Government response
I was pleased by the positive report that supported
the actions being taken by the Government and the Police Service
in England and Wales to maximise frontline and visible policing
using the Government's record investment in policing.
The Committee published its report "Police Service
Strength" on 26 January 2010 and included a number of recommendations.
The Home Office has considered the recommendations and the Government
response is provided below.
Policing remains a top priority for us and we have
invested significantly in it. Since 1997, the government grant
to the police has increased by £3.6 billion which broadly
equates to almost an 18% real terms increase. Even in tougher
economic times, we have provided the police with a generous settlement
honouring our commitment in each year of the three year spending
review, as promised in 2007/08. This Government has made a commitment
to protect frontline policing. We will provide sufficient funding
in the years to 2012/13 to enable police authorities to maintain
current numbers of warranted police officers, police community
support officers and other staff exercising police powers.
There has been substantial investment in policing
by the Government since 2000 when the Crime Fighting Fund was
introduced to recruit 9,650 more police officers over and above
police authorities' own plans for growth. Between April 2000 and
September 2009 police officer strength has increased by 20,155
to 142,688. At the same time police staff numbers have increased
by 26,258 to 82,340, freeing police officers for frontline duties.
We introduced Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in 2002
and by September 2009 their number was 16,632.
1. Figures provided to us by forces in England
and Wales show overall rises in both the number of police officers
and the number of police staff employed across the service over
the past five years. Overall rises of 4.8% and 15.9% respectively
appear to indicate that reports of reduced service strength are
unjustified. However, figures varied significantly between forces,
with 13 reporting a reduction in officer levels over the same
period. In the majority of these forces, reductions were linked
to workforce modernisation initiatives and were therefore accompanied
by large increases in staff levels. Only a small minority admitted
that they were obliged to make cuts because of funding shortfalls,
blamed in part on the current distribution of the police national
grant. Witnesses also warned that the rise in officer numbers
was largely the product of an increase in specific grant-funded
posts, particularly in the area of counter-terrorism, which obscure
the trends and could be withdrawn at any point. (Paragraph 13)
Government Response
We are of course pleased to hear that only a small
minority have stated that funding shortfalls is a reason for officer
cuts. We have reconvened the Police Allocation Formula Working
Group in a bid to improve the current police allocation formula
and so the way funding is distributed between forces. The group
aims to finish discussions shortly and will put forward recommendations
for public consultation.
The Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) (introduced in April
2000) has contributed to historically high police officer numbers.
The Fund has been ongoing since 2000 and the police service will
receive £277 million in 2010/11. The police allocation formula
is based on relative needs and is beneficial in allocating resources
where they are needed. It is for Chief Constables and the police
authority to then determine how they will allocate the funds and
what percentage of the money they will use against officer posts.
We have frequently relayed the message that it is not just officer
numbers that are important, but outcomes for the public which
matter most.
The Government's Counter Terrorism Strategy, CONTEST,
is clear that tackling the threat we face from international terrorism
remains an important challenge and the role of the police in this
is key. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to the
police counter terrorism effort by investing record levels of
funding to this area of work. This year, the Home Office has granted
more than £600m to the police to support counter terrorism
policing, funding around 7,700 dedicated police officers and investing
in the development of the national CT Network and its infrastructure
and capability. This is an increase of about 30% over the level
of investment in this work 3 years ago. The distribution of counter
terrorism funding is subject to continual review, in consultation
with the Association of Chief Police Officers, Police Authorities
and the wider stakeholder community. The Government will set out
its plans for future police counter terrorism funding in the next
Spending Review.
2. On the basis of provisional financial information
from the Government, some forces are planning to cut officer numbers
in the next financial year, others are not, depending on their
overall financial position. The position after 2011 is unclear
as the Government has given no indication of funding settlements
beyond that point; however, all forces believe they will be expected
to make significant spending cuts. (Paragraph 22)
Government Response
In the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and in
previous spending reviews the Government set departmental budgets
for three-year periods in order to provide greater certainty to
departments and frontline delivery bodies. No decision has yet
been made on the timing of the next spending review.
