Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the meeting. I remind all those present, including members of the public, to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off. We have received no formal apologies, but Bill Butler has indicated that he will be late, due to transport difficulties. He is due to join us shortly.
Good morning and thank you for the invitation to share our knowledge with you. The subject matter of your inquiry is extremely important and very timely. John Baillie, who was recently appointed as chair of the Accounts Commission, and I are pleased to assist you in any way that we can.
Thank you very much, Mr Black. That was admirably brief.
Good morning. In your written submission, which was very useful, you state:
I am pleased to answer that and I am sure that John Baillie will assist me in doing so.
The general aims of best value, as you are probably aware, are set with partners. Local authorities have to identify the priorities of the community and put in place a structure that is organised to achieve those best-value aims. They must also put in place performance management systems that demonstrate that the needs are being met and which drive continuous improvement. Our submission explains the issues that arise when that model is applied to the police authorities.
You have said that the duty to achieve best value falls on the police authorities and that the powers to achieve best value lie with them as well, not the chief constable and the police services themselves. In other sessions, we have touched on the issue of managing the public's expectations and getting access to information about the public's priorities. You said that one of the key elements of achieving best value is identifying the priorities of the community. In that regard, we have heard some debate about whether forces are genuinely taking on board the views of local communities about what the priorities should be. We have also heard some criticism of the tripartite arrangement and there has been some discussion of whether police authorities hold police services and chief constables to account. Does the system that is in place at the moment make best value achievable or does it just pay lip-service to the notion of best value?
I will address all the issues in your question apart from the tripartite arrangement, which Robert Black will want to comment on more fully.
I wanted to address that issue in a minute, anyway.
The other aspect relates to the extent to which surveys can be conducted by local authorities to find out the needs of the community. A lot of work needs to be done in that area if we are to get a balanced view of the needs of the community, including the policing needs of the community. There are a range of issues in relation to which the police authorities would have to undertake work, given the right impetus and clarity of purpose.
That brings me back to one of my initial points. Would a new definition of what the police should be doing be useful to the public, so that the public know what they can expect before they are surveyed on what they consider to be their needs in relation to local police services?
Again, I will answer as far as I can and Robert Black will follow me.
Before Mr Black speaks, I would like to ask my next question, because I think that it is probably the one that Mr Black wants to answer. Asking it myself will help me get the issue clear in my head.
I shall attempt to answer that. Margaret Smith's diagnosis is accurate, and we would endorse everything that she said. I would add a further issue to the list that she mentioned, which is the arrival on the stage of the Scottish Police Services Authority. The SPSA is assuming responsibility for a significant range of central and support services and—because the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency is embedded within it—some activities that impact directly on crime detection and prevention.
I want to pick up on the operational autonomy of chief constables. I am sure that later on we will get into the issue of central Government providing resources—whether they are enough is another question—and then saying that they are to be used in the community, for example. Is that acceptable? Is it a growing trend? We hear people say that they believe that the operational autonomy of chief constables is under threat as a result of central Government—whichever Government that might be—having a greater say in such decisions. Is that a fair take on the present situation?
I suspect that both John Baillie and I would be of a similar mind in believing that the answer to that question is predicated on the answer to another question: what is meant by operational autonomy? The phrase "operational autonomy" does not appear in the 1967 act. It is a term of art, the use of which has grown over the years. From observing the scene from an audit perspective, it strikes us that custom and practice have emerged whereby the members of police authorities, with the chief constables, take quite a narrowly defined view of what their role is in relation to the significant responsibilities of the chief constables for directing operational matters.
The pilot study of best value in police authorities ran into the difficulty of priorities being set predominantly on a national rather than a local basis, which must be a particular concern for police authorities that have a local agenda to which they must attend.
We have heard some interesting stuff on that issue; we now move on to police priorities.
Can you give me some specific examples of local strategies that might be missed at the expense of national strategies?
One of the best sources of information on that is probably Audit Scotland's recent study on police call management. Miranda Alcock will provide the detailed examples that flush out the point that you raise.
As well as the call management study, we did a study on community planning, which strongly highlights the balance between national and local priorities. Community safety is an example of an issue that is a priority across Scotland, but how we deliver safer communities depends very much on the problems that exist in particular communities that make people feel unsafe, which vary enormously.
Context is important, because the picture is fast moving. What Miranda Alcock says is absolutely correct and I hope that it is helpful to the committee to have such an outline. However, within the past few months, the Scottish Government has produced the new Scottish policing performance framework. The fact that it has been possible for the agencies to work together—Audit Scotland had some input—to articulate the high-level objectives clearly and roll them down into what they might mean at operational level is a significant step forward.
You have put forward a technical argument. We have talked about frameworks, operational plans and national strategies, but can we get down to the local advantage? We have heard from police officers that it is all very well to have national strategic plans with bar charts and statistics that look good on paper but, when it comes down to it, those police officers not only have to look after local needs but have to police football matches, respond to terrorism alerts and look after city centres. How does that fit in with saying that we have to provide local plans as well? Do we not have to give police officers the autonomy that enables them to deal with such incidents?
I support and acknowledge what Paul Martin says. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but the point that I was trying to make was that there is a prospect that, in the next 18 months or so, the new policing performance framework will result in better information coming through on the different areas of activity, from national policing concerns to concerns in local communities and neighbourhoods. If that information is well used, there will be a new opportunity for the police authorities to hold chief constables to account for their use of resources and performance. One of the fundamental problems is that the quality of the available information is not up to scratch to allow that to happen. I agree with Mr Martin that that is a technical issue. However, the performance framework opens the door for the police authorities to think through anew, with the Parliament's and Government's guidance, their role in holding the police forces to account for what they deliver.
How good are police forces at gathering local views? Does the evidence that you have gathered show that they are good at doing that or is the information patchy?
