Official Report 282KB pdf
Item 2 is the budget process. The purpose of today's joint meeting is to take evidence on the Scottish Executive's draft budget for 2007-08 and to consider the progress made against the efficiency targets that were published last year. Members should have copies of "Draft Budget 2007-08" and of the Scottish Executive's paper "Efficiency Outturn Report for 2005/06".
We are comfortable that the budgets that the Executive has set for 2006-07 and 2007-08 provide an adequate level of funding to allow us to accommodate the current prisoner population and the projected, slightly increased, prisoner population for those years and to achieve the targets for work with prisoners that ministers have set in our business plan.
Thank you for your estimate of what might happen if that bill were to be passed. On the figures that we are addressing today, when you produce your budgets, what variance in prison numbers do you automatically build into your thinking?
For quite a long time, the prison population has been rising at a rate of between 100 and 200 on figures in previous years. We allow for peak periods: the projections that the statisticians produce relate to the average number of prisoners and are averaged over the whole year. That said, there are significant seasonal variations for which we need to cater.
I want to develop that slightly. Given the decline in the long-term prisoner population and the increase in the short-term population, does not the concomitant increase in costs for the prison service relate to increased numbers of receptions, additional through-care and a higher number of discharges?
I am trying to find the answer. I think that the aggregate difference will not be great. On the one hand, the member is right in saying that an increased number of short-term prisoners will mean a greater number of receptions and higher level of churn. It is true that the first few days of imprisonment are relatively expensive; a lot has to be done on entry.
Certainly, a greater number of programmes and activities are associated with long-term prisoner stays.
Okay. So, at the end of the day, it is swings and roundabouts.
Yes.
You also mentioned home detention. In the Scottish Executive's submission, I note that £4 million has been allocated for home detention next year and £6.6 million for tagging. Was the £4 million figure driven by you or was the figure derived by the Executive?
I do not have those figures in front of me. There are two broad elements to what we call "tagging". One is that people might receive bail from sheriffs rather than imprisonment on remand as a result of a judgment about how safe it would be for them to remain in the community before trial. That is nothing to do with us because it is a diversion from imprisonment, which is helpful from the point of view of prison numbers.
So it is a transfer of costs.
That is right.
Let me ask the question that I was invited to ask. Annex A of your business plan provides your prisoner number projections up to the year 2014-15. All the variants show a rising trend over that period. What is driving your view that rises in prisoner numbers will continue? Are you simply looking over the stern of the boat and observing what happens, or are you assessing the present and future practice of the courts and the present and future policy of the Executive, leaving aside the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which you have already commented on?
Thank you for that. This may seem an arcane point, but it is worth making. Many people have a tendency to view the figures to which you have referred as forecasts that are similar to the financial forecasts that one might make, but they are not forecasts; they are projections that are based solely on previous patterns. They are worked out mathematically by examining patterns in receptions to prisons up to about 30 years ago.
I was going to make the point that in referring to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, you have succumbed to the temptation to look forward. Are there any proposals that are before Parliament or that are in prospect of coming before Parliament that might have an effect of any statistical significance on the number of prisoners?
The answer to that is no. As of Friday night, we had 7,131 prisoners. To that, we can add the number of offenders who are on home detention curfew because they would have been in prison but for that new initiative. There were 232 of them on Friday night. The total is 400 to 500 more than on the equivalent Friday last year, which is why I said that we are running ahead of trend. That is the case without the law being changed.
My question carries on from the previous question, although it is in a slightly different vein. There is obviously a problem with overall prisoner numbers and the number of places that you have. In other words, there is a problem of overcrowding. Do you have a timetable for addressing that?
We do. The current design capacity of the prison service—which changes week to week as we take cells out of use and put others into use—is 6,394 prisoners and, as I said, we have 7,131. Over a number of years, we have been used to coping with a good deal more than that. If Andrew McLellan, HM chief inspector of prisons, was here, he would tell you the manifold evils of high numbers and overcrowding and I would not want to contradict him but, at a small level, they can be coped with. Therefore, we contract with our prisons and the private prison for 6,710 places, but we are above that. The further it goes, the harder it gets.
I understand a lot of the work that is being done. I asked the question for two reasons. First, the design capacity that is shown in the chart in annex B of the Scottish Prison Service business plan for 2006 to 2008 never seems to reach the projected number of prisoners, although I presume that the 2008-09 figure, which gets closest to matching the number of prisoners, relates to Addiewell's coming into use.
