The first item on our agenda is consideration of the financial memorandum of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Today we will take evidence from two panels of witnesses. The first panel is from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the second is from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. At next week's meeting, we will take evidence from Executive officials.
It is nice to see you again. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give evidence to the committee. I do not plan to make an introductory statement. Our only interest from a council perspective is in the marches and parades side of the bill. We are happy to answer any questions that members have.
You made the point that you are interested in the marches and parades side of the bill and that you are not concerned by any of its other financial consequences.
The marches and parades provisions affect our finances most.
Okay. Later this morning we will take evidence from representatives of ACPOS and other police organisations. The lion's share, if not all of the joint police boards' funding, comes from local authorities. Police officers have suggested to us that the cost implications of the bill are understated. That will raise an issue for councils, because they provide financial support to police authorities. In the dialogue between COSLA and ACPOS and other police organisations, has there been discussion of some of the wider implications of the bill?
Not that I am aware of.
In your submission, you estimate that the cost of the parades and marches element of the bill will be between £400,000 and £750,000. Why do you think that the financial implications of the bill are in that ballpark, given that the Government has suggested that it will cost £200,000?
We have based our estimate on the information that has been provided to us. According to the financial memorandum, the Government estimates that the parades and marches element of the bill will cost £200,000. It does not indicate where that sum came from. We have done a bit of work to see whether we can match that figure, but we have not been able to do so. Because of the work that we have done, we believe that the figure is more in the region of £400,000 to £750,000. It could even be a bit higher. We have a paper that provides a detailed explanation of how we came up with our figure. Unfortunately, it has only just come to hand—I received it last night—but we would be happy to leave it with the clerk.
You comment that the costs will relate largely to people and people time. Will local authorities be required to recruit a new workforce with a new skill set to undertake the activity, will existing local authority personnel have to have their priorities redirected, or is the point simply that existing resources will not be sufficient to undertake the activity?
The point is that we do not have enough people to undertake the activity. We have staff who are expert on the issues but, if the measures go through as planned, we will not have sufficient staff.
You mentioned the different cost elements that you expect, such as community consultation and newspaper advertisements. Can you say what proportion of your cost estimate arises from people time and people resource and what comes from additional direct costs?
The costs will mostly be people related. We are not yet sure, but the administrative costs will probably relate mostly to the community consultation and communication element. The bill will place a duty on local authorities to undertake consultation, but it does not prescribe how that will be undertaken. Our concern is that, when the guidance is produced—a lot of work is being done on that—the costs may work out considerably higher than our present forecast.
Was there dialogue between COSLA and the Executive on the compilation of the figure of £200,000 that is in the financial memorandum?
In fairness to the Executive, we have had a reasonably good dialogue on the bill generally and we have certainly talked about the finance. There is no question but that the Executive is fully aware that COSLA is not satisfied that the figure of £200,000 is sufficient. However, we have not discussed with the Executive how it reached that figure or the basis for it.
As the convener said, during the committee's meeting yesterday, we heard from the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, who has told us that, from time to time and on isolated occasions, local authorities can cry wolf about the costs that are involved in certain measures. What is your reaction to that dreadful insinuation?
There is a danger that he who cries wolf stops being listened to. However, we have done a lot of detailed work on the issue. We are aware that the measures will not impact on councils that do not have marches, but we concentrated on the authorities that, according to John Orr's figures, have a number of marches and we worked out our costings with the help of those councils. Alan Garbutt is from Glasgow City Council, which has 338 marches a year—the figure could be rising—and which has done work in the field. We are fairly confident that our figures are robust.
I am interested in the split between local authorities. We all accept that the prevalence of marches varies from area to area, but the measures have been presented as primarily relating to contentious marches, as Stephen Fitzpatrick said, or those that might be described as having sectarian origins. However, the analysis of processions shows that almost a majority of marches in Scotland were outwith that category. Certainly, I would struggle to think of any march in that category in the region that I represent.
I will let Stephen Fitzpatrick answer that.
