Good morning. We have a full turnout, so we have no apologies.
The Government is making police GAE part of the local authority financial settlement, which will be announced by my Cabinet colleague, John Swinney. That is a matter that has been under discussion with local authorities and has been uniformly welcomed by local authorities of whatever political hue, from Pat Watters and others down. There might be difficulties for the committee, but we have to look at matters in the round.
I do not think that there is unanimous agreement with parts of your answer, cabinet secretary, but we will proceed regardless.
I seek clarification. We understand that general police money is no longer ring fenced and will go to local authorities in portions that you have yet to announce. For the record, can you clarify whether, if a local authority were not to provide its local police force with the 49 per cent funding that you expect it to—which you would match with 51 per cent centrally—the percentage that you would provide centrally would be reduced on a pro rata basis?
Actually, GAE will be ring fenced. No change has been made to the funding mechanism. Basically, there would be consequentials. If local authorities spend less than they are allocated, money will be reduced. The situation is the same as it was before, but there will be punishments—if I may put things in that way—if local authorities do not spend what they are given to spend on our police forces.
So pressure will be put on local authorities to ensure that they spend what is allocated, as they will lose central funding if they fail to do so.
Absolutely.
We turn to police pensions.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. As we all know, pensions constitute a significant burden on the police service. What provision has been made for police pensions in the spending review settlement?
Mr Swinney will comment and elaborate on that provision during the budget process. We are aware of the significant pressures and problems that exist.
It would have been handy to have information on that provision. Is pensions provision for the 500 extra officers that the Government has promised among other promises included in the additional £54 million over three years?
Yes. The pensions, training and salary costs for those 500 officers are fully covered by the global figure of £54 million.
Okay. That is clear.
Such matters are being discussed with the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
When do you expect those discussions to reach a conclusion?
We inherited the discussions, which are on-going. No definitive timescale has been set, but we will keep a watchful eye on them.
I accept that no definitive timescale has been set, but what would the Government like the timescale to be?
You will appreciate that a pan-United Kingdom approach is taken on pensions arrangements and many police matters. Therefore, we will go at the appropriate pace to deliver what is necessary in dealing with them. However, for various technical reasons, the matter is not likely to be dealt with within the spending review period.
Okay. So the matter will be dealt with outwith the spending review period.
Yes. We are looking at the longer term.
Okay. That is clear.
Will the cabinet secretary clarify that, although many negotiations and discussions on police pensions and pay are UK-wide, the Scottish Government must pick up its end of any negotiations that take place?
We pick up the tab for pensions; pay is dealt with on a UK basis. I have had discussions on those matters with the Scottish Police Federation. That is the position that the Government inherited and which we will respect until such time as things change.
In responding to Bill Butler, the cabinet secretary answered part of the question that I was going to ask about police recruitment. I was going to ask what the £54 million that has been mentioned will buy. According to police witnesses, it is likely that the cost of recruiting 500 additional police officers will be between £35 million and £40 million—indeed, I think that that was the sort of figure that you gave in a reply to a parliamentary question of mine earlier in the year. Obviously, such figures are less than £54 million. Will you provide further clarity about what the balance of the money is intended to pay for?
Obviously, police officers are not bought off the shelf at a garage forecourt. We require to put them through Tulliallan and train them. Therefore, training costs require to be factored in. It was correctly said earlier that we require to factor in provision for their pensions, which are an important reason why many people are attracted to the police. Police officers pay a significant amount for their pensions through their wages, and the Government must ensure that there is provision for that. Therefore, there are generic factors that go into the global sum as we try to ensure that we get the additional numbers that are necessary.
I think that the point that was made was that we were going to finish the year with the lowest number of recruits since devolution began, not that the Scottish National Party had inherited the lowest number of recruits since devolution began. We were only four months into the Government year then.
Things were set in place when we came into government after the election on 3 May. We inherited the previous Government's recruitment policies. The previous Administration decided to have the lowest police recruitment since devolution began, but—thankfully—the current Government decided to recruit 500 additional officers to ensure that we are not in a position at the end of the year that Margaret Smith correctly views as unacceptable.
I totally and categorically deny the point that you have made, but I would like to move on.
Let us do so. I am more interested in the future than in the historical position.
I want to draw the cabinet secretary back to the figure of £54 million. At last week's committee meeting, Professor Midwinter talked about whether £54 million would be adequate to cover the recruitment of the extra police officers and their pensions. I cannot find exactly what he said at the moment, but the gist of it was that he questioned whether £54 million would be adequate if it also had to cover pensions. Have you read what Professor Midwinter said? Do you want to comment on it?
We are clear that the £54 million will cover the recruitment of the 500 officers, including their salaries and pensions.
Okay.
Retention is not a substitute for recruitment. We have said that recruitment, retention and redeployment are important—the three Rs go together. Obviously, retention is consequential and complementary to what we are doing about recruitment. The aim is to free up capacity. Our view is that experienced officers are doing a significant number of jobs that can be done in other ways, whether by using new technology or by having civilians do those jobs. Doing those jobs in other ways will allow officers to be redeployed to the front line.
All along, we have been searching for a baseline figure on what the commitment will mean in our communities. When will we—the people who are meant to scrutinise your budget and promises—be able to judge whether those 1,000 officers have been delivered in communities?
