I welcome Chief Superintendent Clive Murray and Chief Superintendent Iain Gordon, who are, respectively, the national president and the vice-president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents.
Good morning, gentlemen. Can you tell the committee, for the record, whether you are pleased, in general terms, with the funds that have been made available for policing in the 2007 spending review? What is your take on that?
Our main concern is with the 2 per cent cashable efficiency saving and stems from the question whether there is a clear understanding of the impact that such a saving will have. If demand on the service continues to increase and pensions provision, which is an essential item of police expenditure, cannot be contained, a 2 per cent efficiency saving might start to cut into police numbers, including operational police officer numbers.
Do you view the 2 per cent efficiency saving as being 2 per cent in real terms? Are you saying that greater efficiency savings will be required if, for example, pensions start to eat into the available money and affect police numbers? Can such savings be made?
The evidence from the work that has been done over the past three years is that the police have made non-cashable and cashable efficiency savings over the period. That has been a challenge, but the service has now been asked to bite further into its resources to make a 2 per cent cashable efficiency saving, which is a 0.5 percentage point up on what the saving has been previously.
Can the service bite further into its management, overtime and procurement resources, for example?
No. We have said before that the equation is fairly complex. We are aware of the demand that exists, but if as we go into the 2008-09 financial year there are increased demands on the service as a result of additional police activity that is brought about by events, legislation or changing procedures, those increased demands will have an impact on the service's operational core. In such circumstances, the service invariably reacts by drawing from its operational core to meet the needs that result from the additional burdens that it has been asked to take on.
You said that pensions provision and the effect of savings on police numbers represent your main possible challenges. Does pay also play a part?
Yes. As you know, it all comes from the same budget. Perhaps outgoings for pensions provision are at the top end, but there will be other outgoings. Unfortunately, at this stage, we do not know the settlement for the previous periods over which our pay arrangements run, and that will obviously have an impact if it is more than has been budgeted for. We think that there will be pressure if the pay settlement and the pension arrangements are more than has been budgeted for. A squeeze from both sides would affect the service's operational core. Colleagues who run divisions throughout Scotland have experienced the effects of such pressures on budgets. People endeavour to control budgets throughout the financial year, but we can end up with gapping. For example, when officers retire, there can be delays in recruitment to save money within the financial year, the obvious impact of which will be fewer officers on the streets.
Chief Superintendent Gordon, do you concur with your colleague?
Yes. Mr Murray is right. We must sustain the number of officers on the streets—that is our main concern. We know what the demands are and what the public are looking for, and we must try to adjust our budgets to ensure that we meet those demands. More and more pressure is certainly being put on divisional commanders to consider their budgets; at the same time, there is demand for high-visibility policing on the streets.
Can you elaborate on what you do at the end of the year? I know, from the years when I used to run factories, what sort of things can be done to reduce costs at the end of the year. For example, repairs can be put off until the next financial year. Apart from simply not replacing staff in a hurry to make up a perceived gap, what else can you do towards the end of the financial year to try to balance your budget?
We try to plan a bit more than that. There are examples of efficiency savings over the period, such as changing to liquid petroleum gas vehicles and trying to do things more efficiently. However, given that the bulk of the money goes on staffing, pulling back on overtime is invariably something that we can do. Overtime is one of the main expenses in addition to core staffing costs—that is, salaries.
Can you expand on that? What impact would there be on service delivery if you were to cut back on overtime?
A commander faces incredible demand in their area, particularly at night, to deal with licensed premises and so on, which requires policing in the streets. Unfortunately, that policing cannot usually be done by using the core shifts, so the commander needs to consider bringing in officers on overtime to ensure that a visible presence is maintained in the streets. There would be an effect if the overtime budget were cut or if the commander had no money available for overtime to cover that policing.
I take it from that answer that you rely on overtime to police city centres because you have not built those working periods into your officers' shift patterns. You use overtime to supplement their normal working time.
I would not say that we have not built those periods into our shift patterns. We try to plan as much as we can, but sometimes there is a real need to bring in officers on overtime. For example, major events, such as protests at Faslane, have to be policed, and we cannot do that simply by using officers who are on core shifts. We need to bring in officers on overtime from other divisions across the Strathclyde area to ensure that we maintain a police presence in the streets.
A police shift pattern that delivered all requirements would be the holy grail. There is a variety of shift patterns across the country, and some work better in some areas than others. Most forces have now moved to variable shift patterns, and those shift patterns tend to ensure that demand is met by capacity. When that can be achieved, that is fine, and we try to achieve it most of the time, but there are other times, as my colleague said, when the demand—whether it is a result of the late-night economy across Scotland, or of other events—outstrips the available capacity. At those times, the only way of meeting the demand is by using officers on overtime.
I am aware that the police service has been using intelligence-led policing, and I accept that special events such as the Faslane demonstrations may create a need to draw on additional police resources, necessitating overtime or other payments. However, I would like to tease out the issue of policing the late-night economy. If there is a move towards intelligence-led policing—which has been introduced in certain forces in Scotland—there must be a realisation that police officers are most needed at those times. That need should be built into the normal shift pattern, rather than having to rely on overtime payments for police cover in city centres.
That would happen if we had sufficient resources at the outset to apply to that activity. Your question rests on the assumption that police resource levels—from an operational perspective—across divisions in Scotland are as they should be, and we contend that that is not the case.
Is it possible for you to send the committee some information on overtime payments over the past two or three years—broken down by police force and by division?
That question would be better put to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Is it possible for you to provide that information, Mr Murray?
Yes, but it would perhaps be better coming from ACPOS. Information is available—indeed, I read a document last month that provided a benchmark for the amount that forces spent on overtime payments over a certain period. If you want us to supply the information, we will endeavour to do so, but our ACPOS colleagues, who are following us in giving evidence, might have the information to hand.
I can see your colleagues listening avidly as we speak, so perhaps we should get it from them.
Good morning, gentlemen. In your written evidence, you suggest that the implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 will cost approximately £4 million. How did you arrive at that figure?
The detail has been provided—our ACPOS colleagues undertook a detailed piece of research, and costed exactly where the additional burden will fall on the service. The bottom-line figure for the additional burden is £4 million—the equivalent of 130 police officers—and because the pot of money to provide policing has not grown, it has to be absorbed in some way. I am certain that one of my ACPOS colleagues is the master of the detail on that. I have seen a document that sets out exactly how that figure is arrived at, but unfortunately I do not have it with me.