We are aware of that issue. Another factor that will inflate costs for local authorities is the removal of the current arrangement whereby local authorities can exempt marches that are considered to present no threat to public safety. That exemption will no longer apply.
If your figures, which are based only on marches about which you had information, suggest that the financial memorandum understates the cost of the measure by at least half and possibly by four times, does that mean that your figures for the cost that the Executive has underestimated could themselves be an underestimate, because not all the information was available to you?
Absolutely.
I want to pick up the point that John Swinney made about the financial settlement for local government. I suspect I may know the answer to this question, but will you confirm what the majority of COSLA members would do if they were confronted with an additional cost of £200,000, £400,000, £750,000 or more? Is that cost likely to be passed on to the council tax payer or to the march organiser?
We would need to look at our priorities. It would be naive to say that councils are not in a tough financial situation at the moment. The 2006-07 settlement looks likely to be the toughest that we have yet faced. We would need to look at the whole council set-up in the round. We would try our best not to pass the cost on to the public, as we do not like doing that. We would consider whether we could draw money from other areas of spending, but if we were ultimately faced with the unhappy task of passing on some of the cost, we would do so.
I want to ask about special events that might be seen as unusual. For example, the make poverty history march in Edinburgh in July clearly required a considerable police presence. If such an event were to happen in the future, would it fall under the arrangements that are set out in the bill?
Yes. I think that the process on how councils are to deal with processions will apply to all marches, particularly a high-profile and sizeable one along the lines of the make poverty history march. Considerable costs would accrue to local authorities from dealing with those kinds of events, which would certainly be covered by the bill.
In the context of your request that the Scottish Executive provide local authorities with the cost of dealing with the legislation, would mechanisms associated with the bill allow local authorities to claim for the special one-off costs of organising for and policing a demonstration of that kind? Would such claims go through the same mechanism or a separate mechanism?
The bill does not provide for that. There is no guarantee that councils will receive the £200,000 that is identified in the financial memorandum. Ultimately, we would go through the spending review process or some other process to obtain that money. There is nothing in the bill to provide for that recompense to be made to councils.
So local authorities could make a bid to the Scottish Executive for the costs of implementing the provisions, but there is no guarantee in the bill that the costs that a local authority incurs will be met.
Absolutely.
Do you have a recommendation for a formula for distribution for that resource, perhaps based on records of past marches that might have to be dealt with under the bill in the future? Is it going to be entirely ad hoc?
Our evidence sets out for local authorities notional figures that are based on John Orr's figures for the number of marches. That is the most reliable indicator that we have of the volume and demand on individual local authorities. We do not propose that as a formula, but we would certainly be willing to address with the Executive the issue of how the money is allocated, whatever the final total is. That would seem to be the most sensible way forward.
I am interested in the mechanics of that. Might a payment under grant-aided expenditure be made to councils on the basis of anticipated numbers of marches, or is it that every time there is a march for which a qualifying payment might be made, the council will have to make a separate application to the Scottish Executive?
If you are indirectly asking me about ring-fencing, COSLA's position is that we do not like to ring fence money, but we would like it to be targeted at the areas that are most affected by the marches, based on the evidence that we have in front of us.
I am assuming that you do not have an in-practice agreement with the Scottish Executive for how the money would be allocated.
No, not yet.
We can pursue that question with the Executive.
I will pursue that question and link with the question that Derek Brownlee asked. All our communities will have major events such as gala days or community marches that are not contentious. I take it that under the current arrangements, policing for such events is part of the run-of-the-mill GAE allocation. You agree your local police budget and it all motors along. An exception might be major events such as the make poverty history march, which is of a different quantum.
Yes. The police can answer for themselves about how the bill will affect them. From a local authority point of view, the financial memorandum recognises the requirement for a step change in council practices and the management of those marches.
I missed your example. What was it?
The brownies. We always use the brownies as an example.
So the brownies will come under the ambit of this bill.
If they organise a procession, they will.
Because of the danger to public order that they pose. Well, what a fascinating extension of the public order problems of our land.