The problem is that, sadly, the information was not collated by the previous Administration. It is probably not appropriate for me to comment on that, but the Government believes that communities should be able to know what they are entitled to expect from their police. In part, that will mean being able to intimate exactly what should be available in people's areas. The fact that the baseline information does not exist is not a problem that the present Government has caused—it is one that we have inherited. However, I assure the member that we are seeking to ensure that our communities have an understanding of the rights and responsibilities that exist between them and their police. That will give us the opportunity to quantify and provide the information.
Will you outline your vision of community policing?
Community policing covers a variety of matters. Our officers must provide a rapid response and attend immediately at incidents but, equally, community policing involves officers being responsible in their communities, pounding the beat and going to community council meetings, as I and, doubtless, other members do. Visibility in the community can mean an officer attending an incident, whether a street robbery or an incident of domestic violence but, equally, it can mean their attending community council meetings and other events to ensure that they are advised. There are other more or less visible matters that are of significant importance to the community. We are looking to work out those matters through our relationship with communities and local government. Community policing must involve protection as well as visibility, and fast response as well as mixing and mingling, so that our police force is viewed as being there both to act when problems arise and to stop them arising in the first place.
I return to the cabinet secretary's concern about the previous Government's performance, particularly on the retention of police officers. You will have had several meetings with the officials who are with you today to discuss retention and I am sure that they have given you estimates of the retention figures that could be achieved. Can you share those with us?
No, we cannot. We have inherited the problem of the 30-plus scheme, which is clearly not functioning as it should, north or south of the border. Our view is that the 30-plus scheme can be refined, but it is a pan-UK scheme, so we hope that we can work in collaboration with colleagues south of the border to improve it. However, we can consider other arrangements to allow officers who wish to continue serving their communities to do so, if their communities wish that, and to continue serving their forces, many of which wish to retain their services. That will have to be done by a scheme other than the 30-plus scheme, which has limitations. That scheme can be refined, but it will not be the sole solution. However, other schemes exist and have been commented on, such as the one that operates in Strathclyde. We must consider those schemes and have discussions with the SPF and ACPOS to work out a way in which officers who can still give considerable service to their communities and who are still sought by their communities and chief constables can continue. That will not involve only the 30-plus scheme, as we are considering new schemes.
With respect, you have evaded the question. You are concerned that the previous Government did not deliver on retention. In the letter that we have received from the Government, you say that you will make available
Can I—
Just hear me out. You have had an opportunity to answer the question. I am asking you a question.
There were several questions in that, but they all seemed to operate on the false premise that the Government can, somehow or other, retain officers; we cannot. However, we can address a clear gap and failing, which is that, at present, officers who wish to continue to serve have no opportunity to do so. We have inherited a situation in which 2,300 officers are due to retire during this parliamentary session. That is a significant problem, but no arrangements other than the 30-plus scheme have been introduced. It is clear that the 30-plus scheme is not delivering—that has been commented on by others as a matter of record.
I have a final short and straightforward question on that. I am asking only whether you have received advice from the officials who are sitting beside you—or other officials—that has contained any estimate on retention. I appreciate that you cannot require officers to serve beyond 30 years but, in respect of the commitment to 1,000 additional police officers, have you received advice on the number that you can expect through retention—yes or no?
No.
So you have not.
No target has been set, because those matters are being—
I appreciate that, but I am asking whether you have been given advice in respect of the figure of 1,000 additional officers. The letter states that reaching the figure will involve "improved retention". According to your answer, your officials have given you no estimate of the figure that can be expected from increased retention. I would appreciate an answer on that.
If somebody is unfit for service, we will thank them for their service over the years and we will not expect them to be forced to work on. However, we are not aware of that problem. As I say, our discussions with the SPF and ACPOS are intended to sort out the failings of the 30-plus scheme, because we are reaching a juncture at which 2,300 officers are due to go. We need the skills and talents that many of those officers have and we know that many of them wish to stay, so we need to provide an opportunity for that to be synergised to service our communities.
You will appreciate the committee's concern over this subject. Much of the budget, and indeed your policing policy, is predicated on retention. I find it surprising that you are not able to firm this up to some extent, bearing in mind the evidence that we have received about the terms of the 30-plus scheme. Would you not agree that it is not a terribly attractive deal?
It is regrettable that the Government has inherited a situation with the lowest level of recruitment—I refer to Ms Smith's question—with 2,300 officers due to retire and with no attempts having been made to address the failings of the 30-plus scheme. However, I assure the committee that we are on the case to provide ancillary schemes to retain the officers to address the problem and to make Scotland safer and stronger.
We look forward to hearing about those schemes in due course. We turn now to the subject of redeployment.
I have one further question about retention if you do not mind, convener. We have received a submission from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, which gives us a figure of 153 officers being retained to date under the 30-plus scheme. I understand that the scheme was established in 2004-05. Could the cabinet secretary tell us how many officers were due for retirement between 2004-05? That might give the committee a good indication of the number of officers who will be retained. If we have managed to retain 153 officers through the 30-plus scheme during that period, there might be an increase in that number that corresponds to the increase in the number of officers who are due to retire over the next couple of years.
We do not have that information at the moment, but we can write in with it.
I know that you will have been given your lines to get out for today, cabinet secretary, but I can tell you that the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan can take in recruits at any time. You had a month to work with the old budget; perhaps you should have been thinking more about recruiting earlier.
