Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner which provided an update on the process for setting the Policing Precept for 2018-19 and which sought the Panel’s support in doing so (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner informed the Panel that engagement on the proposed precept had taken place at Area Action Partnership meetings, drop-in sessions in Darlington and Durham City, online and in local media.

The PCVC informed the Panel that at most AAP meetings attended, support for the proposed increase was strong.  The online response showed a balance of opinion for and against the proposed increase, although only 52 responses were received.

In response to a question from Councillor Boyes regarding the proportion of funding provided by Government grant and that provided by local taxation the PCVC agreed to provide the exact figures after the meeting.

Councillor Boyes asked about the level of reserves and how these compared to other forces.  The PCVC replied that the level of general reserves was between 4% and 5%, with earmarked reserves also being held.  Some reserves had been used to offset liabilities to make savings.

Mr Dodwell referred to the student population within Durham who did not pay Council Tax and therefore did not contribute towards policing and asked what revenue the force received from the University.  Councillor Brown replied that the University contributed £11,000 a year towards policing, which equated to half a PCSO.  Councillor Brown asked how this level of funding compared to other University towns.  The PCVC was not aware of how it compared but agreed to look into this.

Councillor Shield asked what proportion of the precept covered the provision of police pensions.  He expressed concern that a number police officers retired from the force with their pension and were then re-employed within the force as staff members.

The Chief of Staff replied that police pensions were paid from the Police Pension Fund and as such none of the precept was used to pay police pensions.  Any officer who retired and was then re-employed as a staff member would be subject to a competitive interview process and, if appointed, would be done so on merit.  Councillor Shield clarified that he wanted to know what percentage of the precept was used to pay the Police employer contributions into the pension fund.  The PCVC and Chief of Staff were unaware of this percentage but agreed to provide Councillor Shield with this information once it was known.

Councillor Shield appreciated that while the skills such officers may have acquired during their careers were an attractive proposition for an employer, there was also a level of social responsibility to ensure young people were presented with the opportunity to obtain such skills.  The PCVC replied that the force appointed apprentices as well as having programmes such as the police cadets, with apprentices obtaining accredited skills.  However, it was important that the best candidate was appointed for any job.

Resolved:

(i)            That the consultation returns be noted

(ii)          That the proposed 7.09% precept increase be agreed

(iii)         That the Chairman respond to the PCVC

(iv)         That the response of the Chairman be published online.