This morning’s principal item of business is the first of two evidence-taking sessions for our draft budget scrutiny. A note has been prepared by our adviser, Eddie Frizzell, who is attending this morning, and a letter from the Public Audit Committee about the Scottish Police Services Authority has also been circulated to members, although I point out that it is probably of more relevance to next week’s meeting, when we will take evidence from that organisation.
As of 19 November, there are 17,383 police officers and 6,276 full-time equivalent police staff.
That is very helpful.
My understanding is that although next year’s budget contains a cash reduction of 2.6 per cent from our 2010-11 budget, there has been a commitment to maintain police officer numbers at the target number of 17,234. In a way, the answer to your question is that, if we are required to maintain police officer numbers, that will happen. As a consequence, the 2.6 per cent cash reduction, which is actually a 5 to 6 per cent real-terms reduction, will need to fall elsewhere in police budgets through efficiency savings, shared services and reduction in police support staff numbers. If there is a requirement to maintain police officer numbers, we will do that, because I understand that the budget is dependent on those numbers being maintained.
It is important to recognise that the establishments within police forces are made up of a number of factors. We have the funded base establishment, which was in place prior to April 2007, and the additional 1,000 officers were funded by the Scottish Government. There are officers, such as ports officers, who are funded by other grants, and there are officers who are funded by local authorities and by charging third parties, such as airports. There are also secondments to other organisations. Any of those elements can change during the course of a year, so it is very much a case of balancing all our resources and sources of funding so that we can maintain police officer numbers.
That is perfectly clear.
We fully support the drive to retain officer numbers, but we must ensure that there is a balance between front-line operational policing and the structure that is needed to support the front line. At times it is easy to regard the front line as the visible aspect of policing, but that can be a narrow and simplistic view. As we maintain officer numbers, there must be a focus on ensuring that police officers are out in communities exercising their powers and protecting communities.
Officer numbers can be maintained—indeed, as Mr Strang and Doug Cross said, the draft budget is conditional on that being delivered.
I think that there is a consensus.
At a time when there is a drive to maintain police officer numbers, it would seem anomalous to dispose, through regulation A19, of the very individuals who have contributed a great deal to the police service. We cannot overnight replace the skills and experience of an individual who has more than 30 years’ pensionable service. I would like to think that the proposals on A19 would be disregarded, if for no reasons other than humanity and the need to give individuals the opportunity to leave the service with dignity.
I would put a different emphasis on the issue. Nobody is talking about early retirement: the A19 provision is that officers who have completed 30 years’ pensionable service can retire on a full pension.
You said that the current figure is 17,383 and that the 1,000 additional officers relates to a target figure of 17,234. There is a difference of 149. Given that there are eight police forces in Scotland, how will you co-ordinate across those forces any decline—assuming that that is likely—from 17,383 towards 17,234? If one police force—for example, the biggest one, which is Strathclyde—loses a lot of officers, the figure might still be above 17,234 but it would leave no room for other forces to reduce their numbers slightly.
The figures that I have given are collated figures from the eight forces and from people on central service. There is no mechanism for co-ordinating that across Scotland. Each police authority and each police force has its own budget and makes its own decisions about what is spent on equipment, police support staff and police officers. We anticipate managing it by having a pro rata number for each force, so that each of the eight forces knows what its proportion is—in my case it is 18 per cent of police officer numbers—which becomes the target for that force. It would be a matter for each police authority and police force to ensure that they deliver those overall police officer numbers in line with the commitment that has been given.
Has that been agreed between the eight police boards?
At the outset, back in April 2007, there was a figure for each police force and the additional 1,000 officers were apportioned between the forces on the basis of a formula, so each force is aware of what its target is as part of the 17,234. Of course, there will be some oversight from ACPOS’s personnel and training business area and also from my finance management business area. We will be very interested in ensuring that there is progress on the numbers. Of course, under the terms of the budget settlement, it will also be a matter of interest for police boards and councils in relation to the funding that they will receive and what the position may be if the number should fall below that figure.
Paragraph 3.8 of ACPOS’s written submission refers to the effects of the remaining part of the police pay deal, which runs until August 2011. You indicate that it adds
The 3 per cent figure relates specifically to 2011-12. It is primarily a consequence of the fact that police officers and police staff are in year 3 of a three-year pay deal, which runs from September through to 31 August, so the remaining five months of pay deals, plus increments, plus anticipated employers’ costs such as national insurance and so on effectively contribute to that 3 per cent impact in 2011-12.
I do not fully understand why increments should be an issue. It seems to me that increments, as Mr Strang in effect said earlier, come in at one end and go out the other as the balance of the force changes. Why should increments be an issue in immediate budgetary terms?
