissioner explained that the 1% pay rise was forecast and was included within the budget but that the additional 1% bonus would come from identified underspends and the use of reserves.  He also advised the Panel that the Chief Constable intended to apply the same increase to Police Staff.  The Commissioner stated this was a £2.1m additional spend and commented that work was underway to find the money in future years, but he was keen to challenge the increase being only 1%, which he felt did not represent the worth of Police Officers.

RESOLVED that the Statement of Accounts for 2016/17 be noted.