Ward(S) Affected s1

REPORT OF: COMMUNITY SAFETY MANAGER

AUTHOR: DEBBIE STITT

TELEPHONE: 01737 276305

E-MAIL: [email protected]

TO: COUNCIL

DATE: 29 JUNE 2006

AGENDA ITEM NO: 11 WARD(S) AFFECTED: ALL

SUBJECT: PROPOSED SURREY POLICE FORCE MERGER WITH SUSSEX POLICE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: TO BRIEF MEMBERS ON THE FILLIN "SUBJECT" \* MERGEFORMAT PROPOSED SURREY POLICE FORCE MERGER WITH SUSSEX POLICE RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. NONE – THIS REPORT IS FOR BRIEFING PURPOSES ONLY.

Background

1. In 2004, the Home Office commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to explore whether the present police structure was sufficiently robust to handle the whole spectrum of protective services, whilst simultaneously tackling volume crime. Services reviewed were: counter terrorism and extremism; serious organised and cross border crime; civil contingencies and emergency planning; critical incident management; major crime (homicide); public order; and strategic roads policing. The view that forces needed to be larger and better resourced The request for a review was partly based on an investigation into how Cambridgeshire police handled the Soham murders.

2. In September 2005, HMIC published the report “Closing the Gap”. The report’s findings included: i) The current 43-force structure is no longer fit for purpose.

ii) Forces under 4,000 officers or 6,000 staff are not resilient enough to cope with serious organised crime, counter terrorism and emergency planning. Only seven forces currently meet this threshold (Surrey has 1,959 officers).

iii) A recommendation that the number of forces be reduced through mergers to 17 to create larger, more strategic units, “in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of policing”. iv) HMIC are clear that mergers on their own will not be sufficient. New forces will need to reconfigure the way protective services are provided in future in order to comply with minimum national standards.

3. The Home Secretary strongly agreed with HMIC’s conclusions and wrote to Chief Constables and Chairs of Police Authorities on 22 September to set out in some detail how he would like the process to be taken forward.

4. In March 2006, the Home Secretary met Surrey Police & Surrey Police Authority to request a voluntary merger with Sussex based on the following i) This would be the best fit both geographically and in policing style

ii) The combined number of police officers, 5,053, would be within the recommended resilience range (Sussex 3,094, Surrey 1,959)

iii) Whilst the cost of merging would be approx £27 million, an estimated annual saving of approx £16 million would be envisaged.

iv) Any disruption to BCUs (Basic Command Units) will be minimal (Reigate and Banstead, Tandridge & Mole Valley form East Surrey BCU). The Home Office believes that the roll out of neighbourhood policing by 2008 will ensure that local communities will be served by local police and community support officers dedicated to their own communities, who will be uniquely positioned to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour by providing a close, two way relationship with local residents & businesses.

v) The creation of strategic forces with sufficient capacity and resilience to deal with major investigations or public order incidents will, they believe, help safeguard local policing by reducing the need to abstract officers from neighbourhood policing teams.

5. Surrey Police Authority rejected the voluntary merger in April 2006 stating the following serious concerns: i) Surrey has ongoing funding difficulties, receiving approx £88 per head popn in central grant whilst Sussex receives approx £115

ii) Whilst this anomaly lasts, any resources being directed away from Surrey will impact severely on Surrey residents.

6. The Home Office subsequently announced its intention to order Surrey to merge with Sussex in April 2008, with a four-month objection period ending on August 11th 2006.

7. The new Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, has announced he is committed to the process and the current timetable will see the Home Secretary responding to objections in the autumn. A merger order to commence the legal process is expected by October 2006, after debates in both the House of Commons and Lords. It is anticipated that a new shadow police authority would be established in December, with the Chief Constable appointed in April 2007 and the new strategic force operational on 1st April 2008

8. Cleveland Police Authority has requested a Judicial Review and will know if this is being challenged by the Home Office on 22nd June. Solihull with Dudley MBCs and Birmingham with Coventry City council have jointly started judicial review proceedings.

9. Latest update June 19th The Home Secretary told MPs that he was no longer hoping the changes would begin before Parliament rises at the end of July. He promised only to push ahead with a voluntary merger of Cumbria and Lancashire police forces, and to wait until the Autumn before laying the groundwork for compulsory reorganisations. He believed mergers were still "the right way to improve protective police services" but he was responding to "the will of the House, of the police authorities and of many outside this House" in announcing the delay. Police authorities welcomed the announcement of a longer timetable for discussing the changes

Factors for Consideration

10. On June 6th, James Smith, Chairman of Surrey Police Authority, and Bob Quick, Chief Constable of Surrey Police, sent a letter to Local Councils requesting support in objecting to the proposed merger, responses to be received by 30th June. (Copy attached – see Annex 1) The following key points were made: Option 1 (preferred option) Government to harmonise central grant funding with Kent, Hampshire & Thames Valley Police. New workforce modernisation approaches would then be used to strengthen Surrey’s protective services to the “gold standard” in collaboration with neighbouring forces

Option 2 (proposed by Home Secretary) A merger with Sussex subject to funding harmonisation of the combined force with the neighbouring forces listed above, and with full reimbursement of start up costs (approximately £36 million).

11. The background to these options is given below:

i) Underfunding from Central Government Grant The current funding formula takes no account of Surrey’s unique position bordering London (with some of the highest crime rates in Europe), cut through by the busiest section of motorway in Europe, and adjacent to two international airports. As a result, local ratepayers contribute over 60% of the running costs of Surrey Police. ii) Closer working with Sussex Police Surrey Police recognise the potential benefits of working closely with Sussex to increase joint capability to tackle major crime & to centralise support services. However an actual merger brings concerns that current levels of deployment will be reduced by the gradual drifting of resources towards the higher crime areas of Sussex.

iii)Start up costs Surrey Police estimate that the net start-up costs are £15 million higher than the funds to be lent by the Home Office.

iv) Governance arrangements In a merged authority, Surrey representatives will be in a minority, reducing the ability for local concerns to be addressed.

Surrey Police feel strongly that only these options, and in particular Option 1, will ensure the force remains able to deliver the current level of policing performance.

Resource Implications 12. Potential increase in precept to support start up costs of merger.

Background Papers: Letter from Chairman Surrey Police Authority and Chief Constable Surrey Police 06.06.06 (Attached)