Ultimately, these matters will have to be sorted out by chief constables. We have been speaking to Andrew Cameron of Central Scotland Police, for example. I have previously mentioned to the committee the use of police custody and security officers to free up officers' time. There are initiatives here in Lothian and Borders, where new technology, in particular personal digital assistants—PDAs—has freed up time. It is not a matter of precise numbers, but the number of officers who are freed up under all those measures will add up to the figure of 1,000 around our communities.
You will know that the committee has heard evidence that anything that could be done in this regard has been done, and that the number of officers who could still be redeployed is marginal. Where are the officers going to come from? I find it astonishing that, at a time when the spending review has been done, we have a spending review document on the table and you have been planning the budget, we do not have the components that make up the number of new police officers on the street that you and your Government want.
You might want to raise that matter with Pat Watters, whom you doubtless know in some capacity.
No, I want to raise it with you, cabinet secretary, not with anybody else. This is our opportunity to ask about a budget that is very low on information. It is difficult enough for committees to look at it in great detail; this is our opportunity to question you, the person responsible for the justice budget.
That you are entitled to do, Ms Craigie, and I am entitled to answer.
Well answer, then.
I gave an answer to a question earlier, which I will repeat: those matters will be commented on by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth in due course. Frankly, it is not for me to intrude on the grief in Lanarkshire Labour if there is a dispute between Pat Watters and his party colleagues.
On a point of order, convener. I ask for your guidance. Is it in order for the cabinet secretary to respond to a perfectly reasonable factual question and employ party-political language? I have seldom heard a cabinet secretary or any minister respond in that fashion. Could you give a ruling?
Actually, under the terms of standing orders, there are no points of order at committees. However, the point is well made. We really should restrict ourselves to the questions. The budget is difficult enough without such a sideshow. When questions are asked, can we have the answers, please?
How many officers can we expect through redeployment and where will they come from?
We need to work that out, as was said in response to Ms Smith earlier. We require a baseline from which to operate—it is a matter of regret that we do not have one. I also regret it if that is perceived as being a party-political comment. Unfortunately, when Governments change, such things occur in relation to priorities.
We would all agree with that position and that statement. Those of us who have an interest in the subject have been pursuing that for a number of years: that is happening. The point, however, is that people who work in police services—both at senior levels and at the coalface—are saying that further redeployment can be done only at the margins. Have you thought about a figure of, say, 100 officers who might be available? Might it be 250? I know that you do not have the figures at this time, but what are your thoughts, and when will the figures be available?
I am surprised at Ms Craigie's question. Central Scotland Police has matters on-going, some of which I have identified, and which Chief Constable Cameron is working on. It might be of interest to the committee to hear that Tayside Police is has an on-going best-value review to identify the most efficient and effective use of resources and skills. The incoming chief constable of Strathclyde Police, which covers Cathie Craigie's area, has indicated that one of his first tasks will be to review police resources in order to maximise opportunities for front-line policing. It seems to me that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. It might be that Cathie Craigie or the committee will want to discuss the matter with the chief constable; I will certainly take it up with him when we are introduced formally; I have met him only in passing.
You said that you regret that you do not have the figures. When will we get them?
Those things have to be worked out. As I said, we are starting with no baseline. We are giving a commitment that there will be 1,000 additional officers in our communities, who will be out there making Scotland safer and stronger.
I have a point of information that I hope will be helpful to the cabinet secretary.
One of the problems is that definitions vary from force to force—
Well—
Perhaps I could answer the first question before a supplementary is asked. I am sure that Ms Smith will come to my rescue in due course.
Can I clarify my point?
Briefly.
The cabinet secretary will recall that, at a previous committee meeting, I asked him for his definition of community policing in an attempt to get a baseline figure. Without a baseline figure, I used the cabinet secretary's definition—as given to the Justice Committee on that occasion—as the basis of my question to the chief constables. It was the closest I could come to an understanding of the definition that was in the mind of the Scottish Government. On the basis of your definition of community policing, in two weeks, I have received a response from one quarter of the chief constables of Scotland's forces.
You will appreciate that we have a tripartite arrangement and that such things have to be worked out with the chief constables and the police boards. I do not doubt that how they currently collate figures will dictate how they answer. Until such time as we have a formal definition of community policing, out of courtesy—if nothing else—to say nothing of the clear nature of the tripartite agreement, we must accept that there will be difficulties in the chief constables giving answers.
In his paper to the Finance Committee, Professor David Bell wrote:
The 2 per cent efficiency savings appear to us to be perfectly deliverable, although achieving them might not necessarily be easy. The Home Office report on police efficiency savings in 2006-07 set an efficiency target of 3.4 per cent for police south of the border. Some members appear to be quite prepared to stand four-square behind London; so am I. If they can do it, so can we. We are not asking our forces to deliver 3.4 per cent efficiency savings, but we do think that they can deliver 2 per cent. As with other things, sometimes we can learn lessons from London.
We have received evidence—I am sure that the cabinet secretary has read it—that it will be very difficult to meet that 2 per cent efficiency savings target. The budget adviser to the Finance Committee also flagged that up. Must those efficiency savings be found across the budget? Is anything excluded from the efficiency savings target of 2 per cent?
No. Our efficiency savings will be across the board and it will be up to police forces to deliver on them. As I said, it appears that in some cases, we stand four-square behind London; even as a nationalist cabinet secretary, I am happy to say that if London can deliver 3.4 per cent efficiency savings, I do not see why Scotland cannot deliver 2 per cent.
So we have to deliver a 2 per cent saving across the board including in staff costs. How, in that case, can we increase the number of police officers if there is to be a 2 per cent saving in staff costs?