We look forward to receiving that information, but can you give some operational examples? For example, which areas of the work involved in implementing the requirements of the 2005 act will be carried out by police officers? Surely a great deal of that work could be carried out by civilians rather than front-line police officers?
That is exactly so, and I am sure, from memory, that the document that I mentioned states that about 20 administrative officers will be required. However, I emphasise again that there has to be some finance to support the presence of those 20 administrative officers within the service, and the cost has been calculated at £4 million. We are going to use administrative officers because that is more cost effective, but the impact across the police budget is £4 million, which might ordinarily have been applied to operational police officers.
The purpose of a lot of the work that was done to modernise the licensing regime in the 2005 act was to prevent additional work. For example, there is no annual requirement for a licensee to apply for a license, as perpetual licenses are in place, and the antisocial behaviour reports that are now required might prevent some people from obtaining a license. Surely the investment in modernising the licensing legislation should give some assurance to police officers that, over the long term, their resources might be not required to the same level as they were before?
The key phrase that you used is "long term". Some efficiency might only be realised further down the road. The service will be faced with a significant additional burden in February 2008, as applications come in for processing under the new legislation. We estimate, following detailed calculations, that that will cost in the region of £4 million.
Are you satisfied that, when the new licensing legislation is implemented, there will be people who will not receive a licence but who could have received one previously?
The document that I mentioned, which you are obviously keen to see, goes into the detail. It compares the amount of process that is involved in dealing with applications under existing legislation with the amount that will be involved in dealing with applications under the new legislation. A significant amount of additional time will be required to process applications under the new legislation.
There was publicity this morning about concerns that front-line police officers could be required to carry out the work. I appreciate that your ACPOS colleagues will provide more detailed information, but is it the case that, operationally, the specific tasks that are involved need not be carried out by front-line police officers?
I do not think that the tasks need to be carried out by front-line police officers. The burden falls on divisional commanders throughout Scotland, who will have to find somebody to do the work. The decision about whether the individuals who undertake the tasks are administrative assistants or police officers will be made at local or force level. In my force, we are considering whether to employ civilian licensing inquiry officers to carry out the role. However, I point out again that we estimate that the cost of employing administrative assistants to do that throughout Scotland will be £4 million, which is the cost of 130 police officers.
I will pick up on the general thrust of your point. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is a specific piece of legislation, but your written evidence states:
On your question about who is responsible, the answer is probably the police service, because we are not particularly good at saying what the impact will be on operational officers, although the work that has been done on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is one exception.
I have no difficulty with some of the legislation that has been brought in recently. Indeed, during my almost 29 years in the service, we have made huge advances in dealing with domestic violence, family protection and the monitoring of sex offenders. However, to set up the appropriate units, we need to draw from core policing; we do not have any other resources. We train people to be specialists, and the resultant hits on shifts are a concern at a local level. Perhaps we did not articulate that properly during consultation, as my colleague has suggested, but that is the case. The impact of resourcing such units will be felt on the front line. As I said earlier, we must balance that with the public's demands for more visible policing.
That interesting response gives rise to further questions. In dealing with the budget, it is difficult for us to know how many police officers will be doing particular jobs at particular times. Last week, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Justice about his extra 1,000 officers going into communities. I asked him how many police officers we had in communities at the moment, and he could not answer me. I asked him for a definition of a community officer and, frankly, I was not happy with the response that I got.
That is the point that we have been making for some time now. What are your expectations of the police service in the 21st century? That is a fundamental question, and we sincerely suggest to the committee that we should try to answer it. Is it community-level policing or local policing that members seek to prioritise, or is it the specialist policing that you have just mentioned? As I have said before, the service is now a mile wide and an inch thick in trying to satisfy all the new demands that have been placed on it over a considerable period.
Clarity would help us all. Can the witnesses say how many police officers in their forces are in the community? I am not talking about a snapshot of what happens at any given time. If I were to ask you how many police officers in your complement you would classify as community police officers, would you be able to give me a number?
Yes.
Yes.
What is your definition of community police officers?
In that context, I am talking about the officers who are available for front-line, operational, 24/7 response, but the terminology that is being used is confusing the issue. The Scottish Police Federation uses the term 24/7 and we try to do so too, for consistency. You asked the cabinet secretary for a definition of community policing, which means different things to different people. When I gave evidence to the committee two weeks ago, I said that what the public wants—more police in the community—is not what we call community policing, which is the softer side of policing and includes school visits and liaison with community groups. Our clear understanding is that the public want officers out there who can deal at first hand with antisocial behaviour and crime. We regard such officers as the operational core.
It was inevitable that there would be some spill over from the committee's inquiry on the effective use of police resources into our work on the budget, but I want to focus on the figures in the budget.
I have 32 years' service and am as enthusiastic as I was when I joined the service. I know a number of officers who are of similar mind. The point that we made to Scottish Government officials is that we do not think that the 30-plus scheme has been well publicised and marketed in the service in Scotland. I cannot predict how many officers will take the opportunity to extend their service and take advantage of the lump sum and the other elements of the scheme.
You said that people would not be keen to work voluntarily. Is that because, basically, they would be working for about a third of their salary?
No. Because of the way in which the 30-plus scheme works, there is no detriment. Officers work for what they were paid before they retired and were re-engaged with the service. However, the way in which the funding is calculated is fairly complex, and I think that that is what puts a lot of people off. There is some misunderstanding about how the moneys that are payable to individuals are made up.
You say that there is no detriment, but there is detriment to some extent, is there not? If an officer retired after 30 years, they would do so on a full pension and they would get a fairly substantial lump sum, which they could invest. In many cases, even at a conservative rate of 6 per cent, that would bring in £5,500 a year with no risk. They would be able to pick up a job, which might not be terribly onerous, that paid, say, £20,000 a year. Even for a constable, it is a pretty tight decision. It is not all that attractive for them to stay on, is it?
It is a matter of individual preference. I wish that I could remember the figure from England and Wales. I think that it is in the low hundreds, which is not great compared with the total number of officers in England and Wales. I do not think that we will have a good idea of how effective the 30-plus scheme will be until we market it properly within the service and encourage rather than discourage. A lot of people are put off by the mistake about how attractive it is financially.
