Agenda item

1.      The Chair introduced the item, clarifying that the intention was to scrutinise the proposed draft plan and to consider the need for the additional requested precept funds.  It was confirmed that consideration of the Plan and Precept would be conducted in parts, as usual.

Policing Plan

2.      The Commissioner provided an overview of the Plan and background as to the purpose of and legal requirements for the Plan. He highlighted that the Plan represented one of the most important elements of how the Police were held to account. He commented that while always mindful of his manifesto, he also took into account other key factors when reviewing his plan and associated precept, including changing trends, operational pressures, new challenges, feedback from the public, Police Officers and Staff and the Panel.  The Commissioner explained that the priorities in the Plan were based on the Policing Survey, community engagement and the operational opinion of the Chief Constable.  He explained that he wished to strike a balance between operational needs and realities and the views and expectations of the public.

3.      In outlining the Policing Survey, the Commissioner explained that the methodology had been improved, building on learning from previous surveys, maximising good practice and addressing flaws.  This meant the most recent survey was more robust and he thanked the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) staff for their hard work in delivering and promoting the survey, which had resulted in a three-fold increase in responses.  He noted that while the feedback from the survey was very important, some very key crime issues were not highlighted as priorities by respondents but in his view, these had to be treated as priorities because it was vital to recognise the impact of these crimes on victims.  Key examples included domestic abuse.

4.      The Commissioner explained that based on all the information considered, no significant changes were required to the Plan.  He advised that various minor updates were proposed to reflect developing arrangements and projects related to Policing and the Plan.  He drew the Panel’s attention to the details outlined in the report and highlighted a few positive examples such as the Plan referencing Violence Reduction Units, the securing of additional government funding for unique policing pressures on Kent (e.g. Brexit) and also specific consideration of knife crime within the ‘Fight Crime and Anti-social Behaviour’ priority.

5.      The Commissioner also commented on the improved situation in relation funding for Policing which had been unexpected in previous years and had led to significant review and updating of the Kent Police Medium-term Financial Plan (MTFP).

6.      The Chair congratulated the Commissioner on the response to the Policing Survey and also commented that Kent Police had clearly been performing well, in view of national assessment and the previous positive updates provided by the Commissioner.  The Chair opened the item to questions.

7.      Members asked a range of questions in relation to the Policing Survey and the Plan.  Key issues raised by the Panel and responded to by the Panel included the following:

·         4.5 out 10 result for victim satisfaction.  The Commissioner agreed that this required improvement and gave assurances that he was raising with the Chief Constable.  The Commissioner commented that there were no wider mechanisms to measure victim satisfaction as the Home Office removed the requirement to do so. He explained that it was important for Kent Police to communicate better on investigation processes and better manage expectations.

·         Members questioned the reach of the survey and how representative the results were.  The Commissioner explained that he recognised the need to capture feedback from a diverse range of respondents.  He noted that an online process was easy for organisations but reassured the Panel that online engagement was supplemented by paper copies and direct engagement with communities as he was mindful of the need to contact hard to reach communities. 

·         Members highlighted ASB issues and queried the Kent Police response.  The Commissioner explained that ASB remained as a priority in his Plan and the Chief Constable’s control strategy and reassured the Panel that this was taken very seriously.  He commented that ASB figures had fallen by 33% in terms of reports but noted that this was clearly not supported by the public perception.  He advised that there was a similar situation with burglary, a key priority in the Plan and the Control Strategy but the figures were still down compared to previous years.  The Commissioner highlighted some very positive outcomes for burglary cases managed by the Chief Constable’s Crime Squad.

·         Local Authority role in tackling ASB.  Members and the Commissioner discussed the different non-enforcement approaches that can help reduce ASB.  The Commissioner noted that different factors contributed to ASB in different areas and demographics.

·         Roads Policing.  The PCC agreed that proper enforcement was important and the Chief Constable was supportive of expanding the roads policing team further.  He advised that the team had already grown significantly since 2016.