All savings that are generated from the 2 per cent efficiency savings target will be available to reinvest in the improvement of operational policing. Boards and chief constables have the incentive to work together so that the 2 per cent efficiency savings that they make can be reinvested in front-line policing. I am surprised that a Labour member should be so reluctant to acknowledge that there is merit in following London in this case. We are not asking our police forces to deliver 3.4 per cent efficiency savings; we are asking them to deliver 2 per cent efficiency savings. That can be done.
I have enough to do in trying to scrutinise the Scottish Government's budget for the Scottish Parliament. I had thought that today we might hear some answers that mean something. It would be better if you were to concentrate on bringing forward a clear and transparent budget; this budget is neither.
Is that a question?
No, it is a comment.
You are entitled to reply to that comment.
No thanks.
Right. We go back to Stuart McMillan.
If savings can be found, how will you ensure that chief constables, who have to manage their budgets, will apply the extra resources to visible front-line policing?
As I have said, any savings that are generated will be made available. Chief constables are held to account through police boards, which have a statutory duty to secure best value. I have met police board conveners and, although in many cases they are new to the job, they are very keen. Chief constables will want to have those 2 per cent efficiency savings reinvested in operational and front-line policing. That is where we have to get our tripartite agreement working.
A few moments ago, you said that money that will be saved can be spent on front-line policing. Does that mean that more than 500 additional police could be found?
Absolutely. If chief constables and their police boards wish to use those efficiency savings to go out and recruit more officers, I will welcome that, as will their communities.
How confident are you that the public will see more police officers on the streets or patrolling the housing estates as a result of the spending review settlement?
We have made a manifesto commitment to deliver 1,000 additional officers into our communities. That has been stated on the record many times by me and by the First Minister and we are more than confident that we will achieve the increased visible police presence that reassures good citizens and deters criminals.
Will the streets be safer as a result of the spending review for the justice portfolio?
I hope so. We have a problem with serious and organised crime. We must also address the fear of crime. A matter that vexes Government and the police is how we get the balance right, and how we ensure that we deal with the two requirements in community policing. The Government is committed to tackling the issue and—as is necessary in our communities—to cracking down on alcohol abuse and the consequent antisocial behaviour. Equally, we must tackle the growing problem of serious and organised crime, not just in the drug trade, which is a cancer in our society. We are making those issues a top priority.
I apologise for suggesting that revenue funding was not ring fenced. I recognise that it is, but I still wanted to bring out the point that the cabinet secretary made.
The details of local authorities' capital budgets will become available later this month when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announces the local government settlement.
If I may say so, I do not think that that has clarified the thinking about why those capital budgets should be integrated.
That is part of the negotiation that was entered into by the Government and local authorities of all political persuasions and which was signed off by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Mr Watters is not a member of my party, but he has welcomed the new deal and the concordat between central and local government.
In verbal evidence last week, Joe Grant from the Scottish Police Federation suggested that there is what I loosely described as a Heathrow stacking system in relation to police officers seeking accommodation for prisoners. He gave the example of police officers having to travel from Bellshill to Clydebank to find a cell for the prisoner they had in the back of the car. Does the Government have any plans to improve the custody situation in police stations to ensure that such incidents do not happen? When Joe Grant was questioned further, he said that that was not an isolated incident, but seemed to be a regular occurrence. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the time that is wasted through police officers—and vehicles—circling police stations and travelling almost 20 miles to find a police station that can hold prisoners is not welcome in this day and age?
Of course I agree. Joe Grant's evidence was anecdotal, but I remember being lobbied by the federation many years ago about similar problems at Lothian and Borders Police, when cells were full at St Leonard's and Dalkeith and officers were looking for space at Wester Hailes and beyond. Those are operational matters: it is the responsibility of chief constables to deploy capital funding resources on a variety of matters relating to cells and other facilities. The boards work in conjunction with the chief constables to ensure that they get the balance right in deploying officers. We have welcomed what has been done by Chief Constable Andrew Cameron in Central Scotland Police, where the previously existing problem of officers from Alloa spending their time driving to Stirling has been addressed.
If the boards and the chief constables say that there are too few resources to allow them to build the capacity that is required to house prisoners in their areas, will the cabinet secretary look sympathetically at any bids made by boards for solving that problem?
Our door will always be open to whoever wishes to come and see us, but in the new settlement between central and local government, local authorities have taken on responsibility for addressing many such matters, and provision is up to the police board. That was what Mr Watters and others wanted and that is what we have delivered.
Professor Arthur Midwinter's paper on police funding in Scotland indicates that not only is there is a disparity between police funding for England and Wales and for Scotland, but that since devolution the Scottish Executive, and subsequently the Scottish Government, have failed to address that disparity. Does the cabinet secretary plan to consider how the Scottish Government could bring expenditure for Scotland into line with England, excluding, of course, the London weighting?
I have seen Professor Midwinter's report. I do not wish to provoke further points of order, but the report deals with matters that predate this Government. I cannot comment on the priority that the previous Administration gave to policing, but I can give a clear commitment that this Government views policing as being fundamental to making Scotland safer and stronger. It is because of the problems that we inherited that we have declared 1,000 additional officers and have provided for recruitment of 500 new officers. Comparing the situations north and south of the border is further complicated by the local government position but—I add, in order to avoid any points of order, and whatever may or may not have happened in the past—I give the committee an absolute assurance that making Scotland safer and looking after our policing is fundamental to this Government.
