Public Audit Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Official Report 142KB pdf

---

Public Audit Committee Report: Response

---

“Police call management”

Item 3 is a response from the Scottish Government to the report on police call management. Members have the relevant paper before them. Are there any thoughts or comments? There are some areas on which we will have to agree to disagree, but we have been over the matter in some detail.

On reading the response to paragraph 18 in the appendix to the paper, I did not get a sense that we are going to get performance reporting per police board or police area. There is a suggestion that the Government wants to wait until the national performance indicator is developed. I am not sure that we are going to get the information on a per force basis, which is what I thought that we had asked for. I would like some clarification of that.

If someone in Strathclyde, for example, has reported something to the police, we should know how long it is taking the police there to attend non-emergency incidents without having to wait for a consistent national indicator for the rest of Scotland, which might include Orkney and Shetland. It is important that we are given local information as quickly as possible after it becomes available. We should not have to wait for the national indicator to be developed. Some clarity on that would be appreciated.

My point relates to the response to paragraph 53, on the single non-emergency number. I suspect that we have taken the issue as far as we can and that, as you say, we will have to agree to disagree on it. At least we have received a somewhat more comprehensive response from the Government than we received previously. I still think that it is wrong, but it is difficult to see what more we can do about it.

I agree with Murdo Fraser. As is suggested in annex A to the paper, we should ask what progress has been made on the alternatives that have been suggested. We should also ask what progress has been made on the work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

I notice that Tayside police is moving to an 0300 number, which is commendable.

Is there anything in the accountable officer's response that we wish to follow up on? Does the committee wish to write back to the accountable officer on the issue that Willie Coffey has identified?

We are talking about a work in progress. We are told that meaningful indicators are being developed, so it is a continuing process. Some timescale would be helpful. One thing that bothers me is that the response says:

"the considerable expense in terms of funding and organisational change needed to install a single non-emergency number across Scotland would not be justified by the possible benefits at the present time."

Everything will be overshadowed by the 2010-11 budget, when there will not be much money for anything. I just feel that the response is holding everything back and that there is no great desire to get anything done. We should at least ask for a timetable for the development of meaningful indicators.

Okay. Members also have a list of potential updates. Do we agree to ask for those?

Members indicated agreement.

There is not likely to be a change in the accountable officer in the near future, is there?

I could not comment on that; I have no idea.

Is he getting on a bit?

The truth is that we are all getting on a bit—some of us more than others.

That might improve the situation.

Is that not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Yes.

Do we agree to follow up on the points that have been raised, and to ask for a series of updates?

Members indicated agreement.

Beyond that, there is probably not much more that we can do with the response. Have we sent it to the Justice Committee for its interest?

We will do.

We now move into private session, as we agreed earlier.

Meeting continued in private until 13:04.