As the bill is set out, anyone who wants to have a march will come under the bill. It could be anyone, from the brownies to the Boys Brigade.
There will be no exemptions any more. The bill will change that.
Do you believe that there should be exemptions?
Yes, we do. As we have just said, some marches will cause no serious bother to anyone. None of the things that were illustrated earlier would be a great threat to the public. There should be some come and go about who is included in the bill and who does not need to go through the process.
Let us look at one non-contentious march, whether it is the brownies or the Boys Brigade or whatever. What additional burdens will non-contentious marches place on local authorities? I can understand that the bill will create many more burdens in relation to contentious marches, but what about the non-contentious type?
There was just a non-contentious march—a lantern parade—in my area. It is a big parade, based in Lochgilphead, that happens every year. It is organised in conjunction with the council and the police, who need to ensure that the streets are marked off. At the moment, it just goes ahead, because it is non-contentious. Lots of people attend. It is a fun event. However, if it comes under the bill, we will have to publicise it and put it out to public consultation. We will need to manage the process as laid out in the bill, for a fun event at which everybody enjoys themselves. It is not in the least bit burdensome to anyone at the moment.
To be clear, you are saying that the process in the bill will apply to every march, whether it is the brownies or a lantern parade. The organisers of such events might be confused, which might leave them open to a penalty if they do not notify you of a brownies event or something of that nature. That will place additional costs on local authorities, which will be required to advertise such events.
Yes. Previously, we were entitled to exempt certain marches. There may be some flexibility around the more detailed aspects of negotiations with march organisers, but that is not covered in the bill. We will negotiate with the Executive on the guidance, so that may change. We do not expect the costs to be the same for a brownies march and for an Orange Order or a republican march, but there will be costs that did not exist before, because at least some of the elements of the process will have to apply.
Can we be clear about that point? I accept that there will be a difference between the brownies and the Orange Order in terms of the costs, but will you be required—to take Councillor Hay's example—to place an advert in the local paper for Lochgilphead? I am struggling to remember its name; I should know it.
It is the Argyllshire Advertiser.
I have read it on many occasions. You might have to put an advert in the paper as a de minimis notification, which will cost a couple of hundred quid, for every community event that has been closing streets for donkeys' years.
That is not covered in the memorandum. As a minimum, that is possible, but it is not prescribed.
Will you have the right to charge the organiser for the cost of the advert, or will it simply fall on the local authority?
We will not be able to charge for it.
Does Sir John Orr's report, on which the costings are based, include every possible parade that falls under the bill, or does he simply refer to contentious parades?
Alan Garbutt can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that he covered only those marches that have to go through the notification process, rather than those that are subject to exemptions. The report underestimates the total number of processions that will be covered by the bill. I am not sure by how much, but we expect the number to be significant.
So the Executive's proposals are not based on the total number of parades to which the bill will apply.
No. We are still involved in discussions with the Executive on the detailed aspects of the guidance. There are 38 recommendations from Sir John Orr and 55 pages of guidance to implement them. We have to base our figures on there being no exemptions and on all processions coming within the remit of the guidance that we are still working through.
Is your figure of £400,000 to £750,000 based on the assumption that the legislation would apply to every parade, or does it relate only to contentious parades?
It relates only to contentious parades. As was mentioned earlier, the only available data are for such parades. We want the committee to acknowledge that the figure may be an underestimate, because we are unable to take into account those marches and processions that have not been recorded anywhere. We cannot answer for the Executive's financial memorandum, because we do not know what the £200,000 that appears in it is based on. There is minimal detail in the financial memorandum. The Executive acknowledges in principle that the bill will have staffing implications for those councils that are most affected, but we have no further information about the basis for the figure. It is for the Executive to answer that point.
I can think of countless events in the towns that I represent for which no public notification is required—the police just do what has to be done. At an absolutely basic level, a requirement to place an advert in a local newspaper to notify people of a road closure or other such measure would cost local authorities at least £200 to £300 for every event. Authorities could not pass on that cost to the organisations concerned, because that would provide organisations with another reason not to be involved in voluntary activity. It makes eminent sense to think that more antisocial behaviour orders would be issued as a result.