It is more of an issue latterly because of the fact that we have just brought in an additional 1,000 police officers over a very short period, which is a significant increase. All those officers will, in effect, be working through the pay scales and will have increments. We anticipate that, because of the terms of the settlement, fewer officers will leave, so the likelihood is that there will be less offset from officers at the top end retiring and compensating for those coming through on increments.
The general point that you make in paragraph 3.8 of your submission is that there will be a real-terms impact on the police budget of 6 per cent. To repeat the convener’s question, are you confident that you can maintain police numbers in that context?
We must, in effect, find the 6 per cent from about a third of our budget, which equates to a real-terms cut of 18 per cent from that part of the budget. We are looking at every aspect of force budgets—all the efficiencies that we can generate, from every angle. As Mr Strang said, it is inevitable that there will also be a reduction in police staff numbers, because that is the only place to which we can go after we have generated the efficiencies that do not impact on police officer or police staff numbers.
You mentioned that each force had a base figure back in 2007. In 2007, the figure for Northern Constabulary was 707, whereas earlier this year it was 798. A quick calculation shows that that is an increase of roughly 13 per cent, whereas the overall increase of 1,000 on the base figure of 16,000 officers is about 6 per cent. Are those figures absolute? Will Northern Constabulary need to lose 91 officers to go back to the figure of 707—a 13 per cent reduction—or will there be room for discussion between forces to ensure that forces that have managed to get in additional front-line police officers, perhaps by cutting the number of support staff and so on, are not unduly penalised?
The 1,000 additional officers to whom we refer are Scottish Government-funded additional officers. In addition, Lothian and Borders Police has local authority-funded officers; the City of Edinburgh Council funds about 100 additional officers. There are other sources of funding for additional officers.
In theory, Northern Constabulary could lose roughly 40 officers and still meet the target. It has 91 additional officers, which represents an increase of about 13 per cent; the overall figure of 1,000 officers represents an increase of 6 per cent. If Northern Constabulary lost half of those 91 officers, it would achieve the figure of 6 per cent.
I do not have specific details for Northern Constabulary. I have already indicated that there are 17,383 police officers in Scotland. Across Scotland, we could lose 149 police officers and still be above the target of 17,234, because in 2007 there were 16,234 police officers in Scotland.
It would be best for us to seek the figure for Northern Constabulary from the force’s chief constable.
Many figures were bandied about prior to the budget’s publication. The Scottish Police Federation referred to a potential squeeze of £88 million, resulting in the potential loss of 2,800 officers. Following the budget’s publication, ACPOS has identified a cash reduction of £25 million and a reduction in capital of £4.6 million.
I am happy to answer that. We plan over a three or four-year period, and the announcement of the indicative reduction in public sector budgets over the next four years has informed a lot of the work that we have been doing since the United Kingdom election.
We have some concerns about short-termism and the pressures that are put on chief constables and police boards to balance their books and prepare their budgets for the end of the financial year. It is a big challenge that we face, and there is potential for a loss of people, skills and experience from the service.
Mr Steele, does the federation have a view on the matter?
I am mindful of the fact that I am sitting in a Parliament full of politicians and that, when it comes to politics, it might be best for the Scottish Police Federation to leave that to those who are asking the questions on this occasion.
You do not do a bad job, nonetheless.
On the question whether it is ideal that we have a one-year budget as opposed to a three or four-year budget, the obvious answer is no—of course it is not ideal. However, we are mindful that politicians will continue to politick, no matter which party they come from. A one-year budget preceded the general election at Westminster, so it comes as no surprise that a one-year budget precedes the Scottish election.
Let us move on from the operational front line.
I have a question on support staff. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that non-police staff account for about a third of the police workforce, although some of them could be doing police work—I presume that they would not all be classified as support staff. The number of support staff in 2008-09 was 6,440; in 2009-10, the number had gone up to 6,517. However, Chief Constable Strang said that the number is now 6,276, which is down by 341 since April. Given the fact that there has been a fairly substantial reduction in the number of support staff already this year, do you feel that there is a need for a further significant reduction over the next year? If that is going to happen, can it be done without redundancies?
The answer to your first question is that there will need to be a subsequent reduction in police support staff numbers. If police officer numbers are protected in absolute terms but there is a disproportionate cut, as Doug Cross said, in the budget for others, that will affect police support staff numbers.
Does anyone else wish to comment?
As I said earlier, it is all about striking a balance. It would be a concern if we were to reduce the support staff element that is available across the country and got to a position in which we had to withdraw highly trained, experienced police officers from communities to perform some type of office duty or support function. I do not think that that would be cost effective; more important, it would not be a good use of police resources.