I have processed quite a few applications. As my colleague said, we need to market the scheme better. At the end of the day, it is the individual's choice whether to stay on. The impact of the Edmund-Davies review, which took place in the late 1970s, is not quite hitting the service yet. That could come during the next couple of years, which is, hopefully, when the 30-plus scheme will kick in. However, it is up to individual forces and chief constables to decide whether an individual is suitable for the 30-plus scheme; managers might have issues that would mean that they would consider certain individuals to be unsuitable to stay on in the scheme.
Thank you. To change the emphasis slightly, I want to ask about the 2 per cent cashable efficiency savings. You are clearly not content that that can be achieved. Do you really think that the police service is down to the bone?
Our written submission indicates other areas, such as collaboration, where we can work better and smarter. There are still opportunities for forces to combine better and to do things once as opposed to eight times. That would throw up some efficiency in process and support services. The last time we were here we mentioned the Scottish Police Services Authority, which we support. It has not yet, however, had the opportunity to deliver. We would become concerned if the SPSA did not do more for less. If the SPSA did less for more, the idea of it would be perverse and we would have to question why we had invested in it when the forces were more efficient in the past. However, the SPSA can provide efficiency to the police service in certain areas and, as I have said before, it will not have to do things eight times when producing policy and procedures, or making purchases or whatever; it will have a range of administrative functions. The SPSA believes that the police service can be a bit smarter by doing things once and sharing them across the eight forces.
Chief Superintendent Gordon mentioned the impact of the Edmund-Davies review. Margaret Smith will pursue that.
We know that we are about to experience a projected bulge in the number of police officers retiring from the service—about 2,300 during the next four years. Are the forces prepared for that? Although there was earlier recruitment to offset that, should we expect police officer numbers to decline? Obviously such a number of people retiring in such a short period will have an impact. How will that go? What will the balance be?
It was anticipated this year that the number of retirals would be far greater than it was. I know that some of the forces, including my own force of Strathclyde, has been gearing up and preparing for the projected drain on resources. In many respects, the situation is unpredictable, but the forces have it on their radar and they are aware that such a drain could happen.
The convener asked you about the 30-plus scheme. Can you tell us how many officers in all the Scottish forces have taken advantage of the 30-plus scheme, or similar schemes to retain officers, in the past year?
I see no difficulty in getting that information to you.
It is not a high number.
Chief Superintendent Murray, you said in passing that you would be surprised if you were able to retain 500 officers on the 30-plus scheme. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave a figure of 500 new officers and a figure of 500 officers to be retained and redeployed—although we do not have an answer from him about how many officers will be retained and how many will be redeployed. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wants to retain 250 officers over and above the baseline number who would have been retained anyway. Do you think that that is doable? What do we and the Scottish Government have to do to make that achievable? What would be the timetable for introducing and marketing changes to the 30-plus scheme?
You are looking into the unknown. We can look to the experience in England and Wales of the 30-plus scheme. I would certainly not commit to saying that the 30-plus scheme could result in 250 officers staying on over the course of a year—I accept that you used that number as an example. We could try to reach that number by marketing the 30-plus scheme better. If you want to make the scheme more attractive, you have to consider how the package is constructed. If there was some way to change it by including additional attractions, that could be considered.
You said that retention schemes would have to include additional attractions. I presume that such attractions would include enhanced salary provision, given that you would be retaining experienced officers. That would come at a cost, which, as far as I can see, the budget does not cover. Do you believe that plans to retain experienced officers are funded in the budget?
We said in our submission that we understand that 500 new recruits are to be employed and that funding will be made available for that over the course of the parliamentary session. We make the point that if officers are to be retained to increase the establishment numbers, that will also need to be funded, but we are not clear where that funding will come from.
I reiterate that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said at the committee last week that the 30-plus scheme is clearly not working and that we need a new scheme. He was not talking about remarketing the 30-plus scheme; he was talking about a new scheme. My question is based on his comments. If we have to go through the process of putting in place a new scheme, which would probably require input from all the different staff sides and everybody else involved, what would you need to do to make such a scheme effective? What would the timescale be for us to see the benefits of the new scheme reflected in increased retention, given that the status quo is not enough to deliver what you want, what we want or what the cabinet secretary has said is achievable?
If it is a new scheme, then the timescale is longer term. If it is a scheme to attract officers with 30 years' service to stay on beyond that, obviously it will be a 30-plus scheme of sorts, although I am unaware of the elements. If I were asked—as, clearly, I am—to give an indication of what might be in the scheme, I would include pay and how attractive the scheme is in terms of accessing the lump sum, which are pretty much the elements of the 30-plus scheme. As I have said consistently, we need to market what we have got. If we were to do that, officers would have the opportunity to understand better what is in place and to make a decision that they are not making at the moment.
Knowing police officers as I do, I would be surprised if they were not perfectly aware of that.
That is the very point that I was about to make. What other scheme could we come up with that would be attractive to officers?
A more expensive one?
Possibly.
Would that put at risk the principle of the enhanced pension? I am thinking of the way in which it was set up. I understand that it is based on a recognition that, after 30 years' service, an officer has done a difficult job and gone through what could almost be called a turbulent period. If, because we want officers to continue to do that difficult job, we start saying, "Let's look at a 30-plus pension scheme," will that put the principle of the scheme at risk?
I think not. The requirement for pension qualification has increased to 35-years' service. I may not have picked up the question correctly, but I repeat what I said earlier about officers needing to be physically fit. At the end of the day, the decision whether to retain an officer on 30-plus is one for management. In that regard, consideration is given to a number of issues, including fitness and absences. We also consider redeployment: can we deploy the officer in the right place, and are they suitable for redeployment?
The point that I was trying to make is that, after 35 years' service, not everyone gets the same pension as a police officer. Is that why the principle was put in place? If so, is it not now being put at risk? If we are saying that officers can work more than 35 years, should those pension arrangements be continued?
I am not entirely sure where you are coming from on the question. I am not sure that the principle is at risk. I do not see—
I am only asking the question whether the principle is at risk. Why do officers get an enhanced pension after 30 years' service? Why do we ask them to leave after 30 years?
It is not enhanced. Officers pay for it.
I appreciate that, but why is the scheme in place? It is not available in every workplace throughout Scotland.
But not every member of a workforce pays 11 per cent of their salary into their pension scheme. Officers pay for the pension scheme that they have got, albeit that it has now changed. As my colleague said, officers will now be required to work 35 years' service for half their lump sum, which is twice their salary. They will now pay 9.5 per cent of their salary over 35 years' service for their pension. The police pension scheme is not enhanced. At the moment, officers pay 11 per cent for it, and those who joined after April 2007 will pay 9.5 per cent of their salary.