We do not have an enormous amount of information that would enable us to comment on that. We have some information from the call management report and some from the pilot study, but it is relatively patchy. How we get relativity in community needs is a difficult issue. We all have our pet projects. Simply putting them into some great melting pot is easy; the problem is giving them weighting in accordance with other priorities and other demands on scarce resources. The whole area of surveys of what the public needs has to become more sophisticated and more broadly based.
Our community planning work highlighted that more good work is going on in this area but, as John Baillie implied, it tends to be a bit fragmented between different police authorities. From our vantage point, we find it difficult to build a coherent picture about what is happening in different parts of Scotland and of relative performance. I find reasonably persuasive the view that the approach to community surveys has to be standardised. I am not saying that everything should be done centrally, but an attempt has to be made to understand what really matters to communities. I guess that what matters in Shettleston is not dissimilar to what matters in Sighthill.
Is that Sighthill in Edinburgh or Sighthill in Glasgow?
Indeed. If we had a shared understanding of what we are trying to survey and used a robust methodology, the situation would be significantly enhanced and we would have better information for holding the forces to account.
Have you recommended that every police force should have a specific, robust mechanism in place?
I cannot recall offhand what was in our study, but Miranda Alcock is flicking through it.
In the review of community planning, which we published the summer before last, we made a couple of recommendations about making community engagement more systematic. There is certainly potential for the different partners in community planning partnerships to work together to gather the views of communities. That is difficult for the six joint boards, which encompass more than one community planning partnership. The police are not alone in that, as the situation is the same with fire and rescue boards and national health service boards. It is a real challenge for the boards to balance what they require to do with local community planning needs.
What is the title of the report to which you are referring?
"Police call management—An initial review". We have circulated it to you.
I was just checking that it had been circulated, which it has.
Good morning, everyone. I want to ask about your inquiry into call management. In your study you say that the number of call management posts held by civilian support staff in proportion to the number held by police officers varies significantly throughout Scotland. Why is there such variation and what are its implications?
There is such variation because there are eight police forces, all of which have their own ways of setting up systems and their own traditions of how many police officers they employ. Over the years, the forces have all taken different approaches, so they have different starting points for their approach to civilianisation.
Is there an argument for having a national police force, rather than eight forces that work together from their own individual starting points?
That is a policy and a professional matter, on which it would not be appropriate for us to comment. I am sorry, but I cannot help on that one.
From Miranda Alcock's response, I conclude that the arrangements have developed separately, with everybody doing their own thing and that there needs to be more focus on individuals. Did you identify any positive or negative aspects? Did your work investigate how the public felt about having their calls answered by a police support staff member rather than a police officer?
During the study we did some work with focus groups on people's experiences of calling the police—that issue did not come up.
One of the points that Miranda Alcock is articulating is the difficulty of evaluating the benefit of having a role filled by a police officer that might otherwise lend itself to civilian staff. One benefit is the reassurance that the public get from talking to police officers rather than civilians; another is the no-strike issue. It is difficult to put a value on those benefits. A much more comprehensive study would have to be conducted to come to a definitive view.
Who should carry out such a comprehensive study?
Whoever the politicians decide should do it, I suppose. I suspect that, whoever does it, it will be a collaborative effort that involves parts of the jigsaw. The police would be closely involved, as perhaps would be some of the scrutiny agencies. Politicians would also have to be involved.
Has your recent work focused on call management, or have you also examined the wider issue of civilian support workers within the police service?
No, the main work that we have produced came out of the police call management study. We tried to examine the issue of civilian support workers when we carried out our pilot study of best value, but we ran into difficulty because of the problems that we discussed earlier about who does what.
Is there perhaps scope for a further evaluation of that issue across the eight forces? Given the wide and varying differences in call management that are highlighted in the report, might similar differences exist in relation to other posts such as, for example, dispatchers?
One of my officers has just whispered to me that there are many things that we would like to do if we had the resources. That is certainly part of the answer.
If I may say so, I think that it would be perfectly appropriate—and, in my view, desirable—for the police authorities to take an interest in this significant issue of the use of resources and performance. Our police call management study gives some interesting basic information that individual authorities could use to ask, "Why are we doing this in police area X, whereas in police area Y we are doing something else?" They could ask entirely reasonable questions of the managers within the forces about why they have gone for a particular form and what performance information is available. I think that the police authorities need to do more on that. As I remarked earlier during my conversation with Paul Martin, the information that will become available through the new performance framework will provide that database, but the police authorities need to take significant ownership of the issue. The challenge for them is to take best value seriously, which means that they need to examine performance in their local forces perhaps more intensively than they have done.
Can you comment on whether police forces have scope for further civilianisation in other areas?
I think that that is a matter on which the professionals would need to advise you. We cannot really comment on that, unfortunately, as there is no evidence on that in our study.
We will now consider the question of resources.
Good morning. I am grateful for the answers that you have already given on the performance framework, as they deal with much of what I proposed to discuss. Let me just go back to the basics. The review suggests that the police services lack robust, outcome-based performance indication. In view of what you have said, do you believe that the new performance framework rectifies that completely? Where are the holes, please?
We believe that the new performance framework offers the prospect of rectifying that. We think that it marks a significant step towards having a system in which we are gathering the right information on the delivery of key priorities and on the performance monitoring of that delivery.
We would advise that any strictly measures-based approach will not in itself satisfy the need for the information that you require in order to make quality and management decisions. It has to go with a range of other things. The development of the performance framework is an important step forward, but it must also be tied in to the reporting of the information that comes through, and how that is used, if we want to be able to make judgments and decisions on how the service should be managed in the future and in the next cycle of the business plan.
The two parts of the new framework that I find particularly encouraging are, first, the consistency of preparation to which Ronnie Nicol referred, because it enables much easier comparison, and secondly, the clearer emphasis on outcomes rather than activities alone. Examples of outcomes that are focused on in the criminal justice and tackling crime area are the
I have done a bit of auditing in my time and I understand how one always likes numbers—there is nothing quite as hard as a number. What is your view on national versus local priorities and, in particular, the subset of local community priorities? I put that question in the context of my home city, Dundee, where there are six community planning areas—forgive me if I am wrong, but there are about six of them—whereas there is one joint police board for the whole of Tayside. If we are asking the joint board to scrutinise what the chief constable of Tayside is doing, but we have many community planning partnerships and groups in that area, do we not have a problem with those areas getting accountability for local community plans?