The committee requested information from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland on the amount of overtime worked by police officers. I note from its written submission that the overtime budget has increased by more than 10 per cent in two years. Is the cabinet secretary aware of that evidence? Does he intend to examine that budget? There is an issue in relation to the overall budget proposals that will be laid before Parliament.
We will have to consider any additional information that becomes available. We have seen the information that is on the committee's website. Overtime is a matter for chief constables to manage. Incidents arise—including major cases, such as terrorism at Glasgow airport—but we believe that it is ultimately for chief constables to address how they roster, the efficiency savings that they factor in, and how they tackle the overtime budget. However, we will be happy to discuss specific incidents with them.
The Glasgow airport incident will have had an impact on the budget of, for example, Strathclyde Police. Has any consideration been given to the unprecedented level of overtime that was required for that incident, which no police authority could have forecast or budgeted for?
I assure Mr Martin that I am in communication with Councillor Rooney, the convener of Strathclyde police board. It would be inappropriate to comment beyond that at the moment, but discussions are on-going.
I appreciate that discussions with Councillor Rooney are taking place. We have been asked to pass and to scrutinise the budget bill, so will those discussions be concluded prior to our passing the bill? They will have an impact on our acceptance of the final conclusions.
The negotiations are on-going—it would be inappropriate for me to air such discussions between myself and the convener of the police board. We recognise the difficulties that Strathclyde police board is facing, and we are discussing those with representatives.
Would such extraordinary expenditure—we hope that that is extraordinary—come out of a contingency fund rather than the main police budget?
Any settlement that comes about will come out of this year's budget, rather than the future budget—which the committee is currently considering. The question is—if not irrelevant—at best tangential to the committee's budgetary considerations, because the payment, if it is made, will not come from the budget that the committee is scrutinising today.
So the matter will be concluded before the end of the financial year?
I am not in a position to comment—you are asking about a matter that is not part of budget scrutiny. I have said to Mr Martin that I appreciate the problems that Strathclyde police board is facing, that I am in correspondence with its convener and that we hope to reach a conclusion shortly. The matter relates to the current year's allocation and not to this budget process. Therefore, it is not relevant to consideration of this budget.
My follow-up question is on the overtime budget. I take on board Paul Martin's comments on the additional costs that may be incurred by Strathclyde police board. The evidence that has been submitted by ACPOS shows that, in seeking information from chief police officers on overtime, it specified the exclusion from overtime considerations of policing the G8 summit by Tayside police in July 2005. The budget increase over two years is just over 10 per cent, which is equivalent to just under £5 million. Would that £5 million be better used on providing police officers? The committee has previously been given a figure for the cost of 100 police officers—it is equivalent to something like £4.5 million a year. Therefore, could savings in the overtime budget increase the number of officers that would be available to chief constables to provide services on the streets?
Absolutely. That is a broader matter, because not all overtime that is carried out by police officers is a result of dreadful incidents such as the one that took place at Glasgow airport. Sometimes, it is just the cost—if I can put it that way—of the night-time economy, not simply in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but in every town in which officers are routinely deployed. That has to be tackled in a variety of ways. It is a matter for chief constables to examine their overtime bills and to decide whether efficiency savings can be made. Some matters simply have to be dealt with, such as the Glasgow airport incident, in which some of the heroism came not from officers who were on duty, but from officers who were off duty. That shows the great service and benefit that we get from our officers, and why we seek to retain many.
Our task is to get a grip on the police budget. You mentioned the night-time economy in the city centres, and the overtime that is possibly from policing football matches. Does the Government feel that enough of the costs of night-time policing of city centres or policing of major football games were recovered?
We are in negotiations with the police on that and we discuss the matter regularly.
I have a question about Professor Arthur Midwinter's report on the difference between expenditure on policing in England and Wales from that in Scotland. He told us last week that the situation goes back to the 1970s and that there has, post-devolution, been an 18 per cent increase in police spending. What will be the percentage increase in police spending over the spending review period? I have the figure somewhere, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary will know it off the top of his head.
We have committed £54 million for the 500 officers, which is part of a larger sum that we committed to in our manifesto to ensure that we deliver on our commitment of 1,000 additional officers.
So we do not know the percentage. I can work it out.
Paper J/S3/07/12/10 deals with the matter.
The spending review settlement represents a 13.4 per cent overall uplift over the spending review period. I hope that it is appreciated that that has been achieved despite our having received the poorest settlement since devolution.
Before we leave the police budget, I refer the cabinet secretary to Professor Arthur Midwinter's evidence at the committee meeting last week. I pointed out that he was either a poacher turned gamekeeper or vice-versa. Nonetheless, he said clearly that in his experience, which we all agree is considerable, to obtain more than 1 per cent efficiency savings in the UK has proved impossible, yet you seek 2 per cent savings. What reassurance can you give the committee that those savings can be achieved in the police budget?
Scottish forces reported total savings in 2006-07 of £42 million, which is 4 per cent of police grant-aided expenditure, of which £12 million—1.1 per cent of GAE—were cash savings.
We will now leave the police budget and move on to prisons.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that last week Mr Mike Ewart of the Scottish Prison Service told the committee that the draft budget provided a "satisfactory level of funding" for the period of the spending review. However, the SPS also indicated that it could spend more on programmes aimed at reducing reoffending if money were made available. We would all agree that reoffending is a serious problem, given that the rate of recidivism is such that about half of all prisoners—I think about 49 per cent—go back to prison within two years of release. Has the Government afforded such programmes sufficient priority in reaching a decision on the SPS budget?