Nevertheless the Government
has made a commitment in the Pre-Budget Report to protect frontline
policing. We will provide sufficient funding in the years to 2012/13
to enable police authorities to maintain current numbers of warranted
police officers, police community support officers and other staff
exercising police powers.
3. There is a general commitment to protect frontline
services across the police service, but there is a limit to the
extent to which this will be possible. We see no reason to dispute
the Association of Chief Police Officers' assertion that forces
may be able to manage up to 5% spending cuts without affecting
uniformed officer budgets, but would struggle to protect these
budgets beyond this. Moreover, significant longer-term efficiencies
require an element of up-front investment; it may therefore be
counter-productive to impose spending cuts at this stage. (Paragraph
23)
Government Response
The White Paper "Protecting the Public: Supporting
the Police to Succeed" (published on 2 December 2009) sets
out how the police service will deliver better value for money.
This will involve both:
· Increasing
frontline delivery for the public by the equivalent of at least
£500 million a year through working to improve business processes.
· Saving
at least £545 million a year through better procurement of
goods and services, convergence of information systems and infrastructure,
reducing overtime spending and streamlining support services.
4. The police service has greatly appreciated
the advent of three-year Comprehensive Spending Reviews, which
have increased their ability to plan over the medium term. We
endorse this approach to financial planning and recommend that
a further Review is carried out as soon as possible. (Paragraph
24)
Government Response
In the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and in
previous spending reviews the Government set departmental budgets
for three-year periods in order to provide greater certainty to
departments and frontline delivery bodies. We are pleased that
the three year Comprehensive Spending Reviews have been widely
welcomed and endorsed by the Committee. No decision has yet been
made on the timing of the next spending review.
5. We are pleased that the police has made a commitment
to protect frontline policing, which incorporates not only the
kind of visible policing activity so valued by members of the
public but also a number of important business areas that are
less immediately perceptible to them. However, there is a limit
to the efficiency savings the police service can generate from
rationalising back-office support or making cuts to other parts
of their budgets. Given that almost 88% of police budgets are
spent on the workforce, we agree with the Association of Chief
Police Officers that the service should pursue innovative means
of service delivery that can allow it to operate with a reduced
workforce, if necessary, as a means of managing spending cuts.
(Paragraph 30)
Government Response
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the increased funding of 2.7% for the police in 2010/11 and
the commitment by the Government to enable police authorities
to maintain current numbers of warranted police officers, police
community support officers and other staff exercising police powers
to 2013/14. The White Paper sets out how at least £545m pa
of savings will be made by 2013/14, without affecting frontline
workforce numbers by:
· better
procurement (at least £200m pa)
· the
Information Systems Improvement Strategy (ISIS) which will require
that all spending on IT infrastructure and other ICT should be
consistent with the nationally agreed ISIS frameworks (at least
£200m pa)
· reducing
overtime (at least £70m pa)
· streamlining
support services (at least £75m pa).
At the same time the Government expects the
Police Service to have used process improvement to increase
frontline delivery to the public by the equivalent of, at least,
£500 million a year by 2013/14.
6. It has become clear to us that voluntary mergers,
in the right circumstances, can enable forces to make substantial
savings. We are pleased that the Home Office is supporting voluntary
mergers by announcing a new voluntary merger exploration fund
of £500,000. This is a good first step, but is a drop in
the ocean given the costs involved in setting up a merger—the
potential merger between Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire would
be likely to cost £20m, for example. We urge the Government
to consider how forces and authorities can be assisted with managing
the up-front cost of reorganisation. The long-term financial benefits
should make this area of investment a priority. (Paragraph 36)
Government Response
The Government has made clear that it supports the
voluntary merger between police forces and authorities when key
conditions can be met. Mergers would be likely to release longer
term financial savings for the forces and authorities involved—it
is therefore right that the primary responsibility for investing
in the changes required to release such savings should fall to
forces and authorities. However, we recognise that this upfront
investment can be seen as a barrier; for that reason the recent
Policing White Paper made clear the Government's intention to
consider—in consultation with ACPO and the APA—mechanisms
that would support Police Authorities in managing these costs,
by April 2010.