That is what I touched on earlier—the need to try to weight the relative demands of pieces of the community within a larger group. It is a difficult job, but it is worth taking the time to try to do it properly. If it is done properly, it forms the basis of a robust plan and list of priorities. However, that takes us back to the need for more sophistication in how you weight one demand or need as against another.
How can police boards, which cover wide areas—in the case of Strathclyde, a very wide area—reflect accurately, or even reasonably, community plans at the local level that I talked about?
There is a limit to what a particular police board can do to list in its priorities the needs of area A versus those of area 47, for example. Inevitably, there will be some need for compromise. I am not sure whether I am answering your question.
You are highlighting what I think is a genuine problem. I wonder whether we should find it acceptable that the eight forces are currently scrutinised by the police board at chief constable level, or whether there should be some subset of scrutiny at superintendent level or whatever, so that we can have genuine local accountability against the local plan and local needs.
The word "plan" is critical. One of the key findings from the pilot work that we did on best value is that the current planning framework is not quite fit for purpose. I will attempt to articulate what an improved approach might look like. The chief constable would indicate to the police authority what his strategic priorities were—including the national priorities for policing and tackling crime, and reflecting the priorities of the Scottish Government and input from ACPOS and so on—and that the police authority should take a more active role in identifying local priorities that really matter in the various parts of the community of Tayside, which would then be taken into account. Those strategic and local priorities would be set alongside the available resources and there would be well-informed dialogue between the chief constable and the police authority about how those priorities would be made to fit within the budget. It is not unfair to say that we have a way to go before we reach that situation in Scottish policing.
I believe that you might have anticipated John Wilson's question. Nevertheless, we will proceed.
As the convener has indicated, you have very much answered my first question. However, I have another question. Given that there are different layers, including local police forces, community planning projects, the national framework and the Scottish Police Services Authority to take into account, and that the various players are taking in resources, is there a need for a more robust cost-benefit analysis of policing activity? Can we learn any lessons in that respect from how local government has operated over the past few years?
The short answer to your question whether we feel there is an opportunity to do more cost-benefit analysis is yes. Indeed, there is no doubt that Scottish policing could get quite a lot of value from a robust, well-evidenced analysis of what works best and of how we can get the most impact out of the current spend. I am sure that the recently appointed chief inspector of constabulary and the senior management of the Scottish Police Services Authority share that view. We have had some really quite constructive conversations with them about how we can continue to work together on this matter.
Obviously I endorse Bob Black's comments, but as far as police authorities and police forces are concerned, there is a slightly different dimension to take into account. In local authorities, councillors and officials work cheek by jowl and see each other constantly. However, the same close relationships do not exist in police authorities. That is not an issue; I am simply observing that, because of that lack of familiarity, the monitoring mechanism is a bit different.
On the national policing priorities and the framework that you have just mentioned, I am interested in your comment about the relationship between the police boards and chief constables. Given the different layers in the decision-making process—the national framework, the police boards and the chief constables—how can we get a robust analysis of how each pound is being spent? Are you saying that you want a greater role for police boards and a closer relationship between police boards, chief constables and police forces? If so, how would that play with the national strategy in relation to policy directives that come from Government or elsewhere?
I would like to see a clearer relationship between police authorities and chief constables. The question takes us back to the point about the tripartite arrangements, which we mentioned at the beginning.
As members have no further questions, I thank the panel for their attendance. What we heard this morning usefully augmented the written report. We appreciate your taking the time and trouble to attend.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome Kenny MacAskill MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who is appearing before the committee almost weekly. He is accompanied by Alastair Merrill, who is deputy director of police powers, performance and resources at the Scottish Government. I invite Mr MacAskill to make some brief opening remarks.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here yet again.
Thank you for your statement, the succinctness of which will enable the committee to ask more questions.
In evidence, a number of committee witnesses have suggested that we should consider reviewing the role of the police as set out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. What are your views on that?
The suggestion is sensible and welcome. Societies change and evolve, and the nature of how they are policed must reflect that. We are happy to take advice on such matters from the committee—when you reach your conclusions—or from elsewhere. You will have seen that we recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport south of the border following discussions with ACPOS about freeing up police time in relation to chaperoning Vehicle and Operator Services Agency officers. It is for the people at the front line to advise us on such matters. We will be happy to consider your conclusions and representations from anywhere else.
The 1967 act makes it clear that operational responsibilities lie with chief constables. Do you have views on whether that should remain the case, or should you also have responsibility?
We have a clear tripartite relationship between police boards, chief constables and the Scottish Government. It is ultimately the responsibility of the chief constable—and must always remain so—properly to deploy officers and to react to circumstances as they change, with urgency or over time. We have no intention of seeking to change that position. The relationship between police boards and chief constables is important, as, indeed, is the relationship that boards and chief constables have with us. Such matters might evolve and change, but currently we are happy that chief constables should ultimately call the shots.
You have made it clear that chief constables call the shots.
Yes.
Your Government has made a commitment to place police officers on our streets, but chief constables might say that they will not place officers on our streets. Last week, Colin McKerracher said that he could not always guarantee that officers who were recruited would be placed on our streets. Do you accept that chief constables, rather than you, should make commitments to place police officers on the streets?
That takes us back to the tripartite relationship. We are making additional recruits available. From our discussions with chief police officers, I have yet to meet one who salivates at the thought of putting a bright and shiny uniform on a new recruit who will be staying at police force headquarters; rather, they seek to put new recruits to work to protect our communities. Some officers will have front-line duties, but others will not necessarily work at the front line or in the community to protect and serve the community. The committee has discussed the fact that police officers have various roles. I do not think that an officer would ever simply be put on public display as opposed to being put to public use, but if that happened I am sure that the police board would raise the matter with the chief constable.