When I said "enhanced", I probably used the wrong term. Historically, the pension scheme took into account the difficult job of the police officer in 30 years of pounding the beat. My point is that those officers may not physically be able to continue in their job. The job of a police officer is not the same as for someone who sits at a desk for 30 years.
No, it is not.
I only make the point that the pension that is provided takes into consideration the fact that officers have pounded the beat for 35 years. If we say that officers can do more than 35 years' service—I am not making the case for that—do we not put at risk the argument that they might not be able to do more than 35 years' service?
Surely the issue is whether they are physically fit to do the job. Regardless of whether officers have done 30 or 35 years' service, if they are physically capable of walking the beat and that is how we want to deploy them, operationally, I see no problem with that. If they are keen and feel able to undertake such duties and are supported by management in doing so, I see no difficulty with that.
The average recruitment age in some forces is 27. If we add 35 years on to that, 35 years from now we might have 62-year-olds driving about in police vans on Friday and Saturday nights in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland.
John Wilson will wind up on the present line of questioning.
I want to follow up on the retention of officers who would normally have reached retirement age. We seem to be assuming that those officers would be pounding the beat, but I want to turn the proposition around. If officers who had completed 30 or 35 years' service were retained, would they not be available to do some of the backroom work that is done by younger officers, thereby allowing those younger officers to go out on the beat? Mr Gordon said that the issue was whether the long-serving officers were still physically fit to pound the beat, but surely there is an argument for saying that, as officers who are experienced at doing the paperwork, they could be used to free up the time of younger officers to do the beat work.
The question that I would ask is whether the officers in question were available for operational duties. I am not saying that they would automatically be put out on the front line, but officers who perform desk jobs have to be used to police other events. That comes back to the requirement to police major events. We sometimes bring out officers who might normally deal with licensing applications or desk-based processes to perform operational duties. For me, the key is whether those officers are physically fit for operational duties. It is not automatic that officers who were kept on would be sent out to walk the beat, but a number of them would be.
Stuart McMillan will ask the final question.
You will be aware of the paper that Professor Midwinter produced on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, in which he mentioned that expenditure on policing in Scotland was the lowest in the UK. You will have had a good look at the paper. What do you consider to be its main points, apart from the one that I have mentioned?
I read the paper when it first came out, but I did not read it again for today's meeting because I knew that you would be taking evidence from the SPF, which commissioned Professor Midwinter's work. I am sorry, but I am not in a position to provide any detailed comment on the paper.
I take it that Chief Superintendent Gordon is in a similar position.
I am afraid that I am.
In his report, Professor Midwinter tried to compare the funding for police services in Scotland with that for services in England and Wales. To what extent—if at all—has the budget been skewed by the inclusion of the Metropolitan Police's budget in the calculation for police funding in England and Wales?
Without wishing to avoid the question, I think that the best person to answer that is sitting behind me and I defer to his expert knowledge of that level of strategic funding. We are very much acquant with what is available to divisional commanders throughout Scotland day by day and have tried to articulate the pressures that we face. However, issues such as the Metropolitan Police, precepts and so on fall within the knowledge of my colleague sitting behind me.
I believe that, in response to John Wilson's question about overtime and officers working weekends and evenings, you said that there seemed to be an assumption at the moment that there are not enough police officers. Will you clarify that point? In your view, are there or are there not enough officers in the Scottish police force?
There are not enough. The question seemed to assume that through intelligence-led policing we could confidently apply capacity to demand. However, experience invariably demonstrates that demand outstrips capacity most times of the day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
I thank the witnesses for their attendance and remind them of the two matters that remain outstanding: the number of officers who have been retained under the 30-plus scheme—it would be useful if we could have figures for the past three years, if they are available—and the amount of overtime worked by officers over the past three years.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome for the first time Chief Constable David Strang, who is the chair of the criminal justice business area in the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and—for the second time in three weeks—Doug Cross, who is the chair of ACPOS's financial management business area.
I will begin by asking you the same question that I asked the ASPS. Are you in general pleased or satisfied with the funds that have been made available for policing in the spending review? If not, why not?
It is a bit early to give a definitive answer to that question. We have been able to glean from the settlement that £54 million will be made available for some extra police officers and for other initiatives that will be undertaken over this Parliament's lifetime. We are also aware that there will be a requirement to make 2 per cent efficiency savings. Other than that, we have not been able to get the full detail of the core settlement. We understand that the details will come to us later. Until we have that level of detail, we cannot give a definitive answer.
I understand that you do not want to be definitive, but what are your initial thoughts? Are you encouraged by the budget, or are you concerned about, for example, pressures that will result from the required savings, pay, the number of additional officers and pensions?
We certainly welcome the announcement of £54 million greater investment in the police service, which will allow us to employ more police officers. Sufficient moneys being retained in the core budget to tackle the issues that Bill Butler mentioned—such as the increase in pension costs and a pay settlement whose framework involves little local control—will be pleasing.
We recognise that there are will be many challenges in the next three years, which will be largely—to pick up on Mr Murray's earlier point—to do with the fact that demand for policing will always exceed what we can deliver. Public expectations of the service that we deliver through policing are high.
Finite resources and prioritisation is the name of the game. Your submission refers in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 to your concern about the 2 per cent efficiency saving from the total police budget.
The point is that if there is not sufficient money in the settlement to pay for pensions and pay awards—whatever they may be: we can only estimate them—and if the police pay and pension costs are excluded from the amount that is available to make efficiency savings from, first because we are looking to preserve staff numbers and secondly because they are unavoidable costs, a 2 per cent efficiency gain from the balance will in reality equate to nearer 7 per cent. That would be extremely challenging for any organisation. The fact that we will move away from a mixture of cashable and non-cashable savings to cashable savings makes the situation even more acute. Trying to squeeze that much out of current police budgets without impacting on staff numbers—police or support staff—would be extremely difficult, given the high level of staff costs in our budget.
I have one last question. Do you agree with Chief Superintendent Gordon's earlier comment that the main concern is to sustain the number of police on the streets?
I take a much broader view of what we are trying to do; the focus on numbers is unhelpful. We are committed to delivering a policing service. We may do that using technology. For example, there has been a big investment in the use of safety cameras to reduce road casualties, which has been a hugely successful initiative. It has increased safety on the roads, which is a positive outcome for policing that is totally separate from police numbers.