Yes. We project 46 places spare then. As you can see, on present projections the yellow line—the population projection—keeps going up. That is the inexorable rise of 100 to 200 to which I referred.
So, despite all the things that you said in your answer to my first question, you still project a lack of capacity over a good number of years.
Yes.
The second reason for asking the question is that I understand that planning permission for Low Moss's replacement has been refused and that you are currently appealing that decision.
Yes. We applied for planning permission in 2003. Two years later, despite the fact that the planning department recommended granting permission subject to normal planning conditions, the councillors refused it. We appealed, hearings have been held and the last that we heard was that the reporter will deliver his report towards the end of the year. We wait hopefully. The matter will then go to the minister with responsibility for planning for a determination.
Will you enlighten us as to why permission was refused? I am particularly interested in the financial implications of that refusal on your projections, given that I presume that you expected to get planning permission first time round.
I was not as much of an expert on the planning system before all this, but I sort of am now. I am told by people who are more expert than I that waiting two years is not unusual. I do not know why the planning committee of East Dunbartonshire Council turned it down, although there seems to be a fear of having a bigger prison on that site. There is a prison there at the moment so we do not seek a change but an expansion of use, which the planning officials understood. I do not know why they refused permission, but they have the right to do that and we have the right to appeal. It is such a good site and we own the land that surrounds it as well as the bit on which the prison stands—
I know the site.
It is an excellent location. Not everyone wants a new prison nearby; it is not like a new school for which everybody would grant planning permission. Despite the fact that a prison is quite a good neighbour because it is not noisy and has no factory emissions or anything, people seem to feel that they do not want one next door to them. The refusal to grant planning permission might have had something to do with that. We can only do what we do and we have decided to stick with the site and see whether we can gain the necessary permission on appeal.
I am slightly confused because I assumed that you would have been given the reasons why permission was refused.
We were, but they were a bit vague. Only 24 hours earlier, our paper before the planning committee gave the reasons why it was a good idea.
You did not mention the financial implications of the refusal and consequent delay in the project, but I presume that there must be some.
It means that we cannot start the competition for the provision of the new facility as early as we would have done. We depend on the Executive to fund the new facility and after discussion with its finance director, we agreed that we have not entered a crisis; rather, we have had to retain Low Moss rather longer than we would have otherwise. Although a cost attaches to that, there would have been a cost in running the competition. It is a matter of phasing. There is no doubt that overcrowding is likely to be worse than it would have been otherwise during the period between closing Low Moss and getting the new jail—things have moved on and the population has risen. However, there has not been a huge financial impact on us.
I have expressed my concern about the delay, which is down to the decision of the local authority. Two years is far too long to wait and I hope that, subject to passing the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, local authorities will be more strategic when it comes to building prisons in the future, but that is for another day.
It would take some years. First, we would run a competition to decide the preferred bidder. If it were the SPS, we would build it; or rather, a builder would build it. If you are asking how long it would be before prisoners went through the gate, we are talking about four years, but that is subject to the market. It takes about two years to build the prison.
We do not have four years. How long would the competition procedure take?
That depends on the market. There is no set time. One puts a suitable notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and goes through the procurement procedures, which are extremely rigorous.
How long do you have to give? Is there a required length of time?
No, but it is normal to give sufficient time for the market to respond to the invitation to tender. After that, we go through the various procedures that are required in the public procurement rules. They take quite a long time.
What is the shortest time that you could do it in?
The tender process typically takes one to two years.
There is a difference between one year and two years.
It takes between one and two years.
Could you do it in a year? Do you have the will to do that? I am pressing you because I support the SPS's project to build at the Low Moss site. A new prison is needed for the west of Scotland and we need to find ways of speeding things up. Are you prepared to do that, where you have the power to do so?
There is no doubt that we are constrained and the will is there. If we get the green light, we are ready to go.
So you would be prepared to do the tendering process in as short a period as possible.
Absolutely, but we are not totally in control of the timetable.
If you could do it in a year, why does it take four years?
We should reflect that, at this stage in complex public projects that cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, it is not a good idea to give undertakings that things can be done on time and to budget because that might turn out not to be the case. We all know what those things are.
If the reporter does not find in your favour, is there a plan B? Where in the west of Scotland would the prison be sited if it was not on the Low Moss site?
There are a number of possibilities, none of which I want to reveal because doing so would take the pressure off the system.
But you have a plan B.
Yes.
