Anyone who works or lives in the Thames Valley can ask a question at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel, at which a 20 minute session will be designated for hearing from the public.
If you’d like to participate, please read the Public Question Time Scheme and submit your questions by email to khalid.ahmed@oxfordshire.gov.uk at least three working days in advance of the meeting.
Minutes:
Mr Andrew Hill, attended the meeting remotely, and through the Chair of the Panel, asked the Police and Crime Commissioner the following questions relating to Item 9 – PCC Community Safety Fund Update:-
(1) Based on figures aggregated on crimerate.co.uk, the Local Authority in Berkshire with the highest absolute number of recorded crimes is Reading (just over 17000, crime rate 66/1000). The PCC proposes to cut the CSP for Reading by 52% by 2024.
The local Authority with the highest crime rate by a considerable margin is Slough at 92/1000 of the population. The PCC proposes to cut the CSP for Slough by 40% by 2024.
Other safer areas are awarded increased CSP allocations.
Could an explanation be given to how a new alleged “needs based formula” has led to by far the largest cuts in the need for community safety funding occurring in the two areas with objectively the most crime?
[The PCC replied that the previous PCC had worked closely with the Police and Crime Panel to develop a fairer “needs based” formula, which considered data around population and crime related factors. This had never been fully implemented.
Reference was made to the reworking of the formula which was weighted in relation to Population (50% weighted), Crime (25% weighted) and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and fear for welfare (25% weighted). For example, Oxfordshire, has the largest funding based on population and ASB.
In the past, both Reading and Slough have benefited, with the most funding. Therefore, the decision to include non-crime demand on top of recorded crime was intentional. Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) have always been asked to take a lead role in anti-social behaviour and supporting preventative work.
In response to a supplementary question regarding the crime levels in Windsor and Maidenhead and whether the Chief Constable had been consulted on the weighting of crime in the formula change, the PCC replied that the crime levels in in Windsor and Maidenhead were 5.9%, compared to Thames Valley wide all crime levels of 5.7%. Community Safety fell within the remit of the PCC.]
(2) In agenda item 9, Mr Barber states that the Home Office has not made any commitment to extend funding of CSP’s beyond the current financial year. Nonetheless the PCC publicity surrounding this has repeatedly stated that “funding has been secured for three years”.
Whist, I appreciate your intent and desire to continue these schemes, can the PCC explain why funding that could be withdrawn at any time is being triumphantly presented to the public by the TVP PCC as if it were entirely new funding, moreover using the inaccurate word “secured” when the funding is neither new (it’s legacy funding) and (in reality) is more accurately described as unsecured? Or has TVP committed to using its own reserves to fill any gaps that may occur if the Home Office withdraws funding for CSP for future financial years?
[The PCC replied that Home Office funding was allocated on a yearly basis, but it was hoped that the comprehensive spending review would extend this to funding for 3 years. The PCC reported that he would write to Leaders of councils. He disagreed with the questioner’s opinion that this was political and referred to local authorities with different political administrations receiving increased funding. There were winners and losers under this new formula.
Reference was made to the PCC’s commitment to supporting CSPs and to enable longer term planning, it was intended to commit to three years of funding for local authorities. This would allow CSPs to commit to multi-year projects that support the Police and Criminal Justice Plan.]