We have a situation in Scotland in which the average support staff to police ratio is about 1:2.5 to 1:2.7, which is one of the highest that I have ever encountered. I was over in Ireland fairly recently, where the ratio of support staff to police is in the region of between 1:9 and 1:20.
You indicated that the ratio of ancillary staff to police officers is less than 1:3 in Scotland whereas, in Northern Ireland, it is 1:9. That is an important point. Are you satisfied that it is an apposite comparison?
It was not Northern Ireland but the south of Ireland. I met my counterpart from the Garda Representative Association in the past few weeks. That was certainly the figure that he presented to me.
Are you satisfied that it is a realistic comparison?
I can only go on the information that I have been given. The research that I have undertaken indicates that there is a structural difference, in that the support staff in Ireland are allied to all areas of the public sector; they are not employed directly by the Garda Síochána. They are, in effect, civil servants who are allocated to not only the police service but the fire service and other areas of public sector work. They have a career structure within the civil service that allows them to work between any of its different areas.
I take it that the Scottish Police Federation does not represent the interests of the support staff. Is that a reasonable assumption? I ask for the avoidance of doubt.
That takes us back to the convener’s opening comments about asking a question to which you know the answer. [Laughter.] We do not represent the interests of the support staff.
I did not think that you did.
I will ask Doug Cross to talk about the numbers in detail, but they are of that order. It is not so much a planning assumption as that the simple mathematics lead us to that sort of number.
It is not unfair to assume a reduction of 1,200 in support staff, although that figure is higher than we anticipate at the moment.
Can you give us any flavour of the divide between the civilianised police officer sort of staff and the backroom ones: the 6,000-odd that you are talking about?
That is extremely difficult to do, because the process that the forces are going through is about voluntary redundancy and early retirement—people who effectively volunteer to leave the service.
I do not mean the numbers that you are losing but the current numbers—the 6,000 in post. I just want a flavour. I appreciate that it is subject to definitional issues.
I would not like to speculate at this point. We might be able to provide that information later.
Understandably, that is quite a difficult question.
I appreciate that. Is it a one-for-one substitution? If you take out one civilian staff member, such as a custody officer or whatever, will they be replaced by one police officer, or is that too simplistic a view?
To carry out the function, it might be a one-for-one substitution, but there would be a difference between the cost of employing a police officer in that role and the cost of employing a custody officer.
According to the figures that we have and the figure that the chief constable mentioned, 341 support staff have already gone since April this year. You said that 1,200 would be a bit on the high side. It looks as if in the current year you are already a third of the way to getting the reduction in the budgets that you are going to need for next year. We are looking at a one-year budget. There will be a major review of public services, which could change things considerably. It is very difficult for any of us to know where that will lead. There could be significant savings for following years. Do you accept that you are a good way down the road already this year, having reduced the number of support staff to that extent?
It would not be right to put the reduction of 341 alongside the target that was mentioned. You suggested that we are about a third of the way there. Like funding for police officers, funding for police staff comes through various mechanisms. Some of them are funded through local authorities and some are funded by direct grants. The police budgets have been under pressure this year, there has already been a reduction in police staff, and there will be vacancy management. Some of that will be about preparing ourselves for 2011-12, but some of it will be about staying within our budgets for 2010-11. There will be some dividend and contribution from that, but not necessarily the full 341.
It is sometimes very difficult to establish where the front line starts and the back office ends. What we are talking about is people’s lives, not just numbers, percentages and reductions. We are talking about important and valued members of the police family. The support staff who have been with various forces over many years are highly skilled—they have many skills—and have much to offer the service. Although it is an area in which we will see a reduction, we have to remember that we are talking about people’s lives—people who have been committed and loyal to the police service throughout Scotland.
We are conscious of that.
Okay, but I have not finished asking about support staff yet. I thank Mr O’Connor for bringing us back on to that point, because I have always seen support staff as an integral part of the police operation, and I know that my community and serving police officers in the area that I represent do, too. I recently met support staff, who are really doing a good job. I shudder to think what is going to happen when we reduce the numbers and how the police will be able to continue to make our communities feel safe, as Mr Steele said earlier.
It is fair to say that we have been asked very much about the police officer numbers. However, I am glad that you raise the issue of the outcomes that we are delivering, which are much more important. We are very much focused on the question of the outcomes that communities want. When you consider the outcomes rather than the inputs, it is evident that policing over the past four years has been enormously successful. Crime is down, detection rates are up and fewer people are killed and injured on the roads. I should also mention our partnership work on preventing crime through the package of early intervention, child protection, managing sex offenders and so on. Lots of things have contributed to making every community across Scotland safer. The latest crime and justice household survey showed not only that the numbers were going down but that people were beginning to acknowledge that crime was not rising in their area, and a high percentage of people said that they felt safer.