We have given the SPS a record capital budget to address the problems that we have inherited in an ageing prison estate. Had we not done so, the problems that we currently face, when an increasing number of people are in prison although the number of convictions has reduced, would be exacerbated. In an ideal world, more funds would be given to the SPS to deal with the issue. I add that we have to spend money as a consequence of the failures not only of the previous Administration but past UK Governments.
I was hoping for a slightly more objective response, but we have been fed the line that the cabinet secretary has repeated ad nauseam, as he is perfectly entitled to do, when responding to problematic questions for the Government—although I did not think that the question that I asked was a particularly difficult one. The line that we have heard again and again is, "We're dealing with problems that we inherited."
I cannot refrain from giving you the same line because it makes a fundamental point. It is obviously the case that we wish prisoners to be working, learning and undergoing treatment and therapies, but the tragic situation that we, as a Government, have inherited is that we are having to pay prisoners not for working, but simply for having endured what they see as the ignominy of slopping out. We inherited that position, which has a significant cost for the Government. The money would be better spent elsewhere in the prison estate; indeed, if money had been spent on the prison estate many years ago—as it should have been—the present problem would not have arisen.
Let us hope that we get a report that is of great benefit. We will wait for it with bated breath.
I will pass that on to Mr McLeish.
With breath less than bated, we will now hear from Paul Martin, who will ask about the prison estate.
I have a quick follow-up to Bill Butler's question. Cabinet secretary, you were a member of the main Opposition party during the tenure of the previous Scottish Executive. Just for the record, can you clarify whether your party proposed any amendments to the Budget (Scotland) Bill that would have allowed slopping out to be addressed?
Not that I recall. However, you will know that the problem in the budget is that, for every proposal that you produce, you have to pull out a Government proposal from elsewhere. If you are criticising what I am doing, you should tell us what you want to cut.
I appreciate that. I wanted to clarify for the record the point that, as a member of the main Opposition party, you did not lodge amendments to end slopping out. The previous Executive introduced commitments under other budget headings, but you did not want to delete any of them in favour of slopping-out process improvements. I am asking only for that confirmation.
I think that you will recall that, when the expenditure announcement was made, not simply Opposition spokesmen from the Scottish National Party but doubtless the convener of this committee or his colleagues said that there was a problem. The previous Executive knew, or ought to have known, that there was a problem, which we have inherited.
Overcrowding is another concern that you have inherited and which you will want to amplify. Many commentators have suggested that the only way in which to deal with overcrowding is through the proposed new build at Bishopbriggs. Will you elaborate on the public procurement process that is now being followed, and will you advise us whether the timescale will be longer as a result of moving from a public-private partnership to a public procurement process?
Let me give the context. Had we allowed Bishopbriggs prison to proceed as a private prison, 24 per cent of Scottish prisoners would have been located in private prisons. That would have been the highest percentage anywhere in the world, including the United States of America, Australia and South Africa, which are noted for their use of such institutions.
You said that there will be a modest delay. Does that mean months, years or decades?
Contract matters will be dealt with by the end of 2008, and we hope to have the prison opening in 2011. That is within a matter of months of where we were heading before. The delay will be months, not years.
So you can say on the record that the delay will be a few months.
These matters are obviously on-going. We are not yet at the end of 2008, and we are assuming that the contract will be dealt with. The current expectation is that the construction contract and so on will be resolved around the end of 2008, with the prison opening in 2011. We have no reason to anticipate any problems beyond that.
I want to move on to the differences in cost per prisoner place between prisons built using the public-private partnership process and prisons built using the public procurement process. What is the average cost per prisoner place per annum at Addiewell prison?
There is a clear difference between the cost of keeping a prisoner in a private prison and the cost of keeping a prisoner in the SPS prison estate. You cannot make a straight comparison, because you are not comparing like with like. New-build, private sector prisons do not carry the historical legacy of an ageing estate, for which the SPS has to pick up the cost. However, there is a clear difference in the cost per prisoner, the fundamental basis for which is that in the SPS we employ prison officers. We believe that prison officers provide an excellent service in Scotland—indeed, I think that I am quoted in a journal today as arguing that they have great services to offer beyond the prison estate.
You must appreciate that you are asking us to scrutinise the budget bill. I do not know whether your officials know the answer, but I asked what the cost is per prisoner at Addiewell prison. I have information that the cost is £21,000 per year. I also have information that the SPS business plan says that the cost per prisoner for a publicly procured prison could be £36,000 per annum. I appreciate that there might be differences of opinion about how we deliver prisons, but I am asking whether it is clear that a place in a prison provided through the public procurement process is much more expensive than a place in a prison delivered through the public-private partnership process. All I am asking is what you are doing to close that cost gap. I am sure that, although the public might have some sympathy with the ethical argument on private prisons, they do not want the cost to hit their pocket, do they?
Absolutely not. That is why Government efficiency targets apply to the SPS in the same way that they apply to police forces. We will hold the SPS to those targets.
The taxpayers are also entitled to know what the gap is, but it is clear from your response that you are unable to give us that information. Do you have some sympathy with the Opposition parties' position? If we do not have the information about the gap, why should we support the budget bill? All that I am asking for today—
Far from—
Let me finish, cabinet secretary. You gave a long-winded answer. When will you provide the information about closing that gap, and when will we get the final figures for the procurement process at Bishopbriggs? Those are straightforward questions.