Given the high prison population and the problems of overcrowding, coupled with the need to modernise and expand the prison estate, are you concerned that the resources that are allocated to the rehabilitation of prisoners might be squeezed?
The short answer is no. Not only have we managed to house the increased number of prisoners, but our annual reports show that in recent years we have made considerable strides in increasing education, offender-development hours and accredited programme hours and the number and volume of approved activities. We have no intention of reducing our efforts. The Parliament passed legislation that led to community justice authorities to try to reduce reoffending and tackle the causes of crime. We have a part to play in that, a central aspect of which is that we do what we can with prisoners while they are with us and we work as seamlessly as we can with the community. It is important that we protect and continue to expand our efforts on rehabilitation and care.
I will press you on that. What safeguards are put in place and what process do you have for monitoring rehabilitation and to ensure that the rehabilitation activities that are set out go ahead in the various prisons from day to day?
I referred to our contracts with our prisons. Each of those gives the prison a budget for the costs that the governor can control. It also contains many outputs that we wish to see over the year, not least of which are approved activities, programmes to address offending behaviour and various forms of learning or other useful activity, including work activity. Those are monitored and reported on to the Prison Service board monthly. We track progress. At our last board meeting, which took place earlier this month in Aberdeen prison, we were on schedule with all our programmes. We should meet the targets that ministers set in our business plan, which we sent to the committees in May. We track progress carefully.
So you monitor progress monthly and if anything needs to be done in a prison, steps are taken immediately.
Absolutely. If a prison cannot meet what might be called its quota on one aspect, we consider what might be done there or elsewhere to ensure that we are on track. In each of the past few years, we have exceeded the targets that we have been set for education and similar activities and for programmes to address offender behaviour, because of the priority that the Parliament and the Government place on that. We will continue to do that.
I know that programmes to address offender behaviour have targeted long-term prisoners rather than short-term prisoners, but the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 will make it necessary to address short-term prisoners' needs in that respect. If that means that more prison staff or bought-in services are required to provide realistic programmes, will that have implications for the budget?
You are correct to say that we have concentrated on prisoners with sentences of more than four years, although we have not done that exclusively. Through integrated case management in association with local authority social work departments, our psychology service providers and our education providers, we are trying to do more for short-term prisoners.
Are you considering prisoners with sentences of between one year and four years?
Such sentences provide a more sufficient period of time. Some programmes take quite a while and accreditation means that a good programme must be delivered to high standards, so it cannot be rushed in the first few weeks. I know from my many visits to prisons that, in the first week of imprisonment, 98 per cent of the women who go to Cornton Vale have drugs in their bloodstream, as do two thirds of men, so detox is the priority. We also have 15 per cent of our prison population on maintenance methadone. That is a much bigger priority for short-term prisoners than are prisoner programmes.
Are you confident that such programmes can be dealt with within the budget?
That will be the case if we assume that overcrowding does not worsen and can be ameliorated by our building programme.
I return to your comments on very short-term sentences, such as three-month sentences. Is not there an opportunity within that time to assess and address literacy and numeracy problems, which can be an underlying factor in offending and reoffending?
The short answer is no. The chaotic lifestyle and state of many of the people who come to us do not allow us to provide more than emergency care. The fact is that imprisonment cannot do much for very short-term prisoners. A previous Home Secretary said that that sort of imprisonment is an expensive way of making a bad person worse, and I would not disagree with that. All the problems that such a person had before coming into prison will still be there, plus the imprisonment, which tends to destabilise what little stability they might have had. It is certainly not a recipe for reducing crime.
That goes entirely against the Justice 1 Committee's report, which came to the opposite conclusion. Even if it is just a case of signposting those people towards help when they leave prison, something can be done. I do not accept that nothing can be done if someone is in prison day after day for 12 weeks. That is a long time to have somebody imprisoned when you could be helping them on a daily basis.
Using the Prison Service as a gateway to other public services is not a good policy.
Incidentally, I think that the quotation that you attributed to a previous Home Secretary was from Margaret Thatcher in 1976.
As committee members will know, an extensive consultation exercise was conducted by ministers last year, which we did on behalf of the Minister for Justice. At the end of the exercise, the minister decided that it would be useful to take the views of the community justice authorities, as a relevant new factor, so we have recently written to the chief officers of the eight CJAs asking them to comment on the outcome of the consultation exercise. We have asked for those comments by the end of November.