I am sorry to address this question directly to you, Mr Strang but, in order to deliver the same outcomes while saving money, is the only way in which you can make those savings—given that you cannot reduce the number of officers below whatever number you have—to pay off a couple of support staff, who might be investigative support staff or perhaps turnkeys? In order to maintain that number of officers, will you have to make life much more difficult for yourselves and take police off the street?
I welcome the fact that Parliament voted to spend that money on policing. I do not want in any way to be churlish about that. There has been greater investment in policing over the past three or four years, and that has led to a better policing service, greater engagement with communities and better outcomes. I would prefer that level of funding to remain and for chief constables to retain their flexibility. However, as has been said, if the money is conditional on the number of police officers being maintained, we have no option, and we will maintain that number. Our first consideration will be to examine whether we can reduce the number of back-office staff or do certain things more efficiently. Those will be the areas in which, in the first instance, we will seek to reduce spend. However, I cannot deny that, ultimately, we might have to reduce police staff and take an officer off the street to do their work, in order to maintain police officer numbers. However, that would be our last resort, not our first.
The Justice Committee has spoken about support staff before. Do you still believe that support staff are as important to your objective of delivering safe communities as is the number of police officers?
The police staff’s functions are hugely important. Our force communication centre, which takes every call from the public, is 90 per cent staffed by police staff, who are specifically trained for that job and work in shifts. Many of them have been working there for five or 10 years, which provides greater continuity than would be provided if we used police officers to do their job, as there would be a greater turnover of police officers. The issue also involves people such as forensic scientists and analysts.
Do you want to add something, Mr O’Connor?
I want just to make the point that the police have changed significantly over the past decade. We have heavily invested in community safety, youth-related activities and all the things that are intended to divert people away from crime and antisocial behaviour and which work well. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about the core functions of policing as laid out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Those are
The committee did a report on that subject and I recommend that you read it. I cannot remember when we published it—was it 2007 or 2008? It makes for a wonderful read.
It was at the start of 2008. Let us move on to pensions.
Is the same cash provision of £217.3 million, as in the current budget, sufficient to meet police pension costs in 2011-12?
The figures come from information that we provided to the Scottish Government; the estimates should be sufficient to meet police pension costs.
Are you reasonably reassured, Mr Steele and Mr O’Connor?
It is always reassuring to hear that the money is there for pensions. [Laughter.]
I thought that it might be.
So the figures are based on calculations that the police gave to Scottish ministers.
As you will understand, the centralisation of police pensions is relatively new so we provide a quarterly return, which gives our best estimate of the number of officers that we think will retire in the course of the year. That is not always easy to estimate, but we have a go at it. As for the overall costs, we tend to project that a significant number of police officers who are eligible to retire will retire. I suspect that during 2011-12, those numbers will be lower than in normal years as we protect police officer numbers.
If a police officer is eligible to retire and applies to their board for retirement, is that automatically agreed to?
If a police officer applies for retirement, yes.
If they have the eligible years.
Yes, if they have the pensionable service. Anytime after 25 years’ service, a police officer can apply to retire and get their pension. However, the other side of the coin of course is that police officers quite often exceed 30 years and choose to stay on.
You said that because of the requirement to keep police numbers up fewer people might retire. How does that work?
There was talk earlier on about the likely use of regulation A19. It is less likely to be applied during 2011-12. We have found in the past couple of years that there has been a general slowing down in the number of police officers who retire; that is, more are going beyond their 30 years. We anticipate that that is likely to continue. Even if the level stays as it is at present, I do not think that it will result in an underprovision for police pensions within the Scottish Government budget.
Is it good or bad for the overall police pension scheme if people go on for longer?
In overall terms, it is probably preferable for the police pension scheme because it means that those officers are continuing to pay in their 11 per cent pension contributions without taking out all their benefits when they reach 30 years. From that aspect, if we look purely at the police pension arrangements, it is probably favourable.
Mr Strang outlined earlier the role and the different functions of the police, and Mr O’Connor said that how the police operate has changed because of partnership working and so on. I am aware that things such as operation reclaim in Glasgow and the Inverclyde initiative have contributed to crime reductions in the communities involved of—so we are told—somewhere in the region of a third. Obviously, therefore, those wider, non-core functions are of some importance. Against that background, is there an agreed view across the police service on which of the police’s various activities should have the highest priority at a time of tighter budgets?
That is an interesting question, because things vary according to, for example, the threat level from terrorism; if the threat level were to rise again, that would become our priority and we would put officers into it. However, I would put a slightly different emphasis on what David O’Connor said about core policing. I think that he was going back to the 1967 act approach of “guard, patrol and watch”, but things have moved on hugely. Community safety is a core activity of policing. Our policing role is almost defined by the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which gives a statutory duty to be engaged in community planning with our partners.