I understand what you are saying—you are taking an holistic view. I will rephrase the question a little. I can understand the logic of that holistic view, but do you agree that, as part of an holistic overview, one of your main concerns must be to sustain the number of police on the street?
The public want that visible reassurance, but they also want to know that if they call the police, the police will answer and not only attend—if we are needed—but attend quickly, be professional and deal with the incident. The emphasis of the intelligence-led approach is on targeting our resources where they are most needed. That approach is fed by records of incidents, demand calls and so on. Sometimes the solution will be a uniformed police presence; sometimes it will be other things, such as closed-circuit television. It might involve other crime prevention methods, or it might mean working with the community wardens in a local authority. The bulk of our service is delivered by uniformed police officers, but we also have people in drug squads, in the criminal investigation department and so on. We must not get too fixated on the important, but not exclusively important, work of the uniformed police officers.
Good morning, gentlemen. Your colleagues kindly advised us that you would explain the £4 million cost of implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. Will you oblige?
I have noted that my colleague offered me for that one. I cannot provide the information now, but I have the figures and can provide them to the committee. A business case has been put together that identifies where we think additional resources will have to be deployed. To pick up on an earlier point, we see it as being about a combination of support staff and police officers. There would be some police input, but it is not by any means just police officers that need to undertake those functions.
I ask you to look at the matter from the committee's point of view. I cannot remember hearing evidence from police officers in which they have not told us about additional burdens that are placed on them as a result of legal remedies—legal remedies that were in the first place advocated by police officers. During the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, all the evidence that we received made the case for the introduction of a number of legal remedies. You advise us of the challenges, and it is clear that you want those legal remedies to be introduced.
Chief Constable Strang will address the reforms in more detail, but I make it clear that we take account of some of the measures to which you referred. In our best value annual report—the fifth of its kind—we identify more than £9 million in efficiency savings. Those are time-releasing savings that allow police officers to do other things. To undertake licensing duties, we will need to recall some of those officers or to invest in new support staff.
Paul Martin is absolutely right to say that the reforms have resulted in savings and a reduction in demand—that is partly why we argued for them—but it is difficult to predict what the positive outcome of a measure will be and to cost that. For example, we support the changes to licensing—supervision of individual licences and the operating plans that licensees will have to produce—because we think that they will lead to better management of licensed premises, and especially to a reduction in drunkenness and the associated violence. However, it is difficult for us to quantify that outcome, because we cannot predict it precisely. Although we may have placed a cost on officers' and support staff's time, that is not real cash—it relates to the use of police officers and staff.
The paper that Mr Cross will make available to us will provide a detailed analysis of how ACPOS has arrived at the figure of £4 million for licensing duties.
Yes.
You can provide that analysis, but you cannot provide the element that we gain from the Bonomy report. You are unable to give us a more specific analysis of the savings that have resulted from the Bonomy report and the release of police officers from escort duties, but you can provide a more effective cost analysis of how you arrived at the figure of £4 million.
We have included savings from the release of police officers from escort duties in our best-value report.
Have you provided similar figures for savings from the Bonomy reforms?
No.
Do you propose to provide such figures?
We are not in a position to articulate cost savings that have resulted from the Bonomy reforms. Savings from the reforms have been qualitative. If fewer police officers have to give evidence at the High Court as a result of the Bonomy reforms, no money has been saved. Instead of sitting in the High Court for half a day, those police officers are out on the street or doing investigations. There is a productivity gain and better deployment from those reforms, but no financial saving.
Is there not a saving in overtime costs because the officers do not have to attend the High Court?
They might not have to.
So, there is a saving.
Yes, but the overtime that was being spent on that can now be spent on something different. This takes us back to the point that was made earlier about our having a fixed budget and how it is used. I agree entirely that it is wasteful for overtime costs to be incurred through an officer sitting in a court; that is something that we want to avoid. If, however, we can redeploy the overtime cost into dealing with antisocial behaviour or policing late-night licensed premises, there is clearly a benefit.
The reason why we can articulate more of the benefits from the prisoner escort service is that money was made available to outsource that service, which freed police officers. Other initiatives have freed police officers to do other things, but we do not have that information.
Let us go back to your opening remarks about the need to address community safety through a more holistic approach. None of us would disagree with that, although numbers are important.
The challenge is for us to do things differently if the overall budget is cut. Alcohol problems and drug problems are good examples of areas in which we work with others. In Edinburgh, for example, a safer communities unit includes the co-location of local authority staff and police officers, who deal with licensing issues and antisocial behaviour. In West Lothian, we are building a combined civic centre that will house the police, the local authority, the Procurator Fiscal Service and the court together in one place. Budgetary pressures force us in to creative ways of doing things differently in order to maintain the service and to have a positive impact on community safety, notwithstanding the fact that budgets might be cut.
I want to return to Mr Strang's comment about overtime, in which I detect there is a significant point, if I understood correctly. Paul Martin spoke about a police officer being in court. You observed that if the officer was paid overtime to be there, you could pay him that overtime to be somewhere else. To return to what we talked about earlier, am I right in thinking—have I got the logic right—that your budget is, effectively, constrained and completed by overtime? If so, the total number of man hours must be roughly independent of the number of men—in which, of course, I include women. In other words, although 100 officers could be paid to work normal hours, under your budget the same number of man hours—police officer hours—on the street could be worked by 90 officers doing the extra as overtime. Am I right in thinking that that is how you use your budget?
Let me explain a bit more about overtime. Overtime money can be spent on an officer who is waiting to give evidence in court or it can be made available for other initiatives that do not necessarily involve that officer.
I want to keep our discussion focused on the margins, so I will use a 5 per cent figure—that is not unrealistic. Am I right in thinking that, if we wanted to have 5 per cent more police out there, we could do it either by giving you 5 per cent more police officers or by giving you 5 per cent more money, which would enable you to pay more overtime to the existing police?
You would need to be careful in relation to the proportions that you are talking about. However, in overall terms, with the resource that we are given, we can buy overtime or we can buy people, so you are right to that extent.
What range of overtime do you regard as acceptable for a police officer? How much flexibility is reasonable?
That is a difficult question, because the answer depends on what the officer does. Some officers do not do overtime, others do some overtime and officers on a particular squad might have a heavy overtime requirement. Furthermore, the working time regulations limit the number of hours that officers can work. I cannot give you a particular figure.