It is important to re-emphasise that the bill places only a general duty on councils to consult and communicate. It does not prescribe how they should do so. Nowhere does it say that councils must place an advert in a local paper. Our point is that that is the kind of thing that councils probably need to do if they are to consult and communicate meaningfully. It is the kind of thing that they currently do for more contentious marches. If we are to generalise and expand the provision to cover more and more processions, it is reasonable to assume that there will be costs to councils.
I would like to ask you about a different issue, which you do not address in your submission. What are your views on the proposal to fund the Scottish crime and drug enforcement agency from a central point, rather than through police authorities? That issue was raised by the next panel of witnesses, but I would like to hear COSLA's view on it.
We are satisfied that the SCDEA will be funded 100 per cent from the Scottish Executive. The Executive has responded to the concerns that we expressed in our submission to the consultation, so we are perfectly happy with the arrangement. I am getting into areas with which I am not entirely familiar, but I have been asked by finance colleagues in COSLA to put on the record today that COSLA would like to be involved from the outset in the three-year settlement group to take forward work on the common police services budgeting process, rather than at the end. That is not intended as a criticism of the Executive, but we would like committee members to push the Executive on the matter when it gives evidence to the committee. The issue is a priority for finance colleagues in COSLA.
Finally, how much time have you had to respond to the financial information in the bill? Has the process been satisfactory from your point of view?
In fairness to the Executive, it has consulted us thoroughly on the legislation.
Has it consulted you on the financial information?
We have had discussions on the financial aspects of the bill. As I said at the outset, the Executive is clear about the fact that we are not satisfied with what is in the financial memorandum. We have at least had the opportunity to communicate our views—we cannot complain about that. However, the Executive has not shared with us the detailed thinking that underpins the global figure that is presented in the financial memorandum.
What point have the discussions reached? Are they complete, or are they on-going?
They are complete for the moment.
We have no further questions. I thank the witnesses for coming along. I suspend the meeting for a minute, while we replace them with our next panel.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome Chief Superintendent Tom Buchan, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents; Sir William Rae, the honorary secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland; and Doug Cross, the director of finance with Tayside police. As with the previous witnesses, I will offer the panel a chance to make a brief opening statement, after which we will move to questions.
We had not anticipated that invitation, but I will take it anyway. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee on the bill's financial aspects. We have already given evidence on the bill to the Justice 2 Committee. The financial elements that we highlighted in our written submission are largely issues on which we seek clarification from the Executive. Some of the measures require further development, so it would be difficult for the Executive to give specific costings. Other matters will become clear through operating the provisions. We are happy to have had the opportunity to make a written submission and we will be pleased to respond to any questions that the committee may have.
I will kick off by asking about the funding for the SCDEA, which is to come from a central point rather than through the police authorities. ACPOS flagged up that issue in its submission and said that it is in favour of funding being provided on a 50:50 basis. Will you expand on that issue?
The issue is largely about governance rather than money. When an organisation is 100 per cent funded from the centre, that has an impact on those who exercise governance over the body. I am sure that the committee is well aware that, for the police service in general, 49 per cent of funding comes from local authorities and 51 per cent is from central Government. We are concerned that the move to 100 per cent funding from the centre for common police services will disturb the constitutional balance that exists in the oversight arrangements. ACPOS has sought clarification from the Executive on technical financial issues, but our principal concern relates to the power that comes from providing the money and the influence that can be brought to bear as a consequence of that.
So you are concerned about lines of accountability and the process of decision making about resources, rather than about the amount of money per se.
In the grand scheme of things, the amount of money that is spent on common police services is small in relation to the whole spend on policing. However, while one understands that central funding simplifies the process, that is not justification for moving to 100 per cent central funding. The issue is about a shift in influence over the services.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the newspapers carried a story about a new crime-fighting campus, where different agencies would be brought together. That is not included in the costings for the bill, but presumably the institutional arrangements that the bill puts in place might make such an arrangement a more logical solution. Is that an example of consequences of the bill that do not show up in the financial memorandum?