Are you expressing an old-fashioned view, Mr O’Connor?
Perhaps, but I fully agree that initiatives such as the safe highlander programme, choices for life, operation youth advantage, late night football, street football, street rugby and others that have been introduced in Scotland are all important in diverting young people away from crime and antisocial behaviour and in teaching them life skills and about rules, rights and responsibilities. There is no doubt that we have a role to play in that, but other agencies and, more important, communities, parents and other family members need to get involved in those activities.
Do you hold a different view, Mr Steele?
Not fundamentally different—in any case, I am too young to have an old-fashioned view of anything.
I suspect that the community will be reassured by those answers but the underlying point seems to be the importance of deploying police officers on the street in a variety of different ways. I came across a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary from eight years ago that said that, at any one time, only 33 per cent of officers were available for deployment within a 24-hour period. I guess that, with the changes that have been introduced, that situation will have changed a bit in the intervening eight years. To what extent are you still dealing with issues such as court time and back-office functions being carried out by police officers rather than support staff and has there been any work to improve those figures?
Patrolling is important, but many other very important functions are not carried out by men and women in yellow jackets on the streets. For example, you will not see out in uniform the special branch officers who provide national security and safety and are involved in counterterrorism, while other officers are involved with online child protection and investigating computer crime.
That is an interesting area. It would be useful and helpful to the committee if you could give us a written update on the progress that is being made there. Is that possible?
Yes, certainly. The work is being undertaken under the auspices of the justice outcomes group, which used to be the national criminal justice board. It is looking at making justice more effective and efficient.
Are all the forces throughout Scotland equally prepared to face the budgetary challenges? It is notable—Dave Thompson touched on this—that support staff numbers are going up in some areas and down in others. There appear to be different levels of preparedness. Can we be reassured that forces throughout Scotland are equally engaged in the exercise, and with considerable effect?
I think that we can be reassured that every force and every police board will be fully engaged, and will have been for some time. They might be at different stages and they might have different issues to deal with, so the solutions might differ between forces in terms of the numbers of police staff and so on. However, every force finance officer I have spoken to has been able to provide the background to the efficiencies that they are looking at across the piece. A range of things are being considered, from reductions in allowances to overtime, non-staff-cost budgets and vacancy management, which we talked about earlier. The whole gamut of the police budget is being looked at.
At this point, we will move on to shared services.
A number of panel members have already touched on the issue, but what progress is being made on shared services between police forces and between police forces and other public sector bodies? What savings do you expect to see in the coming year, 2011-12?
We already have the Scottish Police Services Authority and, for a long time, we have shared training at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan. Information and communication technology has been a shared service since 2008. Forensic science is now a shared service under the SPSA, and the criminal justice information service is in one place. On the operational front, we have shared services such as the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the counterterrorism intelligence unit, and there is a major investigation, co-ordination and development unit. There are a number of operational units where we come together to do things once rather than eight times.
As Mr Strang has said, there is quite a lot of activity going on both within the police service and with local authority partners, some of which is at an early stage. To make shared services truly effective, some up-front investment is likely required. There are usually infrastructure or ICT issues to be addressed to make the shared services work more effectively but, at present, the pump-priming funding for that is not available.
That is interesting. Your written submission states that the efficiency productivity steering group, which Mr Strang mentioned and to which you have alluded, “identified 23 support functions” but found that savings in those areas
Although huge numbers of people may not be involved in the functions to which you refer, you are right to say that every area should be looked at. We have made the point that we will look at everything. We will look last at front-line staff, whether they be front-line police or police staff in front-line roles, whose absence would result in police officers being taken off front-line duties. As you suggest, we may find not that greater efficiencies are made, resulting in lower costs, but that fewer things are done. Over the coming years, as the financial position gets tighter, we may have to accept a reduced service in some areas. Some functions come under great scrutiny from audit and other inspection bodies, but there may need to be a recognition that forces cannot cover all areas and that, consequently, there must be reductions.
The police service must look at every opportunity to share services with other blue-light emergency services, between forces and with local authorities. We must do that work here and now. We need to look at every opportunity to share services and to introduce collaborative arrangements, but boundary, border and structure issues must also be part of the debate. Will shared services free up sufficient efficiency savings, or must we look more widely at the strategic direction of policing and the public sector?
David O’Connor makes a valid point about the issue of borders and boundaries. Each police force may be working with the local authorities within whose areas it operates, but there are opportunities for police officers in Nairn to get benefit from working with elements of the local authority in Elgin, given that they are cheek by jowl. The difficulty comes from the current mindsets in the police service. In the Highlands and Islands, the police share services with Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and the Highland Council, but to gain the full benefit of what could be offered we must go beyond those areas.