It is also fair to say that some overtime is officer specific, because it relates to time when an officer is at court either waiting to give evidence or giving evidence. That overtime cannot really be transferred to another part of the organisation.
I want to go back to Paul Martin's point about releasing resources by outsourcing some of the work that has traditionally been done by police officers. In that regard, I am particularly interested in the Reliance contract.
I am not aware of the detail of that report.
That question might be more advantageously pursued with the Scottish Prison Service.
I raise the issue because it has been referred to in relation to cost-effective ways of releasing officers.
I think that you should pursue the issue with the SPS. There has to be an answer to your question.
As we are aware, general spending on police forces is met through the local authority settlement. Although the 2007 spending review indicates that the funds that are provided to local authorities for policing are ring fenced, it does not appear to separately identify figures for that ring-fenced funding. Have you been provided with those figures in any form?
No, we have not been provided with them, which is why we cannot provide you with some of the detail that we would like to.
I thought that that would be the case, given what was said earlier.
We can provide that information. It is based on a combination of factors, as you quite rightly identify. There are salary costs for the officer and also the employer's costs, which do not include pensions at the moment, because we have a pay-as-you-go system for pensions. In addition, there are costs for equipment and, depending on the number of officers who are taken in, there could also be a requirement for additional vehicles. Training is primarily undertaken at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan, so some costs are held there. We tend to assume that a figure of around £30,000 per officer accounts for most of the pay costs and some of the equipment costs, but it does not take into account vehicles, which come from a capital allocation. That figure applies to the first few years of an officer's time, but it does not take into account the training that is provided within the force, which also uses up resources.
You said £30,000.
Yes.
A figure of £35,000 was bandied about earlier. Why the discrepancy?
That figure probably took into account some of the other costs that have been mentioned, such as training costs.
What is the pay differential between a new recruit at age 27—we were told earlier that that is the average age of recruits—and the average police officer who is nearing retirement and is in the last five years of his or her service? What is the difference between recruiting somebody and retaining and continuing to pay somebody?
Please excuse me if I do not give you an accurate figure, but I think that, in rough terms, the differential is in the region of £15,000.
That is a useful clarification.
The Government has indicated that it proposes to take on at least another 150 extra recruits in the current financial year. Can you talk me through the financial implications of that for existing budgets? Do we know where the resource is coming from?
We assume that additional money will be made available. Of course, it is the middle of November now, and we do not know when those officers will actually come in, but by the time they are recruited it is bound to be towards the back end of the financial year, so I do not think that the costs will be too significant in the current financial year. We assume that any costs will be covered by additional funding.
The revelation that the SPSA might not be exempt from VAT obviously is not helping anybody at the moment. Is that having any knock-on effects on your operational budgets, even in the current financial year?
We do not think that it is having an impact on our operational budgets, but, if the SPSA is unable to recover VAT fully, there might be an impact on the service that we get from it, which obviously will be important if there are budget constraints.
There is also the issue of the wider justice budget and the future police budget, because the SPSA costs come out of the overall police budget. If its budget remains the same but it has to pay VAT, the service might reduce, as Mr Cross said, and if it needs additional funding in its budget, there might be less for police forces, so it would have an impact.
If the SPSA is 17.5 per cent less well off, there certainly ought to be an impact on what you receive—otherwise, you could look to the SPSA for the efficiency savings that you are being asked for.
An officer who joined this week would spend a week or two in their own force and would then go to Tulliallan for 15 weeks, so we are talking about a four-month period. They would then go back to their force, possibly do a driving course for two or three weeks, and then be deployed to the local police station. Therefore, it would be around four or five months until they worked in a police station serving the community. They would work under the tutelage of a tutor constable and would be on probation for two years, but they would do real police work during that time. They would be available, experienced, trained and fully qualified officers.
Roughly how long would it be before they were allowed out on their own? Forgive me for asking such a dreadful question. At what point is a police officer told that they can do the work by themselves?
There is no particular limit on that. If they can do a task in their third week, they are allowed to do it. There is no particular point at which an officer is told that they can work on their own.
I invite Margaret Smith to begin the committee's questioning on retention and the three-year spending review period.
The Government has announced that an additional £54 million will be made available over the three-year spending review period to build police capacity and recruit 500 new police officers by 2011. Can you provide us with a breakdown of how the additional funds will be used to pay for those additional officers? Given, as you said, the sketchiness of how aspects of core police funds will develop, will £54 million be adequate to recruit that number of officers?
As you said, we do not know the details, but we expect that the 500 officers will be recruited and phased into the policing system over a period. That would be a practical approach. I think that £54 million will be sufficient to cover the costs of an additional 500 police officers over the parliamentary session.
Will you give us a little more detail about the concerns that you express in paragraph 3.6 of your written submission? It mentions other funding models that are being used to enhance the number of police officers throughout the country. You express concern about whether
They are not concerns as such. Your question takes us back to points that were made about the concentration on numbers and a point that Mr Strang made. Paragraph 3.6 says that a number of officers are currently employed due to additional money of around £4.5 million that the previous Administration made available after we brought forward a business case during the previous spending review. That money was made available to bring in officers and to accelerate recruitment in advance of the expected outflow of officers as part of the Edmund-Davies bulge. Some forces recognised that there would be problems and they have used their reserves and other resources in their overall budgets to accelerate further recruitment.
So you will not know whether such funding will continue until there is a more detailed budget, particularly on local government aspects.
Retention will not increase police numbers. If we retain someone, the funds will not be available for recruitment. To me, retention is about experience, quality of service, particular skills and expertise. Retention does not contribute to the overall numbers.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but, to paraphrase, you said that retention will not contribute to overall numbers. If you retain an experienced police officer who otherwise would have taken retirement and gone off to do his or her garden, you have held on to somebody whom you would have lost. Presumably, in real terms, that contributes to an increase in your numbers.
If she retired to do her gardening, we would recruit another officer to replace her. If she stayed, we would be unable to recruit, because we would use the money to pay her salary. Retention does not add to the absolute numbers, but it does add in terms of experience and skills.
As we heard earlier, it also adds a significant amount to the wage bill, because of the differential between the pay of new recruits and the pay of experienced police officers who are retained.
We have such officers' salaries in the budget. I agree that if we used the 30-plus scheme as a way of retaining additional officers, and we therefore provided funding to retain them, that would be more expensive than recruiting new officers. However, as Mr Strang said, the other side of the coin is that we would retain a significant amount of additional experience.