You have said that you will seek to place police officers on our streets, but you do not have responsibility for that. A clear contradiction is involved. You have said that 1,000 police officers will be placed on our streets, but you made it clear in the latter part of your opening speech that other operational responsibilities sometimes have to be discharged. Therefore, it is not correct to say that people will see those police officers patrolling in their communities, because they could have other duties.
I disagree with the basis of your question, which is predicated on the suggestion that chief constables are not seeking to provide a visible police presence in their communities. Of our eight chief constables, I have yet to meet one who is not seeking such a presence. They work in a manner that they think best serves their communities. It does not seem to me to be accurate or to bear any resemblance to reality to suggest that chief constables seek to locate officers where they will not provide benefits to their communities. It is for chief constables to decide where to deploy officers, but I am satisfied that they will work with us and the boards in our tripartite relationship to ensure that 1,000 additional officers are delivered into our communities.
I want to move on to another issue. Is the public's expectation of the police too high?
No. The police sometimes have difficulty in addressing people's desire to have policemen in their communities and policemen who can react urgently using fast cars, for example when there is a robbery. A dichotomy is involved. Understandably, our communities respect the police, and it is correct that they should do so. However, difficulties exist, because the police must meet three different requirements: there must be specialist policing—sometimes in back-room offices—rapid-response policing and community policing.
With respect, cabinet secretary, that answer did not deal with the specific question. All the evidence that we have heard from the Scottish Police Federation and other organisations has made it clear that the modern police force cannot deal with the public's expectations of it. All I am asking is whether you agree with that. Should some elements of policing have a lower priority, while some are given a higher priority? Do you currently have the resources to deal with that?
This goes back to my earlier answer. Our society is changing and evolving, and the nature of policing has to change to address that. Those changes are on-going, and the advice that comes in—which will doubtless be taken on board by all the relevant stakeholders in the tripartite relationship—will lead us in the right direction.
So you do not think that people ask too much of police officers.
There are strains, and some matters have to be reviewed, which is why I await with interest the outcome of the committee's review.
I wish to pick up on some of your opening remarks and on what you have said in response to Paul Martin. You said that you were making additional recruits available. Could you give us a bit more clarity on that? How many additional police officers do you expect to be recruited in 2007-08? I would like to be helpful to you: in answer to a written question from me in September, you said that you expected
The projected figure was 576, and we have committed to an additional 150 over the number going through. So far, 321 have gone through their training and 82 start on Monday. A further 173 are expected to go through.
I got my arithmetic O-grade, but it was many years ago. I would benefit from having that tallied up.
It is 576.
Is that 576 by the end of 2007-08?
The projected figure of 576 consists of 321 who are already through their training, 82 who are starting on Monday and 173 who are expected to go through it. We are committing to an additional 150 recruits.
So you have 150 on top of the 576.
That is our anticipation.
Please bear with me, convener.
I understand your difficulty.
We are at 726. I point out to you, cabinet secretary, that anything less than 731 will be the lowest annual number since devolution. You have just told us that you are making additional recruits available. In actual fact, according to the figures that you have given us today, you are not.
The 576 figure is based on the situation that I inherited. If there is a complaint about that figure—which would be the lowest since devolution by a substantial amount, on the basis of what you have just said to me—I will have to pass it back to my predecessors. You will be glad to know that we have committed to an additional 150, which brings the figure up to make it more satisfactory. You might be despondent about the 576 figure, but you are better placed to comment on it than I am. We inherited the situation following the change of Administration in May.
You inherited a situation in which there was a record number of police officers and never fewer than 731 officers were recruited in any one year. In some years, anything up to 1,400 officers were recruited. You are now telling us that the number of officers who will be recruited this year, now that you are in Government—not us—will be less than in any year since the 1999-2000 devolution settlement.
I return, yet again, to what I said to clarify matters. The 576 target figure—about which you are so clearly appalled—was established by the Liberal-Labour Executive that was in power prior to my becoming Cabinet Secretary for Justice. This Government inherited that situation, and on that basis I have taken steps to ensure that we get 150 officers through the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan before the end of the financial year. That is the maximum number that we can get through the college in that time. As I said, if you are despondent about the numbers, you have to consider—and perhaps inquire elsewhere—why such a figure was set.
Can I stop you there, cabinet secretary? The figure was not set by the previous Administration. In response to parliamentary questions, you agreed that recruitment is a matter for chief constables. You also acknowledged that yesterday, when you said that ACPOS would have to review the question of recruitment.
I return to my stated position. We will deliver our manifesto commitment of 1,000 additional officers in our communities. I touched on the matter in response to Mr Martin's questions. I repeat: the previous Government set the matter in train; the number of recruits is the responsibility of chief constables; and the figure of 576 was the position that we inherited. Thankfully, we have taken steps—I believe wisely—to get 150 more recruits through the college to ensure that we have adequate resources. Obviously, how that ties into the number of retirals is a matter not for me but for chief constables.
Clearly, we take different points of view on the matter, cabinet secretary. You are taking steps, but they are taking us backwards.
It varies. It depends on whether we are talking about urban or rural areas or about small-town Scotland or city Scotland. Community officers are visible and they interact with business and the public. They do that differently from officers who are deployed on specialist matters—whether in force headquarters, police stations, or elsewhere—or who address urgent matters.
It may be that you perceive community police officers very differently from how members of the public perceive them—you may even use the word "visible" differently. I suggest that when a member of the public talks about a community police officer, they are thinking of someone who is on the beat—perhaps even in a motor vehicle. I agree with you that the latter may be a more productive use of a community police officer's time. That member of the public is not likely to be thinking of the specialist or other officers who we know are doing police work in the background—work that is of use to the community.
It varies on a day-to-day basis.