Chief Constable Strang talked about the importance of ICT in the context of shared services. The Public Audit Committee has drawn our attention to Audit Scotland’s recent report, “The Scottish Police Services Authority”, which contained criticism of the SPSA for not being able to meet customers’ ICT needs. What improvements could the SPSA make to bring it more in tune with customers’ needs in relation to ICT and other areas? How could the SPSA be geared up to contribute more positively to the shared services agenda?
The SPSA is still a relatively new organisation—it is three years old. Some of its functions, such as the Scottish Police College and the SCDEA, were already shared services, and it has begun to bring together other services, such as forensic science and ICT. The report that you mentioned and the Scottish Government-funded review led to several recommendations on exactly the improvements that you asked about, which would make the authority responsive to customer needs. I think that mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the SPSA is better aware of the demands of the eight forces on ICT and forensic science and across the range of services that they provide.
I thank the witnesses for their perseverance during the past hour and a quarter. I hope that I will not detain you for too long. The question that still worries me is what will happen towards the end of the financial year, when chief constables have to make their budgets balance but the many aspects that we talked about might not be converging on the number that you are looking for. Am I right in thinking that overtime is your last variable?
Overtime is certainly a variable and every force is looking to reduce its overtime spend. I hope that we would not get to the end of the financial year in the position that you described. We are planning for the financial year. In the past, the crude but effective mechanism that we have used for managing the budget is to do with recruitment; we do our projections, look at the profile and number of staff who are retiring and make a decision about recruiting. During the past four years we have been in the fortunate position of being able to increase numbers in all forces.
Cathie Craigie has a question—unless she feels that it has been answered.
I think that it has been.
I have a small supplementary to Mr Don’s question.
All staff conditions and allowances are negotiated through the Police Negotiating Board, which is a UK-wide organisation.
Just out of fairness, I should find out the views of Mr O’Connor and Mr Steele.
For me, the housing allowance and how it was reported in the press raised an obvious question: if the journalist is such a whizz at economics, why is he not working for the Parliament to try to solve the financial mess that we are in? It is a simple approach to take a particular allowance and, using a calculator, to multiply it by the number of police officers to make a determination about how many police officers could be saved, but the reality of the situation is somewhat different. There are, of course, legal issues.
Mr O’Connor, I take it that you have no interest to declare on this matter. [Laughter.]
I agree with Calum Steele. We fully accept that we need to share the pain. Our pay and conditions are negotiated nationally and mandated through the PNB. We are moving into an arena in which there will be a pay freeze across the public sector and there could be increases in pension contributions for police officers, along with increases in VAT and a number of changes to taxation and the like, so it would not be appropriate or right to consider one matter in isolation.
I am sure that everyone on the committee will agree with me when I say to Mr Steele that we do not take what journalists write as always being truthful, accurate and helpful.
Thank you all for coming. It has had to be a lengthy session because we face a fairly difficult economic situation and, like other budgets, the justice budget has taken a hit, so we require to go through it as thoroughly as we can.
I welcome the second panel of witnesses: Sandy Riddell, chair of the criminal justice standing committee of the Association of Directors of Social Work; Bailie Helen Wright, chair of the community justice authorities conveners group; Jim Hunter, chief officer of north Strathclyde community justice authority; and Gillian Little, chief officer of Glasgow community justice authority.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give oral evidence on the costs of community sentences. The eight community justice authorities promote the development of community sentences both as an alternative to short-term prison sentences and as a rehabilitative order. We have supported the implementation of the community payback order and are currently working with our local authorities and other partners to ensure readiness for it coming on stream on 1 February next year.
That is accepted. We will move to questions from Dave Thompson.
Good morning to you all and thanks very much for coming in today. The community justice budget got an increase of 0.7 per cent in cash terms, which is a real-terms reduction of 1.2 per cent. Given that around £6 million was put into that budget over the past year or so, what are the witnesses’ views on its capacity to cope and deal with what is ahead in the next year?
Mr Riddell, it might be appropriate if you began.
Thank you very much and good morning.
That is clear.
As Mr Riddell noted, there has been a 4 per cent increase in the workload of community justice services in recent years, which has clearly put quite a bit of pressure on them.
The budget settlement that we received was far better than we had hoped for. Most community justice authorities and local authorities in Scotland had expected and been planning for a substantial cut in the budget, so the settlement was welcome.
We will follow up certain aspects of the resources for and availability of the new community orders with Cathie Craigie.
Good morning, panel. Other members have mentioned the level of consideration that the committee gave to the evidence that we heard during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. We heard from organisations such as yours that community payback orders would be difficult to deliver unless they were properly resourced. We concluded:
Mr Riddell, will you open on that? We will then go to Mr Hunter. It is an important point.