One obviously cannot bid for funds without having a view on what one is bidding to do. Without necessarily asking when it might come into the public gaze, I am asking when the next stage of your input to ministerial decision making will be delivered to the minister's in-tray. If the current minister is not in a position to make a decision, will that information be available to an incoming Administration, of whatever complexion, in May 2007?
I do not have anything more to say about the current timetable. We are subject to instructions from the Executive on the demand—and it is a demand, because nobody is denying that the conditions in Peterhead prison are unsuitable and that the buildings are damp. Aberdeen prison will also be involved, because it is one of our more overcrowded prisons. The story at Inverness prison is slightly different, but Aberdeen and Peterhead go together in the equation.
I think that it would be fair to say—to paraphrase Dickens—that Aberdeenshire Council is willing.
Incidentally, the quote earlier was from Douglas Hurd, who was Home Secretary.
Was it? I beg your pardon. I knew it was a Conservative though, so I was correct.
I am very pleased that Stewart Stevenson has been corrected by a witness on the record.
Yes—they are on the implications of slopping out continuing at Peterhead and Polmont, and on claims from ex-prisoners. How confident are you that the current financial provision for compensation claims following the Napier case is adequate? Do you have a timetable for resolving those claims? I understand that you await a judgment from the inner house of the Court of Session.
For the cases that are similar to the Napier case—that is, for people who claim that their health was directly affected by slopping out when there were two people in the cell—we have agreed with the representatives of some of the claimants that we will take test cases. There was also the case of Somerville and others v Scottish ministers, and Lady Paton made a judgment on the time bar in relation to that case. Cases are going to court and the Lady Paton case is being appealed in the inner house of the Court of Session.
We have been funded for all occurrences up to 31 March, as is recorded in our accounts. We will reassess the position for 2006-07 to see whether there are any further implications, but if nothing changes, we will be covered.
As I understand it, the amount included in your accounts relates to the Napier case. I am interested in the value of the compensation claims for the article 3 infringement; and in whether the 220 cases represent the total claim that will be made, or whether a deluge is heading towards us. Although I entirely accept that the Executive might be generous in funding such claims, I am sure that you will appreciate our view that the cost is one that, perhaps, did not need to be met from the budget at all.
I understand that point entirely. We continually try to make estimates of the crystallised amount of our exposure as a result of the Napier case and of the jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. That amount has been shown in our accounts and we continue to review it. In our most recent accounts, there is a sum of £58 million, which is the totality, plus a contingent liability of £27 million. In the previous year's account, those figures were £48 million or £49 million and £24 million, respectively. They have gone up a little bit as the assessment of the number of people who might be affected has risen.
You will have made a judgment on the implications and cost of losing that appeal. You have increased your budget by £13 million. If the appeal fails, what is the worst-case scenario likely to be?
In accordance with accounting guidance and legal advice, our accounts reflect those areas that are considered to be of greatest risk to the SPS. That is set aside in our provision. A lesser risk is recorded under contingent liability. In totality, we have regard to the assessment by the SPS and its legal advisers of where we are just now. In the accounts, we have included those to whom we have made offers as well as potential claims that might be made.
Does that take account of article 3 infringements as well?
Yes.
In short, the two figures together show the worst-case scenario.
The Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill is before the Parliament. I understand that you think that the bill is likely to have a significant financial consequence for the SPS, as you estimate that it is likely to result in an increase in prison numbers of around 700 to 1,100. What plans are in place to deal with that and when will the costs materialise?
The table on page 32 of the bill's financial memorandum sets out the recurring and non-recurring costs in year 1, as currently estimated, and the recurring costs in year 5. The figures are purely illustrative and exactly when any provision would be brought into effect will be a matter of political judgment. I cannot answer your question about when costs will materialise—you will tell me that, not the other way around.
We would be grateful if you could pass that to the clerks. On the subject of providing further evidence, will you also drop us a short note on the alternative dispute resolution scheme that you mentioned? That would be of general interest to the committee, although it is nothing to do with this budget.
As it happens, on 30 October and previously on 17 October, I provided those details in writing to the Audit Committee and copied the letters to the justice committees. The committees should already have both those letters, which give further details.
I apologise. It appears that those papers have been circulated along with the other papers for today's meeting.
On the issue of the 220 offers of compensation, I have written on that only this morning, as the offers have only recently been made and we are still waiting for people to confirm whether they will accept the compensation.
On the implications of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, when a member of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee on child sex offenders put a similar question to an SPS representative, we were told that there are unlikely to be any additional costs for sex offenders as they can all be absorbed by the SPS. Was he right or are you right?