I will try to ask my next question without being party political. First, we were promised 1,000 additional officers—we could say 1,000 additional new officers or 1,000 new recruits. We understood that. We moved to a situation in which we were told that the extra capacity would be delivered with 500 new recruits and 500 retained and redeployed officers. However, you have told us this morning that we cannot think of retention contributing to an increase in the overall number, for the reason that you have given. I do not understand. Are you saying that the cabinet secretary has made a spurious claim, because retaining 250 officers would contribute no extra officers to communities?
Retaining 250 officers without additional funding would not add to the numbers, because we currently have those officers. However, we do not know the detail about the £54 million and whether money will be available to augment the 30-plus scheme, to make staying on more attractive for officers and to provide funding for those additional officers.
Okay.
Should we adhere to the principle of the 30-plus scheme? Is it a good thing for the force to ask people who have served for 30 to 35 years to stay on? Is that good for the regeneration of the force? Should we be encouraging young recruits to progress through the force, as has happened for at least 30 years?
I echo what Mr Gordon said: the organisation can decide whether to offer someone re-employment under the 30-plus scheme. We should not misunderstand the scheme. Police officers do not have to retire after 30 years; that is when they reach their pensionable service. If a person joined the force when they were 18 and a half, they can retire when they are 48 and a half. Some police officers retire after 30 years, but others stay on for a further five or six years. It is for individual officers to choose when they want to retire, as long as their performance is satisfactory.
Is it a good thing for officers who want to progress through the force to see that senior officers are staying on and perhaps limiting their opportunities for progression? In parts of the health service, new recruits have not been able to progress through the system, because people at the top end are not moving to other employment. Have you assessed the situation? The 30-plus scheme might provide a quick fix to the problem of police numbers, but is it good for hungry young recruits who want to get on in the force? They might not be hungry if they think that the people at the top will stay on for another 10 years.
First, the numbers are small. Lothian and Borders Police has 15 officers on the 30-plus scheme, of whom all bar two are in the ranks of constable and sergeant—so it is not about blocking access to more senior posts. Secondly, I would not make a blanket statement that keeping people on is unhelpful because it blocks opportunities; there are plenty opportunities and we should retain officers who are delivering a good service to the public if they are willing to stay on. An officer who was not making a positive contribution would not be offered contract renewal under 30-plus. The scheme does not have the detrimental impact that you speculate it might have.
When an officer—a constable, for example—reaches his 50s or 60s and is not able to carry out front-line duties out on the beat, would you accept him carrying out a more civilian role as part of his duties, or would you rather have an officer working at full capacity?
At the moment we have officers who are serving in specialist roles who do not necessarily need to be able to perform the full function. However, if a job can be done by civilian or support staff and does not need the experience or powers of a police officer, employing civilian or support staff to do it would be a more efficient use of resources.
Do you envisage a situation in which you would support officers working as community police officers at less than full capacity? [Interruption.]
People working as community police officers sound like front-line police officers who would need to be fit and able to do the full range of police duties.
Before I invite John Wilson to ask a question, I remind everyone to ensure that their phones are switched off. There is clearly some interference with the sound.
Thank you for letting me back in, convener. I want to follow up the question that Paul Martin asked. Mr Strang told us the profile of the officers who are retained under the 30-plus scheme in the Lothians. Would it be possible to get the overall profile of such officers in Scotland, from constable right up? Mr Strang seemed to suggest that the scheme was skewed heavily towards constables and sergeants. Is the picture the same throughout Scotland?
I do not know the answer, but we will get those figures for you. Of course, the vast majority of our officers are at constable and sergeant rank.
I seem to remember that last week we were told that, as well as operating the 30-plus scheme, some forces have an enhanced retention scheme—I think we were told that Strathclyde Police has an enhanced scheme to try to retain officers. Are you aware of any forces in Scotland that operate such schemes? If you cannot tell us today, could you give us that information in writing? Given that we have asked about the profile of the people who are staying on under the 30-plus scheme, I would not want us not to find out about others who are being retained under a force's own scheme that has a different name. I want to ensure that we have all the information about people who are being retained in the service.
I do not have information about the Strathclyde scheme to which you refer. However, the 30-plus scheme is regulated by police regulation, so I do not think that there will be schemes that are substantially different from it.
I refer to the 2 per cent efficiency savings. What scope do you see for further efficiency savings within the police?
We will concentrate on cashable savings. The areas in which we see the potential for such savings include procurement. We already have a number of collaborative arrangements between forces outwith the SPSA arrangements. A few years ago, all forces collaborated to purchase the new airwave radios, from which we generated significant cashable savings. Last year, we moved on to the covert radios, under the same system.
The ASPS submission highlights a few aspects. The first point is that much depends on the role of the police in the 21st century. We probably all accept that. Another aspect is duplication—things might be done eight times, under eight different procedures and policies. Another aspect is interpreting and translation services. I do not know whether you have read the submission.
I have not read it, but I am aware of the issues. Significant advancement has been made in the past couple of years, in all the ACPOS business areas, on opportunities for further collaboration. Chief constables have a duty to deliver on best value, which they take seriously; that is evident in the publication of our report on best value—this year's is the fifth. Best value is also important to chief constables, because they have the same aspirations as most people: to ensure that we get as much funding to operational policing as possible.
Stuart McMillan has identified something that has changed significantly in the past decade or so. There has been a move from having eight disparate forces to a much greater sense of our being the Scottish police service, with more consistency, collaborative working and similar practices across Scotland. At an operational level, work has been done to examine our capacity and capability for dealing with serious crime, public order and firearms incidents so that there is consistency of service throughout Scotland.
Mr Cross spoke about best value. The ASPS submission refers to contracts; in particular, it mentions the police clothing contract, about which there is some concern. I remind everyone on the committee, as well as the witnesses, that best value does not always mean the cheapest option. Can we get assurances that, when things are being purchased centrally, we are looking at best value and not simply the cheapest contract?
That is inherent in the arrangements that we seek to put in place. The uniform contract is continually reviewed. My understanding is that all forces are represented on that, and that any concerns that have been raised on the matter have been taken on board. That will be built into the next contract.
Do you think that the 2 per cent efficiency saving will be met?
Our intention is to do everything that we can to achieve the 2 per cent efficiency saving. At the moment, we have probably got cashable savings of over 1 per cent, or something in that region. However, we share that target of 2 per cent, and we recognise that we are no different from anyone else in that regard.