Okay, convener. I think that some of what Mr Hunter has already said partly answers the question. A number of developments are being progressed with the CJAs, the ADSW, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government that we hope will release some capacity in existing finances. That will be important. For example, the new criminal justice social inquiry reports will be much shortened for more minor cases, which will release some time to deal with more complex cases. However, there are issues about progress courts and whether they will be for everyone or for the critical few, and there are issues about 16 and 17-year-olds who will require supervision, which will also create an additional workload.
When we considered the bill, the committee was concerned to ensure that, when a community payback order was handed down, the individual would be able to access appropriate programmes quickly and the required supervision and monitoring are in place. We thought that that would have a major impact on the budget, and people told us that the resources would have to be in place. Given what you have said, are you confident that you are getting enough resources to be able to act quickly and provide appropriate programmes?
It comes back to my earlier point about the impact on the ability of other agencies and third sector organisations to provide vital services to deal with, for example, substance misuse, employment and health matters. The question is whether those complementary but supporting services will still be there to enable us to respond with interventions that are appropriate and tailored to the offender’s needs, that take place at the right time, as quickly as possible and with the maximum effect, and that might reduce the cycle of reoffending.
Mr Kelly is right to suggest that the upward pressure on workload will come from the presumption against short sentences. Such a move must surely have an impact on reducing the short-term prison population, which will convert into a rise in the number of community orders.
Have you discussed with ministers the introduction of CPOs in February? Is there any leeway if you find that the budget does not cover the number of orders that you have to deal with?
As Mr Riddell made clear, from June, July or August next year, when the courts will start making CPOs, we will have to monitor closely the number of orders and where they are coming from. Although the pressure will come from the presumption against short sentences, we will have to keep our eye on justice of the peace courts, which will be able to make an order that they could not previously access. We will also need to work closely with the local authorities and the Scottish Government if we are to be able to switch resources to areas that become hot spots.
After spending some time in Aberdeen with those who were managing community service orders, I came to the conclusion that it would have made no difference to running costs if the work party that I saw had had six rather than four lads, and it might be argued on occasion that a small increase in numbers might make very little difference to your costs. Of course, if the maximum in a work party were six and a seventh person were suddenly added, the reverse problem could arise. Is there any scope to increase numbers without adding significantly to costs, or is the reality that when everything is added up an increase in numbers always means an increase in costs?
There is an issue with regard to capacity, but we need to remember that the unpaid work element is not the only component of a CPO and that the other requirements must be equally well resourced. That is where the wider alliance of partners comes into play, and the fact is that the pressures that they will face will also impact on us. Health services, for example, will be crucial in delivering requirements with regard to mental health.
I want to pursue the issue of the current position and the need for the new one. Perhaps I will direct this to Gillian Little, now that you have come into the discussion. Can you give us a flavour of how in the biggest authority—Glasgow City Council—the money for community sentences is being spent on the ground and what changes there might be in how it will be spent in the forthcoming financial year, with the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 coming into force?
You would probably be best talking to local government colleagues about the nuts and bolts of how money is spent on the ground. However, the community justice budget is split into core and non-core elements, with the core element focused on the staffing and resource to deliver court reports and the supervision of offenders. In Glasgow, we also have a commission service to deliver the unpaid work squads—that varies across the country. We have a non-core budget that also supports the provision of support and supervision to offenders—the rehabilitative elements—including a supported accommodation budget, a drugs court that provides intensive drug treatment testing, and a dedicated resource for women offenders in the city, the 218 project.
Just to develop that point a little bit, some of the organisations involved are from the voluntary sector. I know, for example, that the Glasgow north-west women’s group takes one or two community service order people at the moment. Obviously, there is personal flexibility there, which is useful. Is resource put into that, or are those things done by arrangement? How do you deal with outside providers in that regard?
There is a mixed economy, if you like, of squad placements. Some are commissioned from larger organisations with paid supervisors, and individual personal placements are supervised within local community groups. Those arrangements have been built up over the years. There is a range of providers across the city with very close links into teams. We want to build on both of those elements, because we realise that in working with offenders, one size does not fit all. We want to be able to get people into meaningful placements to do meaningful jobs, which we hope will lead to positive outcomes for both the community, in terms of payback, and the individuals themselves. We want to maintain that and grow it.
Mr Riddell, do you want to add anything? Can you comment on the question of the rehabilitative bits, which is not exactly a novel but an enhanced feature of the new CPOs to deal with drug addiction problems, literacy problems or whatever is part of the orders?