That is not a consequence of the bill. There is a wisdom in bringing together the services that have been described for the campus at Gartcosh. The Executive is considering that and no firm decisions have been made yet, but the centralisation of some of those services is supported by ACPOS. However, that centralisation of services does not flow naturally from the bill; it would happen in any event because it makes common sense as an investment. Gartcosh is also a better location for staff. The SDEA's membership is drawn from all Scottish forces, but if the SCDEA had its headquarters in Paisley it would be difficult for anyone from outwith Strathclyde and the central belt to work from there without having to relocate. Being in the Gartcosh area would make it easier for the SCDEA to recruit people.
In your concern about the move to 100 per cent Executive funding for the SCDEA, are you putting down a marker about a drift in governance towards a national police force?
No. The issue is not money, but the impact on governance. We think that the model proposed in the bill is flawed because it tries to create an authority with influence over the Scottish Criminal Records Office, the Scottish Police College and so on but has a little add-on for the SCDEA. That indicates that the SCDEA is different in some way, and we do not believe that there is any justification for that. We consider that the SCDEA should be brought within the influence of the new authority.
I will move on to financial issues, and particularly the scepticism in your submission about the financial savings that can be made under the bill. You question the ability to make the £1.55 million saving that is specified in the financial memorandum. Will you talk us through your concerns about that calculation, because it impacts on our judgment of the bill's financial impact?
We note that the financial memorandum starts out by stating that the bill is largely cost neutral. We question whether the creation of the Scottish police services authority is cost neutral. It is suggested that adjustments would be made to make that cost neutral, but we do not understand how that can be done. Savings mainly arise from the introduction of remote fingerprinting, about which a lot of assumptions are made, and they are largely time savings, rather than cash savings. Much of the spend under the bill will come from cash savings that have to be spent on the overall package. Offsetting the cash savings against the time savings will require new money to bring everything together. The time savings are not cashable, unless there is a reduction in the number of officers.
You could say that, because time has been freed up by using mobile fingerprint readers, another X police officers—however many one gets for £2 million—are not needed.
The calculation is based on one check being carried out by a mobile officer once a week. That may well be right, but it may be totally off the mark, in which case it is a question of taking an officer, or officers, away from somewhere else. Let me be clear: we support the introduction of the technology, which will bring wonderful added value to policing. However, it is difficult to see how it will bring a potentially cashable saving in the longer term.
Does Tom Buchan have anything to add, bearing it in mind that the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents raised the issue?
I would normally be more than happy to talk about the issue, but our organisation is a bit light on financial research. I cannot add to what Sir William said, which we fully endorse. The calculation is a bit of a mystery. We cannot see how a spend of £450,000 can be offset and become a saving of £1.55 million. That may be correct, but there is a lack of evidence to explain how the calculation was derived. We will have to suck it and see.
Are mobile fingerprint readers being used already?
They are being used by the immigration service in Scotland, and they are beginning to be used in England. I suspect that some members will have heard of the new airwave radio system, which will allow mobile fingerprint readers to operate in Scotland. However, they are not in operation in the police service in Scotland at the moment.
So we have no information that we can use to determine whether the £2 million can be saved.
I have no idea where the calculation came from or what it is based on, so I have difficulty in understanding the outcome in the memorandum.
The thought occurred to me that the equipment could, in some circumstances, add to the burden. I will give an example of a scenario in which officers who are out in the street have cause to stop a person because they have a slight suspicion about them. The only option at the moment is for the officers to take the person back to the station to have them thoroughly checked and fingerprinted. However, the officers might have a queue of calls, so they dismiss their suspicion. If they were able to use a fingerprint reader and their suspicions were justified because the individual was wanted for something, there might be a benefit to the public, but extra work would be generated because the current process does not allow such checks to be easily done.