I want to return to a point that we might have missed. You were asked about the three parts of the equation for the increase in police numbers. You dealt with two parts perfectly satisfactorily but, on the other question, how much scope is there for redeployment?
We seek all the time to provide what the community wants, which is a responsive police service that tackles problems at source and does not just deal with their consequences. There is still scope for moving officers from office duties to front-line policing. However, as the number of people who are involved in specialisms and additional responsibilities such as the management of sex offenders increases, that becomes more of a challenge.
Another opportunity for redeployment lies in Mr Strang's comments on investment in new technology. He mentioned the work on PDAs that is going on at Lothian and Borders Police, which involves the use of technology and mobile data. Other measures can be used to free up police officers' time, including the carrying out of some tasks elsewhere and further civilianisation. We will seek to use a combination of those approaches to contribute towards meeting the target.
We are 30 years on from the Edmund-Davies review. Obviously, that will impact fairly severely on the number who are leaving. Is there not a danger that, in the short term, more officers will leave than can be recruited?
No. I mentioned our current recruitment pool, which is healthy. We have enough high-quality applicants coming forward to join the service. Over the next two or three years, recruitment will enable us to meet predicted retirals. The question is more one of resource than of real people.
In connection with resourcing, are you concerned about the possible increase in pension costs—it will probably be significant—given that it will have to be met from your central budget?
Yes. There are two aspects to the Edmund-Davies bulge. First, the way in which the police pension is funded means that we have to make provision for all officers who are eligible to retire at the point of retiral. We need to address that financial issue. Secondly, there is the question of how many officers will retire. As we heard, even without any enhanced or new 30-plus scheme, a number of police officers choose to continue beyond 30 years' service. Various reasons are involved in their decision to stay on or leave—the options change as time goes on. We do not expect that all those officers will leave when they can leave, but the requirement to provide for pension costs is a significant financial hit on our budgets.
Have you considered assessing that on a percentage basis? If so, do you know the percentage of officers who might take retirement? Could you hit crisis point in terms of funding those requirements?
In terms of the computation, we have to provide for 100 per cent, whether all of them go or not. Those are the accounting rules.
If 100 per cent of them were to say, "I want my pension", would that lead to financial crisis?
No. In our budgets, the first thing that we have to do is to provide for those costs. Pension costs are unavoidable: they are the product of the way in which the provision is funded at present. We raised the issue because it is a high-profile one for us. We need to ensure that the funding is available. We also made the case for moving away from the current situation—which serves only to provide volatility in police budgets—to one in which pensions are taken and funded centrally.
Is there an issue with the notice period within which officers have to give their decision to retire? I understand that the period is four weeks.
Yes, it is four weeks. We, too, would like more notice. The current period makes manpower planning a bit difficult, given that an officer can retire four weeks after giving notice. Of course, we also have set recruitment dates for officers who are entering the service. We propose an extension of the period between the officer leaving and the replacement entering the service.
In view of the recommendation, what length of notice should be given? I understand that it applies to all officers at all levels.
Yes.
The four-week notice period applies to all officers—even senior officers.
Senior officers may have a different contract.
For chief officers, the period is three months, but for others it is four weeks.
Do you have a recommendation on what would be an acceptable period?
We would like the period to be extended much further. In terms of the recommendation, we need to ensure that officers are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged as a result. In most organisations, for staff at the level at which police officers operate, two months is the minimum.
We asked the previous panel a question on the report that Professor Midwinter undertook on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation. Do you have any views on that?
That is another area in which my colleague said that I would provide the detail. I cannot answer the question on the Met; I do not know the impact that that would have on the overall funding for England and Wales.
We have talked quite a lot about possibilities for redeployment; you have been party to some of those discussions. Do you have any analysis of your officers' activities? I do not suggest for one moment that managing officers do not know what their staff are doing. However, in a previous existence, when I used to try to run a development department in a factory, for one week we wrote down what we did by the quarter hour—looking back in that way was quite instructive. Do we have any analysis?
Yes. We have run activity-based costings to inform the grant-aided expenditure distribution formula. However, as Nigel Don will know from his experience, doing such work is labour intensive, so we tend to sample part of the workforce for a short period of time, to give us a flavour of what officers are doing. That information, which is then broken down into broad categories such as crime investigation, road policing and administration, is therefore available.
It has been agreed that, from next year, all forces will undertake activity analysis exercises more regularly to inform the performance framework that we have been developing with some of our partners. Because such exercises are labour intensive, most forces are moving towards an electronically based system that goes back to the desktop. More of that type of information will therefore be available. It will still be a snapshot of the situation, but it will be taken more regularly.
As we have identified, much of our discussion on additional activities is a swings-and-roundabouts argument. For example, as my colleagues who are sitting to my right have pointed out, quite correctly, there has been a reduction in police activity as a result of the Bonomy reforms to the High Court, although, in fairness, not a lot of police officers spend a lot of time in the High Court. In addition, a significant saving can be quantified in respect of the escort duties that now no longer apply.
Yes. It would be possible to obtain that sort of information about officers who are involved in managing those activities full time. It is difficult to cost and see the benefit of some of the other burdens, or additional responsibilities, such as the involvement of the local chief superintendent in community planning under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which we fully support. However, I can provide the committee with information about the specific activities that are mentioned in paragraph 4.2.
That would be useful, because we need to reconcile the argument between the reduction in police activities and additional responsibilities rather than burdens.
On a point of clarification, it is not as if officers were not doing any work on protecting children from sex offenders prior to the legislation. Presumably it is quite difficult to quantify the difference between what was done before and the additional burden that falls on those same officers as a result of legislative changes.
You are right; it is difficult. If we are not counting something now, we cannot come back and count it later when things have changed because it has not been recorded. The other difficulty is that changes that are happening in the criminal justice system, such as changes to sentencing policy, might all have an impact on things such as antisocial behaviour or sex offender behaviour. Not only is it difficult to capture the current costs, but it is difficult to capture the effect of those changes.
We would be grateful if you could give us a paper on that. I appreciate that we have asked you for quite a lot of further information and figures. I will not narrate our requests at length; you can check the Official Report. If you require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the clerks. Thank you very much for attending. It has been a fairly lengthy session, but the committee has found it very valuable.
Thank you for your interest.
Meeting continued in private until 12:55.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation