The Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Panel met on Monday 2 February 2026 to discuss the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner's budget and precept for the upcoming year. The panel approved a precept increase of 5.22% for Band D properties, which equates to an additional £15 per household annually, to help fund the police service amidst national funding pressures. The panel also reviewed the annual report on police, fire, and misconduct complaints, noting improvements in response times and a reduction in the number of reviews.

Police Precept and Budget

The primary focus of the meeting was the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner's proposed budget and precept for the 2026-27 financial year. Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Ben Adams presented a budget that included a precept increase of 5.22% for Band D properties, amounting to an additional £15 per household annually. This increase was deemed necessary due to a reduction in national funding for the police service, increased operational costs, and unfunded pay awards for police officers and staff.

Commissioner Adams explained that the national funding settlement represented a cut to Staffordshire Police, and that the force had received the joint fifth lowest percentage grant increase in the country. He highlighted that without the precept increase, necessary investment in Staffordshire Police would be delayed, impacting service levels. The budget also included investment in technology, infrastructure, and the recruitment of 79 additional police officers, many of whom would be in neighbourhood roles.

John Bloomer, the Section 151 officer, provided a detailed breakdown of the financial pressures, including unfunded pay increases, increased costs for neighbouring police and guaranteed costs, and Home Office IT costs. He noted that despite a headline cash increase in government funding, the net effect after accounting for these pressures was a deficit. Bloomer also discussed the challenges of a one-year settlement from the government, making long-term financial planning difficult.

During the discussion, Councillor Chris Elliott, an independent member, raised concerns about the achievability of savings targets, particularly those related to enabling services, and questioned the lack of further estate rationalisation plans. Commissioner Adams and Bloomer expressed confidence in delivering the savings, citing a strong track record and the fact that many were already in progress.

Councillor Anthony Screen questioned the precise reasons for the precept increase, asking why efficiencies could not be delivered first and identifying specific services at risk without the additional funding. Commissioner Adams explained that the savings were not free and would have implications for service delivery, requiring careful management and planning. He also emphasised the need for more police officers to address rising crime in areas like online fraud, while traditional crime rates had fallen.

Councillor Screen also requested a detailed breakdown of how the precept would fund transformation projects and measurable outcomes, along with independent verification for the public. Commissioner Adams assured the panel that external auditors and an independent auditing team reviewed all processes, with their findings available on his website. He also highlighted the robust scrutiny processes in place.

Councillor Ian Fordham raised concerns about the robustness of reserves, particularly the general fund reserve, and its capacity to cover unforeseen events. Bloomer explained that the general fund reserve was maintained at a level considered appropriate by national standards, and that earmarked reserves were specific to identified projects. He also noted that while the budget support reserve was depleting, it provided some insulation against unforeseen circumstances.

Councillor Charlotte Atkins questioned a significant dip in capital investment in estates for 2027-28, particularly in light of a 10-year maintenance backlog. Commissioner Adams attributed this to uncertainty surrounding police reform and the potential for force amalgamation, as well as the ongoing decision-making process for a new southern custody suite. He assured the panel that the capital programme was prudent and subject to change based on these factors. Atkins also raised concerns about the experience level of frontline police officers, noting that while numbers were increasing, the force had the most inexperienced frontline in the country. Commissioner Adams acknowledged this, explaining that while they were bringing in experienced officers through transfers, the rapid increase in numbers meant a younger cohort. He stressed that this was not a policy choice but a consequence of recruitment and the need to rebuild officer numbers.

Councillor Carol Dean raised concerns about the significant cuts to grants provided to local areas for prevention and distraction work, particularly in Tamworth. Commissioner Adams acknowledged the value of this work but explained that due to budget restrictions, he could only offer about half of the previous amount for the next two years. He also highlighted a new £100,000 fund for local authorities to bid into for specific situations.

Councillor David Williams echoed Dean's concerns, detailing substantial reductions in community safety partnership funding across Staffordshire, including an over 80% cut for Tamworth and Cannock Chase. He argued that this was a choice to protect officer numbers rather than a necessity, and questioned how this differed from the Home Office forcing the precept increase. Commissioner Adams acknowledged that choices had to be made, but stated that he had to prioritise operational demand and support for the police service, especially during a period of local government reform.

The panel ultimately voted to accept the proposed budget and precept increase, with Councillor Charlotte Atkins proposing and Councillor Vince Merrick seconding the motion.

Police, Fire Misconduct and Complaint Report

Commissioner Adams presented the annual report on police, fire, and misconduct complaints. He highlighted that complaints were a crucial aspect of the service, and that the force was committed to learning from them. The report indicated that response times for reviews were below the national average, and while the percentage of upheld reviews had increased, the overall number had decreased. Commissioner Adams paid tribute to a fantastic officer who had managed this area and sadly passed away. The panel resolved to note the report and receive future annual updates.

National Conference of Police, Fire and Crime Panels

The panel noted the report on the national conference of Police, Fire and Crime Panels. Commissioner Adams, who attended online, expressed frustration with the format and the lack of valuable networking opportunities, hoping for a return to in-person events.

Questions from Panel Members

Commissioner Adams addressed questions regarding the government's review of policing, which could see a reduction in the number of police forces. He acknowledged potential efficiencies but stressed the importance of local delivery, governance, and accountability. He also commented on the recruitment of special constables, the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, and the need for local direction rather than central dictate.

Councillor Charlotte Atkins asked about the criteria for publicising offenders in the media, particularly in cases involving individuals with mental health issues. Commissioner Adams stated that police communications worked to strict criteria based on public interest and conviction, but offered to investigate specific concerns raised by Atkins.

Work Programme

The panel reviewed its work programme, with future meetings scheduled to discuss the fire and rescue budget, a review of the panel's policies and procedures, and panel training. A proposal was made to add a discussion on assurance around efficiency savings and the risks associated with digital data and technology investments, particularly ERP implementations, to the work programme.

Exclusion of the Public

The public were excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the agenda, which involved the likely disclosure of exempt information. The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2026 were confirmed as a correct record.