Sorry, I am not sure which provision you are talking about.
In the context of the implications of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, we were told that there would be no impact on the custodial sentences of sex offenders and no additional cost because any costs could be absorbed. That does not quite sit with your evidence that the bill will result in additional cost because of the de facto increase in numbers.
The figures in the financial memorandum to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill refer not to sex offenders but to all offenders. I am not sure of the context of the previous discussion, but the bill will have no impact on long-term sex offenders because the removal of the automatic halving of short-term prison sentences will not affect the sentences of long-term sex offenders or, indeed, other long-term offenders. Therefore, both statements could be true. However, until I see the Official Report, I cannot comment definitively.
It will be helpful to have your comments once you have seen that.
On the proposed efficiency savings, the Executive's "Efficiency Technical Notes March 2006" states that the planned cash-releasing savings are dependent on several factors, including the opening of the two new prisons that we have discussed and whether the prisoner population projections fall within the expected parameters. Given the delay in building the prison at Low Moss and the fact that the rising trend in prisoner numbers was not anticipated in the projections, will those planned efficiency savings be achieved? Is it realistic to expect any planned efficiency savings?
The answer is yes. When our baseline budgets for 2006-07 and 2007-08—which is the budget that we are discussing—were set, savings of £7 million and £10 million had already been taken from those budgets in the expectation that we would manage within those lower numbers and thereby generate cash-releasing efficiencies of £7 million and £10 million in those two years. Nothing that I have said about the future of Low Moss and so forth really affects those savings because the new prison will not be built by 2007-08.
So you are confident that the target is not just a wish.
We are on target for the £7 million this year. If some catastrophe happens and the numbers rocket next year, that will be a different story, but as I sit here looking at the figures, which I reviewed with Graeme Hutton yesterday and today, I am confident that we will make the savings of £7 million and £10 million.
I thank Mr Cameron and his colleague for coming along and I apologise for the delayed start. We have much to get through this afternoon.
It is fair to say that when we have spoken to the committee previously, we have highlighted issues to do with the number of officers. In the current spending review period, several initiatives have been taken to increase the number of officers, but they have not happened in all of Scotland's eight police forces. Just before the spending review, an exercise was conducted to rebalance grant-aided expenditure distribution, as a consequence of which weighted sums were allocated to forces in an attempt to achieve a level playing field by the end of the spending review period.
Within the budget that we are addressing just now, do you see the situation being balanced, as you mentioned, through the GAE across all the forces in Scotland?
It will be balanced in accordance with the new GAE distribution. There is not a chief constable in Scotland who would say that he does not require additional officers, but we are all realistic. One of the major objectives as we entered the current spending review period was to achieve a level playing field across Scotland in terms of need. We believe that the distribution model that is now in place better reflects that need. We would like a bigger cake, although we think that the distribution is fairer than it was.
I have a final question on the same point. You mentioned the 2009 retirement figures. I presume that you will want to have in place trained and experienced officers long before then. Will the current budget allow you to go down that route?
The current budget will offset the peak of extractions. You will appreciate that the people who are going out the door are officers who have 30 years' experience and lots of specialist skills. Over the course of the current spending review, we have been advance recruiting in anticipation of that peak in order to do precisely what you say, which is to get people in and through training: we do not want to wait until the big peak in 2009 to try to recruit a high number of officers. That is a sensible approach and the police authorities have supported the advance recruitment strategy. All forces have been squeezing out money here and there to maximise recruitment at this time. There will come a day of reckoning because advance recruitment will have to level off at some stage in the future. However, we will have made substantial gains in having officers who will have at least two or three years' service ready to slot into the gaps that occur.
For clarity, can you confirm that the current budget will allow you to carry out that programme?
Indeed. Additional funding for that purpose—£3 million, to be precise—is being provided in the current year and next year, the final year of the spending review. We will also have £7 million for a levelling off, which will come into effect next year. All of that will undoubtedly contribute to sustaining and, probably, to increasing the number of officers over the period.
I have a short supplementary question on advance recruitment. If the experienced officers are still on board when that happens—if they have not left—that will lead to an increase in the total number of officers. When those experienced officers retire, will the total number of officers begin to fall?
Yes—unless we persuade the committee and the Justice Department to increase our budget so that we can maintain numbers. In Strathclyde, we have just over 200 officers more than we would have ordinarily, given our budget. That is a great advantage at the moment. We are having them trained, but unless something happens, the number will have to be reduced again in the future.
That is an interesting point. You said that there are more than 200 extra officers in Strathclyde. Do you expect that, as things stand, there will be a fall of 200 in the number of officers in Strathclyde in 2009-10? Can you give us the figure for the whole of Scotland?
I cannot do so at the moment. My difficulty is that no force now has a set figure for its establishment—the number of officers that it should have. Essentially, forces try to have as many officers and staff as the budget allows. The number will vary throughout Scotland.
ACPOS's written submission states that, after the deduction of certain moneys for specific purposes—such as pensions, which you have been telling the committee about year after year, and 2009 is not far away now, so part of the budget will be set aside for that purpose—there will be a net 3 per cent increase in the GAE to account for pay awards, other inflationary increases and new burdens. Will you outline what those other increases are and what new burdens you mean?
One of the difficulties that we face is that the police pay award has not been settled. There is a dispute at the Police Negotiating Board about the level of payment. The police-pay part of it is a 3 per cent increase, which is being negotiated at the moment. We await the outcome of that, as it will have a big impact on the total budget. Our support staff have already settled for a 3 per cent increase, which is part of a two-year pay deal. That makes up the bulk of the movement.
What would be the effect of the Justice Department taking the pensions into the centre? Superficially, it would perhaps just mean that the operational budgets could be understood. Would it make any actual difference to your budget?
It would have minimal impact on our budget, but it would be a much more effective way to manage the pensions budget. At the moment, we are compelled by auditors to provide in our budget for officers reaching 30 years of service. As a consequence, all forces have retained a reserve for pensions purposes. Legally, we are obliged to do that. It would be much more efficient to deal with all that money in one place. There are potential benefits in that and the liability would not change. As soon as police officers reach retirement age, they seek their pensions. Not all officers leave after 30 years' service: some stay on for 31 years. There is a bit of flexibility, so we think that the money could be better managed at the centre.
That is helpful to know. Perhaps we will ask the minister about that later. I wish to press you further on new burdens. You mentioned legislation, but could you be more specific? Are there any areas of legislation that you believe will add burdens to the policing budget?
I am not here to make special pleadings on behalf of the police service in relation to the additional legislative provisions that have been made, although I can pick out a number of things. The number of requests that we are now factoring through the service under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 is incredible. We have all had to put on additional staff to deal with FOI requests, and we have now had to appoint someone at national level in the ACPOS secretariat to co-ordinate the response to that requirement.
I am sure that we will note that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the terrorism situation, although there are clearly limitations on what one can discuss in an open forum. I assure you that we are very much engaged with the Justice Department in considering the threat from terrorism and that we are very much engaged with our colleagues south of the border in the new arrangements that are being put in place. Earlier this year, the Executive provided funding of about £700,000 to allow ACPOS to put in place national counter-terrorism arrangements. Those arrangements included the appointment of a national co-ordinator—John Corrigan, who is a member of my force whom some members will know.
When will we know about the bid?
When will I know whether it has been accepted? We have completed the bid and it has been presented to chief constables. As a consequence of that, there has been a request for a little bit more work to be done on it. I expect that it will be submitted to the Executive during November. We recognise the realities of the financial climate. The bid is constructed over a three-year period, during which there will be growth in people and facilities. That is all that I want to say in that regard.
You referred to Mr Cameron's evidence. If his prison-building programme does not proceed, there has been—shall we say—talk to the effect that the police will have to provide some short-term accommodation. Could you do that within your budget?
No—we would not be able to do that. I suspect that most members will have been to their local police stations and will know that we have a difficulty with the number of people who can be kept in single cells. As has been said, that is perhaps not the way to do things in the 21st century. Although we have accommodation, we have a problem with the number of people whom we detain at weekends, which leaves us very little capacity to accommodate others. If the Scottish Prison Service misses its target, that will present us with some difficulty.
Maureen Macmillan.
I did not realise that we had reached my question.
IT is probably one of the most exciting developments in the Scottish police service at the moment. We engaged with the shadow Scottish police services authority in a joint venture to create the national infrastructure for the Scottish police service, which we have aspired to achieve for some years but have failed to deliver.
I hope that comes to pass. I am worried about the robustness of some systems. Other organisations have spent a lot of money on IT systems that have not been effective. Are you quite certain that your systems are robust?
You will be well aware that the systems are business critical. We cannot afford to build risk into our IT infrastructure. All the plans are triangulated so that we are not dependent on a single source. That is a way to ensure that they are robust and that, in the event of power failure or a systems failure, we have another route to maintain business as usual.
The Justice 1 Committee is examining the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which deals with the McInnes reforms. I want to put to you two points that arise from that work. The contents of police reports that are sent to fiscals will change and greater emphasis will be placed on the use of undertakings—it will be possible for people to give undertakings to constables out on the beat rather than back at the police station. What resource implications do those proposals have? Will they have a positive or a negative effect?
The new police report is called the standard prosecution report 2. Assistant Chief Constable Kevin Smith is the lead ACPOS representative on that work, and we are working closely with the Crown Office to ensure that the technology that is required to deliver the new report to procurators fiscal is updated and fit for purpose. That is part of a national delivery programme. The most recent report that I had on the matter was that both the Crown Office and our people thought that good progress was being made.
Will the fact that it will be easier to obtain undertakings offset the expected increase in the number of undertakings, which could result in an increase in workload?
That is difficult to assess. It would be wrong to consider just one of the changes in the summary justice reform arrangements. Great gains have been made across the board as a result of the Bonomy reforms—we have all benefited from them. Although the reform of summary justice is a bigger and perhaps more complex challenge, it has a number of dimensions that we hope will achieve efficiencies, one of which is SPR2, as I have mentioned. We hope that the fixed-penalty arrangements that are in the wind will also enable savings to be made.
The briefings that the Justice 1 Committee has had on means warrants under the summary justice provisions of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill indicate that it would free up quite a bit of police time if you were not responsible for means warrants. What would you do with that time?
You have visited Strathclyde and know that we prioritise our warrants. Means warrants are at the lowest end of that prioritisation. The biggest gain will be to see justice being delivered. The reality is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the number of means warrants that we currently have and any time that is freed up will allow us to deliver better services to the public in a number of different ways.
Could you be more specific?
You will appreciate that we are not coping with the number of means warrants that we have and we do not have any spare capacity to give away. We hope that you will solve that problem for us.
I had hoped that you would be more specific. I would expect that, if we freed up time, you would give us a better service. Would you be likely to spend a bit more time on some of the bigger issues in relation to outstanding warrants, such as those for sex offenders, to give a topical example. Would you be likely to spend some of your time on those?
It would be wrong to suggest that we do not give the necessary priority to other warrants, because we do. It is difficult to say that, if we had 10 per cent more time, we would expend 10 per cent more effort on warrants; we focus on warrants a lot and are called to account by the courts for our performance on them. If a bit of bureaucracy is taken away from the service, that change clearly frees us up to address matters of greater priority. Warrants and sex offenders are of significant priority to us.
The Executive has indicated that it intends full commencement of the legislative provisions on the Scottish police services authority by April 2007. What financial provision has been made for that change, and will it have any effect on police efficiency?
The financial arrangements are still under discussion. We have been having meetings with the Executive and local government representatives on a budget transfer for the services that do not lie within the SPSA's ambit at the moment—forensic science, largely. Those discussions are reaching their conclusion. I will not say that the transfer will be painless because such transfers always leave some legacy behind them, but it should take place. I do not imagine that the budget transfer will be an impediment to the new arrangements being put in place.
You said that you hope to reach an agreement about the transfer of functions. When is that likely to happen? You also said that there would be an initial increase in costs and problems with efficiency until the new authority beds in and you gain from efficiencies further down the line. What is the timescale in which those gains will kick in?
We agreed with chief constables how much money we would hand over, although I do not think that the Executive entirely agreed that that is what we will hand over. We have scoped the size of the operation and at this stage we are sparring about how much must be handed over. Local authorities are involved, too.
The ACPOS annual report for 2005-06 says:
Savings have been achieved across the board. We submitted a best-value report, which sets out in detail how the efficiencies were made. In year 1, we had a target of cash savings of £4 million and efficiency savings of £10 million. We exceeded the target and achieved savings of around £32 million.
You have said that your investment is squeezed every year and that you are making efficiencies, and yet you are looking at a projected figure for 2007-08 of £50 million in time-releasing savings. Part of your response to that is that you are investing now to recoup the time-releasing savings in 2007-08. Is there anything else that you would like to add on how you plan to achieve that?