·         Commissioned service.  The Commissioner reassured the Panel that he was focused on value for money and sought limit overlap in any commissioned service with other partner agency activity.  This was embedded in his commissioner strategy.  He explained that the OPCC liaised with local Community Safety Units to minimise overlap.

Precept

8.      The Commissioner introduced the Precept proposals, thanking his staff and the Chief Finance Officer in particular for their excellent work, especially in view of the late financial settlement.

9.      He provided an overview of the proposals, as set out in the reports.  The Commissioner emphasised that despite the ongoing recruitment, additional resources were still needed as the demand for policing and the public expectations required operational resourcing.  He advised that this was due to particular demand pressures in the Force Management Strategy.  The Commissioner explained that the proposals would fund an additional 36 PCSOs, including 15 dedicated to Crime Prevention, and also fund 100 additional civilian staff delivering a range of key roles.  The proposals also allowed for additional Officer numbers on top of the planned national uplift (147 in Kent).

10.   The Commissioner advised the Panel that despite the proposed precept increase and the positive settlement from government, he was still requiring the Force to make £9m in savings.  The additional resources from the precept would fund inflationary pressures and the identified spending plans but efficiencies would still be taking place.

11.   The Commissioner outlined a number key pressures and considerations from the Force Management Strategy that contributed to his proposals, including cybercrime growth, local developments increasing the population, increases in rural crime, increases in major crime, lack of staffing core investigative roles, increases in missing persons (mispers), more domestic abuse reports and increased modern slavery reports.  These important issues and challenging pressures on the Force, the Commissioner argued, justified the increased resources detailed in his precept and budget proposals.  In recommended his budget and precept proposals, he assured the panel that the use of resources had a clear evidential basis and that this would demonstrate that the Force would deliver value for money.

12.   Members discussed the Commissioner’s proposals and asked a range of questions, including;

·         Fair funding:  The Commissioner explained that the funding formula used by Government was not entirely fair for Kent as it did not take into account a number of issues affecting specific communities or account for tourism’s effect on demand for policing.

·         Resources needed to meet demand:  The Commissioner explained that hey planned for Kent Police to reach 4111 Police Officer establishment which would allow for meeting core demand also supporting proactive work and increased visibility.

·         Kent Police savings:  The Commissions explained that few easy savings remained and was not looking to make short term cuts which could have damaging consequences, highlighting the increased demand on Police due for mental health issues due to reductions by other organisations.  He was focused on ensuring Policing generally was more efficient in procurement and used his role as Chair of Blue Light Commercial to support this work.

·         Fraud:  The Commissioner outlined the significant resources deployed by the Force to tackle this issue including joint Fraud and Economic Crime team with Essex Police.  He commented that there was an underlying national problem with how fraud was managed in terms of processes.  He advised that he would be working with the Chief Constable to further increase Kent Police’s capability to deal with fraud.

·         Retention:  The Commissioner noted Panel comments about the important of retention and highlighted that despite the proximity to London and increased wages paid by the Metropolitan Police Service, Kent had still been successful in recruitment and retention.  He also commented that Kent had a good track record of attracting senior officers from the Metropolitan Police as transferees.

·         Performance:  The Commissioner reassured the Panel that productivity and effectiveness were measured as part of him holding the Chief Constable to account for delivery against the Police and Crime Plan and that the monitoring processes were reviewed to ensure they remained fit for purpose.  He also highlighted the work of HMICFRA and other independent bodies in monitoring police performance.  The Commissioner advised the Panel that he was a member on of the National Board that was reviewing the performance outcomes framework.

13.   The Chair thanked the Commissioner for the useful information and helpful answers as part of a robust discussion that allowed for effective scrutiny of his proposals by the Panel.

RESOLVED that the Proposed Plan, Precept and Budget be approved unanimously; and that the management of the required Panel report be delegated to Panel Officers.