I am interested in what I have heard so far and am also taken by the earlier comments about the clarification and further developments that are needed. If you were in another organisation, you might have been more involved at an earlier stage of the bill. For example, when there is legislation to rationalise the way that things are done in industry, stakeholders are involved at an earlier stage and the financial memorandum is more of a joint production. Might such an exercise mitigate some of the costs and maximise the savings more than the proposals in the current financial memorandum would do?
I am not sure about your final comment. We understand that the protocol of producing a bill means that it is not disclosed in any way to anyone. It is true that during the review of common police services we, along with COSLA, have been participating in a joint working group that has been overseeing parts of the transition. However, we have not been consulted on the detail of the bill. If that had been possible, I am sure that it would have given the committee a clearer picture of the costs involved.
I wonder whether we are missing an extra process. Given the nature of the bill process, the financial memorandum needs to be an opening gambit. However, the issues might have been illuminated for the committee a bit better if, once they had laid the financial memorandum on the table, its drafters had got together with those who will be affected by the bill to take any issues on board. The comments that we have just heard from Sir William Rae and Chief Superintendent Buchan suggest that ideas are bubbling through that might augment the financial effectiveness of the whole process. That might provide us with an optimal financial memorandum. The current memorandum clearly looks like a work in progress, on which further development is required.
I agree that such a move would be sensible, but I understand that it would not be allowed under the protocol for dealing with bills. However, the drafters now speak to us about the detail of bills. That is now the normal way in which bills start to roll out and we are happy to participate in that process. If we had another iteration of the memorandum, we might well find that some of our differences would disappear.
I have two questions. First, I think that you said that you were unsure about the figure that is given for the saving that would be made by each patrol having
We normally use a rate of £25 an hour for a constable to calculate such costs. As two constables would be engaged in the process, £50 for an hour is probably the figure that we would ordinarily use for making the broad calculation. However, multiplying those figures to arrive at the total cost is a more unreliable exercise.
My second question is on capital costs. Paragraph 263 of the financial memorandum states:
Although we make specific mention of fingerprint equipment, we will also be required to purchase additional drug testing equipment when suitable equipment is identified.
This is the committee for detail—examining details is part of our role.
Do the police have any plans to change attendance at, or the monitoring of, public processions under the bill? Local authorities will have to advertise all public processions, including local processions and sectarian processions. Will the police have a change of attitude? Are there cost implications?
If I may, I will ask Tom Buchan to answer those questions because, not long ago, he was a divisional commander in an area in which there were many public processions, so he will be able to give a more hands-on perspective.
For members' information, I also sit on the working group that has been set up to consider the elements of Sir John Orr's report that do not require legislative change. The group works away hard in the background on the report.
You mentioned processions being less of a burden. Will that translate into savings in police costs?
Yes. Officers have to be taken from somewhere else to cover processions. The number of officers involved very much depends on the history of the processions. Often, it is a matter of protecting a procession from bystanders, which calls for a significant number of police. On occasions, it is more about policing the processions through the city centre or congested areas. A reduction in demand from public processions would mean that police officers would not be diverted from other duties to deal with them.
You have spoken about a reduction in demand on police time. Do you visualise organisers having an increased requirement for stewarding? Might more of a commitment need to be made when processions are planned?
Some of the recommendations in Sir John Orr's report related to that. I am sure that you will have witnessed that, by and large, marches are not organised very well. One or two organisations are more professional, but marches can sometimes be shambolic. They can be dependent on the police to ensure safety and control.
On a different subject, you have indicated that the additional money that is allocated for special constables is not sufficient, but you have not indicated how far the amount is from sufficiency.
In my force, Tayside police, and in Grampian police, there has been a pilot on payments to special constables. The take-up has been quite good. On the back of the improvement in the terms that apply to special constables, all forces are now trying hard to increase their number. They are having varying degrees of success, but some forces have been reasonably successful in attracting more special constables.
I take you now to the proposed amendments to the law on knife crime, which are covered in paragraphs 246 to 251 of the financial memorandum. There is quite a lot of pressure on the police service with respect to knife crime, both from the general public and from politicians. You are being invited to take a more robust stance, and the proposal is to amend two aspects of the law to give the police a greater role and greater powers. We are being told that the changes will be cost neutral. How can that be?