What is the general, ballpark figure? I am happy to accept a figure within 100 here or there.
I am not able to specify, because I would need to obtain that information from each chief constable. I have already said to Mr Martin that such matters remain the choice of the chief constable. We are seeking to create a consistent and identifiable framework so that communities can understand what rights they have and what they are entitled to expect, which will vary from area to area. In some rural areas, a community bobby—if we can use that term—who is involved in front-line interaction with the community might use a vehicle because of the nature of the terrain. The situation would probably be vastly different in an urban area, where he would use his feet to walk the beat. In some rural areas, officers do not have that opportunity.
I do not disagree that there needs to be local flexibility. I am trying to get a figure so that members of this committee and members of the Parliament can hold the Government accountable for its manifesto pledge that there would be 1,000 more police. That turned into a pledge to put the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers on the street. It has now become a pledge to recruit 500 more officers and to redeploy and retain 500 others.
We are seeking to work out the framework so that communities have some understanding of what they are entitled to expect. We have inherited a situation in which no baseline figure as such exists. We are seeking to establish what communities have a right to expect, so that MSPs and, more important, individual citizens will have an element of something quantifiable on which to make representations. We are working on that in our tripartite negotiations with the relevant stakeholders, such as ACPOS and police boards, which will be important in holding chief constables to account in delivering visible policing in their communities.
What are the current police numbers in Scotland?
Do you mean the quarterly figures?
Yes. I want to know the exact numbers at the moment.
My understanding is that the most recent head count, which was taken at the end of June, was 16,265—which is the full-time equivalent.
Since the most recent figures were published in the previous quarter, what has been the increase? Is it about 20?
I think that it is roughly 35.
So, over the past six months, there has been an increase of 35 officers.
No. That was from April to June.
So the April to June increase is 35. When will the next figures be available?
The figures are being worked on and doubtless will be available shortly.
I turn to more general points that have arisen in the evidence that we have been taking. To what extent do you think that police officers must always provide a visible presence? Can community wardens perform a useful role in helping to deliver community policing in conjunction with police officers? Is the funding of community wardens likely to continue?
You have asked a variety of questions. Do community wardens provide a good service? Yes. We are evaluating the scheme and the job that they do, which varies from area to area. In the main, the scheme has been beneficial. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will comment on the funding in the budget statement tomorrow. I am not in a position to go beyond that at present.
In England and Wales, it appears that a clearly structured national programme of neighbourhood policing is being developed based on the use of local teams of police officers, police community support officers and other agencies. Why have you decided not to take that approach in Scotland?
Our take is that PCSOs are not necessarily as cost-effective or as effective at delivering as some people in the media and elsewhere portray. We have a system in which policing is dealt with by police officers—community wardens do a different job. There is also civilianisation. Yesterday in Alloa, I met people who are also called PCSOs—police custody and security officers—who do an excellent job in freeing up police time. I strongly support those PCSOs, but I do not favour the police community support officer scheme south of the border. We will evaluate the English scheme, but we are not yet convinced that it would be appropriate to introduce it in Scotland. We do not have the powers to impose a central model. We want a more flexible local scheme that is built around core and common standards.
We turn to questions on civilianisation and collaboration.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I heard you say on "Newsnight" last night that you wanted to free up officers from needless bureaucracy and background duties so that they could be redeployed out on the streets. That is roughly what you said. How much scope is there for further civilianisation within the police?
There is substantial scope, but we must examine the matter. I will take advice on it from officers who are on the front line, whether they are serving officers or chief officers. We have identified opportunities such as those to do with VOSA and we have considered the Alloa PCSO scheme, which we welcome. However, other matters need to be considered.
Given that you are reported in every newspaper today and that you are trying to provide 1,000 additional police officers without them being new police officers, I thought that you would have had a clear idea of the areas of policing that could be further developed using civilian support workers. Do you have any idea of the number of duties that are currently carried out by police officers but which could be carried out by civilians?
You cannot have it both ways: I cannot be expected not to force chief officers into direct deployment and, at the same time, somehow direct what must be civilianised. It is a matter of working with all stakeholders, including chief constables. Indeed, it was the chief constable of Central Scotland Police who introduced the PCSOs and the chief constable of Tayside Police who freed up police from unnecessarily chaperoning VOSA officers. Other matters are under discussion, such as what element of the procedure for licensing firearms can be dealt with by civilians as opposed to police officers.
You are focusing on the figure of 1,000 additional officers because everybody else is focusing on it. Surely you must have an idea of what percentage of that figure will be police officers who are being redeployed on to front-line duties, otherwise you would not have made your announcement yesterday or come to the committee to defend it today. We should be able to see some meat on the bones, if you will forgive me for putting it that way.
Sometimes it is a question of freeing up an officer to do his job better. When I mentioned Alloa, I was referring to a situation whereby officers had to spend two hours taking a prisoner to Stirling. Enabling them to pass prisoners into the care of PCSOs in Alloa allows them to get back out on the street in 20 to 30 minutes, which frees up police time and resources. Such measures do not necessarily free up additional officers, but they allow officers to do much more. Instead of concentrating on inputs, we must work with the chief constables to see how we can get outcomes. The chief constables are considering measures that will increase capacity and when proposals that are self-evidently sensible have been put before me, I have not hesitated to approve them. That will continue to be the case.
Okay. I will leave the numbers issue there, although if I had been in your position, I would have wanted to have a clearer idea about how many officers such initiatives could release before I made such an announcement.
Absolutely, but I am satisfied that the chief constables are on the case and are heading in the right direction. We hope that the VOSA proposal is being signed off as we speak, in negotiations with London. The use of PCSOs in Central Scotland and the issues that Chief Constable Andrew Cameron looked at are examples of the gains that can be made, and we will roll out such measures as and when they are put before us.
We will see.
Collaboration is a no-brainer. As a small country, we should be able to move more quickly. The need for collaboration is self-evident, so I heartily encourage the taking of any steps to ensure that we interact and collaborate.