Long-winded answers are usually predicated on long-winded questions, but I will attempt to be as succinct as possible.
When will we get the correspondence? The information is material to the budget.
I will arrange for the SPS to write to you as soon as possible.
Convener, may I clarify the information that we are looking for? Information on the different costs of construction under the two models will be helpful, but we are also looking for information on the price per prisoner per annum under the different models. Given that the cabinet secretary has been helpful on the construction issue, perhaps he could also be helpful on that point.
We can provide what you desire.
And whether that information is conclusive rather than being considered.
Sorry?
Your officials have probably advised you that they are considering how to close the gap in respect of the differences between the public and private procurement processes. I appreciate that those discussions are taking place. I am asking when those discussions will be completed and when we will be provided with the information.
I made it clear that you are not comparing like with like. The SPS employs prison officers, who can be members of the Prison Officers Association Scotland if they wish. In the private sector, people are employed not as prison officers but as custody officers, and they are paid differently. You might think that that is a good thing, but I support the SPS and the service that prison officers provide. The two cannot be compared because they are not on all fours, as a lawyer would say.
The point is that we have information that there is a significant difference between the annual cost of incarcerating a prisoner in the new complex at Addiewell and in an older part of the prison estate. Accepting your argument about the terms of employment of those who look after prisoners and your argument that the nature of the old estate lends itself to additional expense, there still seems to be a significant difference. We need rather tighter information, which demonstrates why that is. Our information is that the difference is £15,000 per annum, which is a major consideration. Are you quite clear—
I am quite clear about where you are coming from—do not worry about that. We will speak to the SPS on your behalf.
Further to Paul Martin's questions, if we are trying to tease out the figures, we must do so properly. I understand that we are at the beginning of the construction phase at Addiewell. We heard evidence at last week's meeting on the difference between the expected annual cost per prisoner at Addiewell and the cost across the whole of the SPS estate. The difference was up to £15,000, but we were comparing apples with oranges, because there are clear differences between what can be provided at Addiewell and what is currently provided in the rest of the prison estate.
I am sure that the SPS can provide that information. No contract has been signed for Bishopbriggs, so it is impossible to make a comparison in that regard. However, Professor Andrew Coyle, whom no doubt you know, Professor Allyson Pollock and Professor Christine Cooper have done significant work on the costs of private prisons and the mirage of NPV. The committee could communicate directly with those highly-respected leading academics to obtain the information that it wants, or I could approach them on your behalf.
John Wilson is right to ask for a like-for-like comparison, although Peterhead is perhaps not the best comparator, given its specialist nature.
I was trying to make the point that we need to be aware of specialisms in the prison service that are delivered throughout the estate but might not be delivered or asked for at Addiewell or Kilmarnock.
There are clear reasons why costs are significantly higher in some of the older estate. The difficulty that we have inherited is that the two new prisons that have been signed up to at Kilmarnock and Addiewell are private prisons. We will not be able to compare Bishopbriggs with those prisons until the contract is concluded, so we cannot do that at this juncture. However, as I said, I do not doubt that there are matters on which the SPS can advise, and I recommend the evidence that three leading academics provided on the merits or otherwise of the contract that was entered into for HMP Addiewell.
The committee understands that there is a need for a bigger local prison in the north-east to replace Aberdeen prison and accommodate short-term and remand prisoners. However, we heard that sex offender programmes such as STOP could, in principle, run in other prisons. Given the relative inaccessibility of Peterhead from the central belt and therefore most of Scotland's population, would it be better to build a replacement for Peterhead in the central belt?
Peterhead's expertise in relation to the STOP programme is world renowned and is utilised not just in our jurisdiction but elsewhere. The targeted services that have been provided at Peterhead are used in other prisons that the SPS manages, whether we are talking about Saughton prison or Barlinnie.
Margaret Smith will ask about community penalties.
You have announced the outcome of the review of community penalties. There will be a budget increase of £1.2 million in 2008-09, rising to £3.3 million in 2010-11. How large is that increase, compared with expenditure on community penalties in the current year? What do you expect the additional money to buy? How will it reform and revitalise community penalties?
We are seeking to build on the current position. We want to focus and be more flexible. That is why we have abandoned some of the trial schemes that were not working and are seeking to enhance the schemes that are in operation and are delivering. For example, we are expanding supervised bail and rolling out drug treatment and testing orders. Expenditure on community penalties has increased by 50 per cent in the past five years. We are increasing that expenditure further, building on the current position.
Can we have the figures in writing?
No problem. That would certainly make life easier, as I would not have to scramble for statistics.
How will the extra funding be used to support some of the measures that you have announced?
Some community programmes are working remarkably well, and we must build on those, but there are significant problems in some areas. Sometimes those problems have arisen not because of the nature of the scheme concerned but because of difficulties such as retention in social work. We want to focus in, to work out what is working—DTTOs and community service orders are working—how we can enhance those measures and how we can ensure that, at the same time, we provide flexibility. We recognise that sometimes treatment as well as punishment needs to be provided. We believe that there will be opportunities to address some of the root causes of offending, such as alcohol, drugs and debt. We want to provide flexibility to those who deal with offenders, to focus on the schemes that work and to ensure that we deal with people efficiently and speedily.