We would make the same point. You should be in no doubt that we welcome the provisions, particularly on the power of arrest, because situations involving knives can present a difficulty at the moment.
Some underlying assumptions in the memorandum seem inherently implausible. As you say, the police have an operational responsibility now, but there should be greater recognition that operation of the new law will require more police resource to be devoted to dealing with knife crime—perhaps that is the intent behind the new law.
As I am sure you are aware, in my force's areas, knife-related crime is a big problem and a priority for us. We recognise that the bill represents an effort to assist us in curbing such behaviour. When the bill comes into force, I am sure that its provisions will be rigorously enforced and that many forces will do special things to convey to those who carry knives the message that not only the police but the courts treat the matter seriously.
People often judge the police's effectiveness on the number of people you arrest and the number who are convicted. If politicians say that knife crime is a big problem and expect the police to respond to that, I presume that the logic is that more people will be arrested and that costs will increase not just for the police but for the Scottish Prison Service.
That naturally follows. It is difficult to put pounds on that, but having no figure is a bit of an omission from the memorandum.
There is no figure for the police and the figure for the Scottish Prison Service is £150,000. Both those assumptions are highly questionable.
Yes.
I take the point that the police will rigorously pursue such crime, which does not sound terribly cost neutral for the police. The memorandum says that the impact on the Scottish Prison Service will cost £150,000. Given the cost of imprisonment per individual, that figure does not appear to account for an awful lot of individuals. If the police succeed in pursuing rigorously the problem, which we all know is extensive, that figure for the Scottish Prison Service will not happen.
It is for the Scottish Prison Service to comment on that but, as a lay observer, I think that the figure seems light. I am sure that you are confident that the police service will use the bill's provisions effectively, because there is a real problem out there and we will maximise our efforts to use the legislation. I expect that to have consequences for other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the courts, the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Prison Service.
I have a final question on that point. The other side of the changes to the law on knife crime involves altering the ability to purchase non-domestic knives. In its submission, the Scottish Retail Consortium expressed concerns about the effect on retailers who sell non-domestic knives—especially if some of the measures in the Scottish Executive consultation on tackling knife crime are implemented. For example, the submission says that retailers will be required to keep records of the people to whom they sell non-domestic knives; to obtain photographic evidence of the purchaser's identification; and to record transactions on closed circuit television.
We understand that people who are involved in a commercial venture to sell such weapons may find that their businesses are affected by these measures. I do not have much sympathy with that argument—I have seen the weaponry that is taken off the streets and that has been used in serious assaults or murders. Although conventional domestic knives are used a great deal, some absolutely horrific ornamental knives and specialist knives are getting into the marketplace and the community through certain channels. The provisions that try to limit that are welcome. It is difficult to gauge the impact that the provisions will have, but we should certainly be trying to discourage people from getting their hands on these things.
I agree with what you say, but we have to be sure that any scheme to restrict the sale of knives is workable for the police. That was the thrust of my question.
That seems to be all the questions. Several issues have arisen from our questions to the two panels of witnesses. The main ones seem to be: marches; the impact of the legislation and the cost assumptions; knife crime; police savings; central funding; and the capital costs associated with fingerprinting and drug testing. Are members content that we should pursue those issues with the Executive?
Sir William Rae spoke about potential savings not being cashable. We can make easy assumptions when passing a bill, but it will fall to the police to remain effective with resources that may not be adequate. We will have to be careful about the credence that we give to some of those assumptions.
That is a good point. In our submission, ACPOS pointed out that there could be real costs involved in time-releasing savings that are not cashable. Costs in the region of a few hundred thousand pounds may have to be met. They might not be hugely significant in their own right, but they would have to be met and would not be impacted on by any of the time-releasing savings. As the committee has heard, there are some question marks over the figures.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will be taking evidence from Executive witnesses next week and their answers today will fuel some of the questions that we put to them.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—