Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner which advised of his proposal to consult on an increase in the policing element of the Council Tax precept for 2017-18 (for copy see file of Minutes).

Mr Dodwell informed the Panel that when the Bedfordshire PCC had proposed a 15.85% rise in precept the costs of the subsequent referendum had to be met from the police budget.  He asked whether Durham was in the lowest quartile of preceding authorities which would allow for an increase of up to 35 per property.

The PCVC replied that because of the level of precept, Durham was in the third quartile.  The Home Office was currently undertaking a review of police funding and Durham was to ask that the ability to raise funds locally was considered.  Durham was an area which needed optimum government grant.

Councillor Hopgood informed the Panel that she supported the consultation but asked what the PCVC would do if the majority response was not in favour of the proposed 1.98% increase.  She considered that the PCVC should explain the reasoning for a 1.98% rise rather than refer to consultation.

The PCVC reminded the Panel that if the majority response was not in favour of the 1.98% increase the Panel had the ability to veto his decision.

The Monitoring Officer informed the Panel it was important to ensure that it was made clear that any consultation was carried out with an open mind, otherwise it could be open to challenge.

Councillor Jones asked what levels of response the PCVC had for previous precept consultations.  The PCVC replied that previous responses had been in the low thousands and had shown a majority in favour of the increase.

Councillor Boyes informed the Panel that he considered there was a general feeling among the public that, while the police were doing a lot more with fewer resources, they were not receiving the service as before.  There was a general feeling of paying a lot of Council Tax and not getting the service.  If the majority of consultees did not agree to the proposed 1.98% increase there could be a danger of the Panel vetoing the proposal.  He would prefer the exercise to be advisory rather than a consultation.

Councillor Armstrong informed the Panel that he considered the consultation document to be comprehensive, particularly that which provided details of what the proposed increase would mean ‘on the ground’, for example 11 police officers.  He also commended the table at Appendix 2 which showed the cost of a 1.98% increase by Council Tax band.

Councillor Jones informed the PCVC that it was important to ensure that any consultation took the opportunity make people aware how highly rated the Durham force was.

Councillor May expressed concern that consultation took place on many matters and the public was not responding.  He suggested the PCVC should outline that this was his proposal and to welcome comments from the public on it.

The PCVC informed the Panel that he had a statutory obligation to consult on his precept proposal.  When the consultation process was concluded he could either heed the results or do what he considered to be right for the organisation.  During the last consultation process nearly 30% of responses had agreed to precept higher than 2%.  He reminded the Panel that as the PCVC he was under a legal obligation to deliver an efficient and effective police service.

Mr Dodwell acknowledged that while the PCVC was under a statutory obligation to carry out a consultation he asked whether the width of consultation was prescribed.  The PCVC replied that it was not but he wanted the consultation to be a transparent and engaging process.

Resolved:

(i)              That the report be noted

(ii)             That a full report on the outcome of the consultation be presented to the Panel on 2 February 2017.