7. In the right circumstances, the private sector
can provide the police with expertise they may lack, value for
money in service delivery and a source of up-front investment.
In the past, private sector involvement in policing has tended
to develop in a piecemeal fashion across the service. This has
not only made the contractual process difficult for individual
forces, it has meant that the service has lost opportunities to
achieve economies of scale. The Home Office and the National Policing
Improvement Agency should take a pro-active lead in determining
appropriate forms of private sector involvement in police support
services, and support a consistent approach to their application
where this is deemed beneficial to individual police forces and
the communities the serve. (Paragraph 49)
Government Response
The White Paper sets out a number of options for
forces to consider in order to reduce the cost of support services.
These include outsourcing as well as lead force arrangements, sharing
services with other local partners, process improvement and
centralisation of services within a force. The report of the High
Level Working Group on Police Value for Money (HLWG), published
on 2 February 2010 and available at:
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/human-resources/value-for-money-report2835
commits the HLWG (comprising representatives of the tri-partite
partners, together with HMIC and the NPIA) to considering, nationally, what
else is required for such arrangements, including national shared
services and further opportunities to outsource services.
8. One of the major barriers some forces face
in maximising their resources is the current distribution of the
police national grant, which means that just under half of them
receive less than they are allocated under the funding formula.
There is disagreement across the police service about Sir Ronnie
Flanagan's recommendation that it should move to a fuller application
of the formula. Understandably, those areas that are disadvantaged
by the damping mechanism feel unfairly treated; and those who
receive more money because of it fear the consequences of its
removal. The Government is committed to reviewing this issue by
2011. It may be the case that, rather than tweaking its application,
the entire means by which money is allocated to forces should
be reviewed. If more forces move towards voluntary mergers, as
we hope they will do, the Government will need to address the
implications for both national and local funding streams. (Paragraph
49)
Government Response
We have stated that, in line with Sir Ronnie Flanagan's
recommendation, it is our intention to move to full implementation
of the formula at the fastest pace that is compatible with ensuring
financial stability of all police authorities. In doing so we
will take into account that damping currently allows for stability
in forces' planning.
The Police Allocation Formula Working Group reconvened
in September 2008 and is due to conclude its discussions shortly.
Its aim was to review the current method of allocating resources
and assess whether this method needed to be changed. Representatives
from all forces were invited to make representations. Discussions
generally show that the current formula works well and ways to
improve it further are being developed. Following the group's
final decisions in March, Ministers will agree on proposals to
be put forward for public consultation.
9. We recognise the importance of the council
tax precept in allowing forces to raise funds for service delivery
improvements, and its particular value to those forces who are
disadvantaged by the current application of the funding formula.
The Association of Chief Police Officers warned of a significant
impact on service delivery should council tax rises be capped
at below 3%. We are therefore pleased that the Government is setting
the cap for this year at 5%. However, in our view, local police
authorities should have the discretion to raise funds according
to their needs, provided this is done in consultation with stakeholders
including local residents and local authorities. (Paragraph 53)
Government Response
In 2009/10 the capping principles were that an authority's
budget requirement was deemed excessive if it set: a budget requirement
increase of more than 4% and a council tax increase of more than
5% in the same period. Surrey and Derbyshire had exceeded both
principles and were therefore subject to capping action. Greater
Manchester Police had set a higher council tax increase but were
within the 4% increase threshold with the budget requirement they
set and thus were not capped.
We have not made any assurances about the capping
principles for 2010/11. The Government expects the average Band
D council tax increase in England to fall to a 16 year low in
2010-11, having been 3.0% in 2009/10, but no other decisions have
been made. The government has provided a generous settlement to
the police, especially in economically challenging times. There
is no excuse for excessive council tax increases. Grant increases
from Government, tough capping and rigorous enforcement of the
new burdens procedures have helped bring down council tax increases.
| 