My next question is about breaches of community penalties, an issue that the convener raises from time to time. The Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats are committed to the expansion of community penalties, but all of us agree that people are concerned about how we deal with breaches. Will some of the increased funds be targeted at dealing with that issue?
Breaches are obviously a significant concern, and we clearly have to address them, but we must allow flexibility at the front line. Breaches can vary from the significant breach of committing another offence—robbing somebody or doing something that is unacceptable—to minor matters that are perhaps not unacceptable of themselves. That can include failing to attend at the due time—coming in late or leaving it until the following day. Breaches are a significant concern that we have to address, especially as they seem to be increasing, but the best way of doing that is by ensuring that we have the flexibility both to deal with those who need to be detained immediately and to work with those who perhaps need some assistance.
Unpaid fines are something that you have heard me go on about long and weary. Figures suggest that each year about 26 per cent of fines are not collected. If you could collect a higher percentage, the money could obviously be used for other purposes. Are you content that the proposals for collection under the new legislation will work, or should you do what I have been suggesting: deduct it directly from the offender's benefit or salary?
On the question of deducting money from people's benefit, some of those matters are dealt with elsewhere.
Stuart McMillan had a question about reoffending. Do you think that it has been adequately dealt with? Do you want to pursue it?
No, I am fine, thanks.
Cathie Craigie will bring us to the question of cash-releasing efficiency savings under the SPS budget heading.
Even with all the new sentencing measures that we support, the number of people in prison is projected to grow. How will the SPS be able to cope with that growth when its budget effectively has been cut by £8.6 million?
We have invested record amounts to address the problems in the prison estate that we inherited. We also inherited record prisoner numbers when, with reduced reoffending, logic dictates that they should have gone down. That is why we have established the Scottish Prisons Commission under Henry McLeish.
I want to ask about the recent justice portfolio announcements on the detention of prisoners and the cabinet secretary's desire to ensure that we lock up fewer prisoners who are sentenced to less than six months. How does the cabinet secretary feel that that will help the prison estate and the SPS? The committee previously heard that, because of overcrowding in our prison estate, less work is being done with prisoners on or prior to their release back into the community.
I will set the record straight. Whatever Mrs Craigie suggests, the budget document makes it clear that investment in the SPS will increase substantially. We have established the Scottish Prisons Commission to create a coherent prison policy. We must have prisons in our society; we are not in a utopia. People commit serious and dreadful offences and we need to protect our communities. The problem is that far too many of the people whom I have described as the flotsam and jetsam or as feckless, and the many people who have addiction problems, would be better dealt with elsewhere than in prison.
The Scottish Legal Aid Board has sent us a submission on the budget. Legal aid is demand led, so the board must try to forecast to the best of its ability the demand for the service. After taking into account a range of matters—including summary criminal justice issues, to which I will return—the board says in its submission:
No. We have a statutory requirement to meet the legal aid budget. If people qualify for legal aid, the Government must meet the bill. This is a difficult time for the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Yesterday, I met the board's chief executive and representatives of the Law Society of Scotland and of bar associations. We believe that the funds for legal aid over the spending review period are sufficient, and we are working not only with the board but with users' representatives—the bar associations and the Law Society of Scotland—to get the balance right.
So you are well aware that the Scottish Legal Aid Board's forecast is at variance with the figures in the budget by a few million pounds.
Obviously, factors other than legal aid impact on why people do or do not go into the legal aid side of the profession, where I spent 20 years. Those factors include the salaries that are on offer elsewhere, which cannot be matched, kudos and, simply, preference. Frankly, student debt is also an issue, given that, in qualifying with both a degree and a diploma in law, people gather substantial debt that they need to service, so they tend to go to firms in Charlotte Square or London rather than provide services in Selkirk or Peterhead. We are looking to address those matters.
Let me follow that up. The cabinet secretary will appreciate that legislation has been passed under which, following conviction on a summary complaint, people can be given 12 months' imprisonment and corresponding monetary penalties. The consequences of a conviction, even at the lower end of the scale—for example, a minor motoring offence can, with totting up, result in disqualification—can have very profound effects on the individual. There is concern that the proposed legal aid budget will not allow proper representation for offences at that lower end of the scale. I hear the undertaking that has been given, but can we assume that there is no question of introducing any change that will prevent people having appropriate representation for such cases?
Absolutely. The department, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the bar associations had a very worthwhile meeting, at which we made it clear that legal aid will be met. The discussions are proving fruitful. As I understand it, the issue for the bar associations is more how rather than whether payment will be made. Obviously, we have statutory obligations.
Margaret Smith will now pursue her question about victims.
I have a final set of questions for the cabinet secretary.
I am grateful for the question. We can write if my answer is not satisfactory, but I say clearly that we wish to build on the significant progress that has been made. Elish Angiolini has played a fundamental role, both as Solicitor General and as Lord Advocate, in driving forward an attitudinal and cultural change.
Would it be acceptable for the cabinet secretary to pull that information together into a written response? It is easier if we have a budget line that we can look at. Clearly, the budget for criminal injuries compensation flatlines in exactly the same way as the budget for victim/witness support. Those budget lines are quite clear, whereas some of the other matters are not. It would be helpful and reassuring if that information was pulled together for us.
We will happily do that.
As there are no further questions on the matters that have been raised, I thank Ms Ritchie, Mr Gordon and Mr Merrill for their attendance this morning—they also serve who only sit and wait—but I ask the cabinet secretary to remain with us for the next item. I will suspend the meeting briefly.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—