Gillian Little has put it very well. What is happening in Glasgow happens to a greater or lesser extent throughout the country. Over the years, a range of extremely good services has been developed not just with other statutory partners but in the voluntary sector. On a whole range of issues, such as mental health, employability and substance misuse in particular, there are extremely useful services that work very closely with criminal justice. As I have said already, there are concerns about the ability of those organisations—or some of them, at least—to continue, because funding does not simply come from criminal justice, social work or community justice authorities; it comes from a variety of sources, many of which are beginning to feel the financial squeeze, so being able to sustain, plan and manage those services in the medium to longer term is very challenging. Particularly when you cannot forecast far enough ahead, it is very difficult to protect some of the services.
The committee will take notice of your warning about wider revenue streams. At the other end, all the work is predicated on success in reducing reoffending rates. I think that I am right in saying that we have been told that the reoffending rate for some community orders is about 42 per cent; the potential to knock that down a bit is manifest. What evaluation is taking place of the effectiveness of spending by community justice authorities on such measures? It is arguable that services are patchy across the country and that practices differ. Are we looking at what works best and what change gets the best bang for our buck?
The situation is different in each of the eight CJA areas, as we deal with local issues in different ways. However, we have held several events, and conveners and chief officers come together regularly with Scottish Government civil servants to keep ourselves up to speed with what is happening. Sharing good practice is one element of that—we have started to do that in some of the Scottish Government management of offenders groups. There is a lot of good practice out there. If something is working in another area, we certainly want it in our area.
That is extremely important. Nationally, lessons are being learned and good practice is being shared. In the northern community justice authority, performance and outcomes are scrutinised closely. That raises issues, such as why results in one part of a CJA’s area differ slightly from those in another part, which leads to healthy debate. That has influenced and shaped some service developments that have taken place since the northern CJA was established.
What happens nationally? How are evaluations and comparisons of authorities done? What information do you have to provide?
No arrangement is in place for national scrutiny. However, earlier this year, we put the case to Audit Scotland for it to audit the value for money of the eight community justice authorities and the grant allocation. Audit Scotland accepted that case, but the audit is not in next year’s audit programme—it is likely to be done in subsequent years; it is on the list. That might give us a start at comparing the eight community justice authorities and their different practices.
What is the reason for not doing the audit next year? Is it that the new orders will be introduced, so the situation will be allowed to settle down, or does it relate to a budgetary and timing issue of no principal significance?
The case that we put to Audit Scotland was that doing the audit next year would be good from our point of view, because we will have been established for five years and will be pretty settled organisations—our arrangements are pretty much in place, settled, tested and reviewed. We wished the audit to happen next year, but the decision was for Audit Scotland—I assume that the decision related to other burdens in its programme.
It could be that Audit Scotland wants to see how the new legislation beds in before it carries out the audit, which would be fairly logical.
Looking at next year, you will face a number of challenges. There will be a real-terms reduction in the budget, efficiency savings will have to be delivered, and the number of CPOs will increase as a result of new legislation. Can you meet all those challenges without harming service delivery?
That is a difficult question, because there is no precedent on which to base our prediction. However, as CJAs we have signed up to that and we will make it work. We are ready.
You will face three major challenges next year. Can you do all the work that you do and deal with the budget being tightened, the increase in the number of CPOs and making efficiency savings without harming any of the areas of the service that you currently provide?
As I said, we are up for trying. In certain areas, some CJAs might have serious problems with the budget.
Okay. Obviously, the budgets are going to be challenging. Do you anticipate any job losses? If so, can the jobs be lost without recourse to compulsory redundancies?
I can make a start with that. I do not think that anyone wants to see compulsory redundancies in any of the CJAs, local authorities or wider partnerships. When we review and restructure services, everything will be done to avoid compulsory redundancies, although there will probably be opportunities to save money through natural wastage and staff turnover during the three years.
Does anyone have a contrary view? Mr Riddell, you have a view, but it might not be contrary.
No, it is not contrary. I can add a bit to that. My anxiety was slightly echoed by our police colleagues on the previous panel. Because of the budgetary situation, local authorities and their partners are looking at what is strictly essential in statutory terms. The upstream preventive work is important, particularly for youth crime and other facets of the community justice system, and if it is pared back, there will be a double whammy in relation to trying to deliver CPOs. A lot of people will come into the system who would have been supported more appropriately at an earlier stage, and some services will not be around to support people in chronic need, which means that the scope of what criminal justice social work can do will be much more limited.
Do you have anything to say in conclusion, Bailie Wright?
It is difficult to be sure that there is sufficient money at this stage. It is like asking, how long is a piece of string? It depends upon whether sentencers use CPOs.
I thank you, Bailie Wright, and your colleagues for coming this morning, and for giving your answers thoroughly and clearly. It is greatly appreciated, and will help the committee in its deliberations. Thank you very much indeed.