Would you like to see more collaboration between police forces?
That is happening. Significant measures, such as the establishment of the SPSA and the SCDEA, have been taken and the centralisation of information and communications technology will help to improve procurement. Although we are a small country, we must ensure that we maintain our individual constabularies; I believe that that is what local communities want. At the same time, we must ensure that we have the flexibility to obtain the economies of scale that come from dealing centrally with matters that are better dealt with in that way, such as ICT, forensics and the acquisition of uniforms.
Are you ruling out having one police force for Scotland?
Yes. We are well served by the current constabularies and people want to retain them. We must get the right balance between ensuring that we have accountable local constabularies, serving the areas that they cover, and getting the benefit of centralised services. That started with the establishment of the SPSA, which is addressing issues such as ICT and forensics. The Scottish Criminal Record Office is now part of the SPSA. It is a matter of striking a balance. Front-line policing in communities should be dealt with by local constabularies, because accountability and identifiability are located there. Other areas such as specialised services and procurement are dealt with much better centrally, which allows for economies of scale.
Someone said to me this morning that your approach to civilianisation and collaboration had been written on the back on an envelope. How do you respond to that suggestion? Returning to the numbers, how much information did you receive from and how much discussion did you have with senior police officers before deciding to make the announcements that you made yesterday?
I had substantial discussions. I met every chief constable individually and met the chief constables collectively. I chaired various boards that I am required and choose to sit on. These measures are not driven solely by a Government that is keen to free up our police capacity, so that we can deliver additional police officers—police constables are seeking to introduce them. I did not direct Chief Constable Andrew Cameron on PCSOs in Alloa: he chose to go in that direction, and he persuaded me that the route that he was taking was appropriate.
We turn to the question of resource utilisation.
I had intended to ask a question about a potential national police force, but Cathie Craigie got in before me.
The additional 150 officers who will be recruited before the end of the financial year will be distributed according to the grant-aided expenditure formula. I cannot remember the precise number that will go to Strathclyde Police—it is roughly 70. We are delivering that number of additional officers.
Last week I was alarmed when we were told that there was a lack of or freeze on recruiting in the Strathclyde Police force area, given that Strathclyde Police is the largest force. I would like the new money that will be made available to allow Strathclyde Police to get back on an even keel, at least. Hopefully, Strathclyde will also get the additional officers that other forces will get.
I am aware that officers have been seeking to join Strathclyde Police; they are awaiting further news on their applications. I am not able to comment on that issue, but I undertake to raise it with Strathclyde Police. I will doubtless meet the new chief constable in early course, and I will be happy to report back to the committee.
In some of today's papers, you talk about centralising recruitment. Can you tell us a bit more about that?
I have asked Andrew Cameron, the chief constable of Central Scotland Police, to investigate whether we can have a centralised recruitment scheme. It appears that efficiency savings that could be made could free up resources that would, in turn, free up capacity and make Scotland safer and stronger. The proposal would not be a step towards a centralised police force.
Earlier in the year, most members of the committee had an informal session with the director general of the SCDEA and were impressed with the work that it was doing. I am sure that we are all quite concerned at some of the comments that have been made in the past few days about the fact that its ability to do its work appears to have been compromised because it is getting bogged down in bureaucracy and about the issue of accountability that has arisen in relation to its position as part of the SPSA. Can you give us assurances that you will look closely at the matter, given the importance of the fight against serious crime and drugs?
Absolutely. I chaired a meeting with the chief executive and chair of the SPSA, together with the director general of the SCDEA, to try to resolve those matters. We will continue to strive to do that, to ensure that the SCDEA can continue to do its job in an unencumbered fashion. However, there remains a requirement for some element of accountability.
We will move to questions on policing priorities.
Before I do that, I would like to follow up the issue that Margaret Smith has just raised. In the informal session that we had earlier this year with the SCDEA, Mr Pearson talked about the failure to deliver the campus at Gartcosh. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the project to create the campus at Gartcosh will go ahead during the lifetime of this Government?
That would be subject to the spending review and it would be inappropriate for me to comment until my Cabinet colleague does so.
The committee has heard evidence about the development of the Scottish policing performance framework. It would appear that the framework is at a very early stage of development. How effective are the current systems of performance management in police forces? How will the Scottish policing performance framework improve that effectiveness? What is the timeframe for the framework to be fully functional?
Obviously, such matters are continually monitored. We believe that the system can be improved, and that is what we seek to do. However, I would need to seek clarification in relation to the timescale. The framework has been live since April and is under constant monitoring.
Bill Butler has a question on governance and accountability.
Before turning to that issue, I would like to ask what might be the final numbers question—
The convener has still to ask his questions.
I said that it might be—I cannot read the convener's mind.
Absolutely not. We are delivering upon our manifesto commitment to a visible police presence and an additional 1,000 officers in our communities.
You almost convinced me there. It might have saved you from the verbal contortions and the semantic acrobatics that we have been almost admiring today and which I am sure we will be admiring in the days, months and years ahead.
It is the right approach, because it is akin to the democratic basis of the separation of powers. It is important that chief constables have their roles and rights, and that Government, and local communities through their police boards, have some input. If we did not have that, democracy would be undermined in the same way as it would be if there were no separation between the legislature and executive.
Looking at how matters can be improved, you say that the structure is the right framework. However, Dr Daniel Donnelly of the Scottish centre for police studies, who gave evidence to the committee three weeks ago, said that he was worried that police authorities and police board members were at a disadvantage in holding chief constables to account because they did not have the proper or sufficient expert officer back-up, and because there was a lack of information to hold chief constables properly to account. As you know, Dr Donnelly was a very experienced police officer before he went into academe. What do you make of that view?
It is important that the police board conveners are empowered and provided with as much information as possible. I have met the conveners collectively. They have a conveners forum. I assure the committee that the Government will seek to ensure that our conveners are as well briefed and advised as they can be, because the basis of their knowledge dictates their ability to interact with the police. These things come down to personalities and to individual relationships. The individual relationship that a police board and, in particular, a convener has with a chief constable is critical. We have to encourage everybody to be all they can be, and to ensure that police boards can feel confident and have the information to challenge a chief constable on occasion, as well as to praise him for the good job that he is doing.
I hear what you are saying: by and large, you support the tripartite system, and there may be improvements but they are not fundamental. Would you like to see any changes in the composition, role and power of police authorities to improve governance arrangements? For example, should all members be elected? Are elected members on large joint boards and police authorities able to reflect properly the diverse communities that form their areas?
We issued guidance to boards in June, which clarified what we expect from them. We do not rule anything out. Obviously, there has to be some democratic mandate, but we would consider anything that may assist boards to do their job better.
The suggestion was made in previous evidence sessions that there needs to be a greater drive towards allowing communities to feed into joint boards and police authorities, and that that is not happening at the moment. How do you view that?
I have a general willingness to look at whatever problems are raised and to try to work out solutions. I do not want immediately to foist diktats on conveners. I am happy to take on board their views and those of others, and I am open on how we can make that prong of the tripartite system work better. We are looking to work with boards, and we are happy to consider any recommendations that can make them work better so long as we maintain some element of the democratic basis on which they are constituted.
You do not rule out the suggestion of adding to, or even replacing, a proportion of the board members who are directly elected.
I do not rule anything out and I do not rule anything in. I have met the conveners forum, and I will meet it again. I would like first to see how the conveners feel that they are coping. If they think that there are clear problems, I will be happy to address them. If others feel that there are clear problems that the conveners are not raising with me, I will have to consider that as well.
I start by making a slightly parochial point. I suggest that, in taking on board the views of conveners, you should also take on board the views of the convener of the Lothian and Borders joint police board on the need to review the GAE resources. However, it is probably to best to pass on that one, even though we may agree on it.
We can always learn lessons. There is obviously a significant difference in the size and nature of police authorities between there and here. I am keen to listen to conveners and find out from them how they are getting on. We are happy to take good practice from wherever it comes, whether that is south of the border or elsewhere. I have been impressed by the conveners and I look forward to my next meeting with them. Now that they have their foot in the door, perhaps they will raise other matters.
I have a final question that needs to be cleared up. As you are aware, the committee's inquiry is on the effective use of police resources. I understood that police resources would increase by £78 million in the coming financial year. In your announcement yesterday, you lowered the figure to £54 million. Where has the £24 million gone?
Perhaps you had gone for a cup of tea, but on "Newsnight" last night, I think that I said—
I saw it, but I was confused by all your GAEs and—
The £54 million relates to the three-year spend under the comprehensive spending review. In addition, the money for this year—the 2007-08 spend—needs to be taken into account, given that it is not part of the CSR. You also need to take into account the additional GAE money that will be made available. If you do that, you will find that the total is in excess of £78 million. We are committing in excess of £1 billion to policing. There is no discrepancy between the two figures of £54 million and £78 million: one is over the specific three-year period of the CSR; and the other is over a four-year period and includes payments that are made in addition through GAE.
That is as confusing as it was last night. Perhaps you could put the information in a letter to the committee. No doubt, we will consider such issues over the coming weeks as part of our budget scrutiny.
I am sure that that can be done. Obviously, some of these matters will be commented on tomorrow. We will follow up on your request.
Let us see if we can help you, Mr MacAskill.
You are very kind.
As we are all aware, police establishments have increased in recent years, which is a reflection partly of the legislation that has been put through the Parliament, usually unanimously, and partly of the increased duties that have arisen from terrorism and other extraneous circumstances. Is the increase in numbers commensurate with the increased pressures on the police?
Our police are doing an excellent job. The numbers have increased, as has the level of pressures and specialist requirements. That is why we are reviewing matters. We need to focus on capacity and delivery and not on a strict head count. We could have 100,000 police officers, but—as I have said—if they were not located in and serving their communities, they would not be delivering what we require. We are talking not simply about a head count, but about what we do with officers. That is what matters, which is why how best to use our police is part of the remit of the committee's inquiry.
You will have heard last week's evidence from Superintendent McHoull, who pointed out the significant increase in the number of women police officers. I think the committee approves unanimously of that—we believe in equality of opportunity. However, the downside is the number of young women police officers who require either to take maternity leave or to be removed from full operational duties at the start of their pregnancy. Given that background and its impact on available establishments, I repeat my question: have police numbers risen in proportion to their increased responsibilities?
We have inherited a position on which we seek to build by increasing capacity, which is why I am committing to deliver an additional 500 new recruits and why we are seeking to retain and redeploy officers. It is not about a strict head count or a precise number or roll; it is about what we do with the officers. We have sufficient to do the job and we must allow them to do their job as best they can, so that they are not hidebound by bureaucracy or needlessly constrained by requirements that could be dealt with by others.
Do you think that there is a sufficiency to do the job?
Yes.
Thank you. One of the stratagems that you are adopting to extricate yourself from a rash election promise is the retention of officers who are past retiral age. How will you encourage officers to stay on?
We are considering creating a new scheme, because the 30-plus scheme is clearly not working. There is a problem, so we must go away and work things out. We are considering the schemes that operate in, for example, Strathclyde Police—there might be more than one approach. We want to establish a scheme that allows flexibility to retain officers. We have an agreement that we can go our own way north of the border and not be constrained by the United Kingdom 30-plus scheme.
A police sergeant who has served the maximum time and is on around £35,000 per year will be entitled to a pension of £17,500 and a lump sum of £90,000, which in the current economic climate and with no investment risk could be expected to provide an income of £5,500—I take it that you agree with those figures. If the man left the police force, his income would be £23,000; if he stayed, he would get £35,000, so he would be working for £12,000 a year. Is not that—in your own words—a no-brainer?
Your figures are not accurate—my official is whispering in my ear. There are problems to do with how we take matters forward. However, a police officer came into my surgery in Musselburgh last night to explain that after serving in the military for many years and in the police force for 14 years he would be prepared to continue working beyond his time because he likes the job. We have to change the current system. Everyone accepts that it is a good idea to retain specialist and good-quality officers, who can perform a variety of tasks. Some 2,300 officers are leaving the force. The current system does not work.
My figures might not have been totally accurate but I suspect that they were not totally inaccurate. If you are going to persuade people to stay on, you will have to incentivise them to do so, which will cost a lot of money—if people are willing to stay on, given that a police officer who retires at the comparatively young age of 52 is likely to be attractive to the job market and might get a job that paid £25,000 per year, in addition to his pension. Let us be realistic. Not many people will accept any deal that you put on the table.
I disagree. That is not my understanding from discussions with the SPF and others, who are keen to devise a better retention scheme for their members. The SPF is, correctly, considering how we can change a flawed system that is not working.
You have read the evidence that the committee has taken. Do you appreciate that the vast preponderance of that evidence indicates that, although savings might be made as a result of considering the roles that police officers currently perform—the back-office functions and so on—we are getting close to the bottom of the barrel, bearing in mind the improvements in civilianisation that have been made in the past 20 years?
No. There is always room for continuous improvement, and there are good reasons to believe that we can free up capacity. As I have said, issues are on-going and are being raised regularly. The PCSOs whom I visited in Alloa were news to me. However, I was delighted to meet them and to find out about their good work and the freeing up of police time that they are delivering.
The bottom line is, however, that you will not get the 500 equivalent police officers as a result of savings that you might make under the efficiency heading and through retaining police officers who would otherwise retire.
A 1 per cent efficiency saving is the equivalent of recruiting 500 officers. If police boards make efficiency savings of 1 per cent, we will have the funds available for the equivalent of 500 officers. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will comment on such efficiency savings.
We should bear it in mind that the vast majority of police board expenditure relates to salary and employment costs. That makes efficiency savings of 1 per cent exceptionally difficult to obtain. Will you pay off some police officers rather than take police officers on?
The evidence appears to show that efficiency savings have worked, which is why we are seeking redeployment. The 2005-06 efficiency programme target was £14 million, and savings of £25 million were achieved. The target in 2006-07 was £41 million, and savings of £42 million were achieved. It seems to me that significant savings have been made. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will make a statement on efficiency savings tomorrow. I mentioned the additional resources that would be available as a result of efficiency savings of 1 per cent. We can ensure that we maximise our police numbers through redeployment and efficiency savings.
I want to follow up my question about retirements. You will be up against it in trying to replace the 2,300 officers who are due to retire in the next four years. I agree with much of what the convener said about trying to convince people to stay—that will not necessarily be an easy task. However, let us proceed on the basis that you may be able to do that. You have said that the current scheme is not working, that therefore a new scheme is needed, that you are working on that scheme and that you will roll it out. I want to ask about the process by which you will bring forward a new scheme and about the timetable.
That has already started. First, although the 30-plus scheme is not working as we would like it to, it works for some people, and we can seek to refine it. Secondly, some measures are already kicking in. Strathclyde Police is already utilising some schemes under which officers are able to come back in part time and so on. Thirdly, we are working with the SPF, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the police boards and others. There is a genuine desire among all stakeholders—from the SPF to ACPOS and police board conveners—to ensure that we deliver. We are already doing so through the measures that I have mentioned.
Can I clarify that the status quo is not only the 30-plus scheme? It is 30-plus, which is a UK scheme—so there would have to be discussions about it—and other schemes that have already been brought forward or are in operation in Strathclyde and other areas. The potential impact of a better, beefed-up scheme would not be so great in Strathclyde Police, which is the biggest police force in Scotland, because it already has what, it is suggested, is a better scheme than 30-plus. Therefore, the potential improvement on the status quo is among the range of forces that currently operate the 30-plus scheme.
No, I do not accept that. As I said, 30-plus works for some people. It is a UK national scheme that can be improved and enhanced, and we will co-operate in any way that we can to do that. The Strathclyde scheme is very limited and relates to specific situations. We are seeking to build on that scheme not only by implementing it elsewhere but by improving and enhancing it in Strathclyde. I am quite hopeful that we will be able to ensure that the SPF's desire for its members to continue to work when they are due to retire will be delivered and that the desire of chief constables and police boards to retain those valuable officers will also be met.
I ask the cabinet secretary to reiterate his comments that he does not want the retired officers to be involved in front-line duties in the city centre.
I did not say that.
You did. You said that you did not expect to see those officers out on a Friday and Saturday night, and you also suggested that they could work part time. Is the suggestion that we will ask those officers to stay on but that their role will perhaps be in a desk job?
The Official Report will doubtless show what I did or did not say. I said that some officers do not wish to go out at those times. I have met several such officers. There are also officers who probably want to fulfil such duties. The Official Report will show what I said in relation to what you seek to imply.
Historically, we have had arrangements for police officers to retire after 30 years with a lump sum and what some would consider to be a generous pension because we recognise that they do a very difficult job and that their working beyond 30 years might not always be best for the community, although it might be best for the officer financially.
I assure you that I do not predicate Government policy on one particular constituent in one of my local areas. We have to recognise that the nature of those who are joining the police is changing. People are joining the police at a later age than they did many years ago. As the convener said, people are taking periods of absence for maternity leave. An array of things are changing in our society.
I asked what the different stages would be in reaching agreement on a new scheme. When I asked you about the timetable you said that you did not have one. Will you write to us to set out what you see as the different stages in putting in place a new scheme, including the various negotiations that would have to take place to make that happen?
We will write to you to explain where we are and what we are doing. Some matters might be dependent on further meetings, but we are happy to keep you informed. We are more than happy to let you know regularly where we are and what we are striving for.
The committee would expect nothing less.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—