That investment is required if we are serious about the need to invest in infrastructure to deliver the savings that are possible. One of our frustrations is about the way in which the capital allocation arrangement operates. In the past few years, the police service capital grant has been in the region of £30 million, and a large chunk of that has had to go on the new airwave system, the associated control rooms and the like. A build-up of work is required to improve the fabric of some of our buildings, and we also want to invest more in technology. We have suggested that consideration be given to converting part of the capital grant—which is essentially cash—into an arrangement that would allow us to use that money for prudential borrowing, which would address some of the immediate needs of all the forces and would also help us to fulfil some of the ambitions that we all share for the new Scottish police services authority. We see plans coming into being and we have agreement and sign-off from all the parties involved, but we need to ensure that the ambition is matched with the right investment to deliver the efficiency savings that have been described.
That gives us something to think about.
I just want to pick up on the point about the £600,000 time-releasing savings related to the special constables reward scheme—not just because of Pat Shearer in Grampian, but because next year's budget shows the cost of that scheme as £1 million. Can you tell us, so that we can see the whole picture, whether there is an associated cost that goes with the £600,000 time-releasing savings in the current year?
The cost comes from the new arrangements to provide a reward to the special constables who give of their time. Through our work on best value and efficiency savings, we have for the first time been able to identify the work that the specials have been undertaking that has freed up police officers to carry out other duties. As we continue on the journey of efficiency savings we will get better at identifying and recording those costs.
I understand that. This tiny example goes to the heart of the issue of the balance between time-releasing and cash-releasing savings. The initiative sounds excellent and I have supported it from the outset. I just want to be clear about how its cash cost balances with the time-releasing savings.
This goes to the heart of the efficient government arrangements. The £8 million in relation to the new prisoner escort arrangements, which the Scottish Prison Service, through the Executive, has paid a private sector company to deliver, does not appear on the other side of the balance sheet, according to the rules.
I know that we are short of time, so I will put this simply. What is the revenue cost, which is of course a cash cost, that has bought you the £600,000 time-releasing savings in relation to the special constables reward scheme?
I do not know whether the full £1 million has been taken up in the course of the past year in relation to special constables.
I do not think that we can necessarily relate the two. Efficiency savings are about our capturing what the special constables have been doing—probably for a number of years—for the first time. The reward is something that is being put in place to try to retain and recruit special constables. It should help us increase the number of special constables, which, in turn, will maximise the efficiencies that we get from—
I see that the Minister for Justice is waiting to pounce with her answers to that and other, similar questions.
What flexibility does Strathclyde police have to deal with the immediate and specific burden of Faslane? I pay tribute to the effective policing there, led by Chief Superintendent Mitch Roger and his team. However, I am aware that the situation at Faslane causes additional pressure beyond what the police would normally expect, which has an impact throughout Strathclyde. Is the force expected to absorb the whole cost or is there the prospect of some relief from the Executive in acknowledgement of the fact that the circumstances are unusual?
The situation at Faslane is a burden. I have received a number of letters from representatives outwith the Faslane area who complain about officers being abstracted to deal with the situation. The demand is unique, because the protest goes on every day—and promises to go on every day of the year—which is a drain on resources.
I thank Sir William Rae and his colleague for coming before the committee. I apologise again for the delay in starting the meeting this afternoon.
Given the pressures that members are facing this afternoon, with so much work to get through in a relatively short period of time, I will try to bear in mind your comments on the length of answers.
Thank you for that information.
I am more than happy to do that. I accept that the committees would want to do that anyway, and it is my responsibility to ensure that they are kept fully appraised of the discussions and recommendations.
That is very good. Thank you.
Another target that is set out in the justice budget is for a 10 per cent reduction in the number of persistent young offenders by March 2008. What is being done to achieve that? The recently published "Scottish Youth Justice Performance Report" highlights a 16 per cent increase between 2003-04 and 2005-06 in the number of children and young people identified as young offenders. Where are we on our aspirations?
Bearing in mind that the convener has asked for brevity and that this is a subject on which I could speak for a considerable time, I will try to keep my answer short.
Have you had any representations from local authorities about the cost to their legal departments of schemes such as antisocial behaviour orders?
It would be fair to say that some local authorities have expressed concern to me. As members will be aware, both Hugh Henry and I did a number of events on antisocial behaviour over the summer. Although representations have been made about the costs of getting antisocial behaviour orders in some instances, some of those did not involve young people or the youth justice system. When each representation has been made, I have asked the people involved to give us chapter and verse so that we can examine the situation in more detail.
Thanks for making that clear.
I will start with a couple of sighting shots—probably for Ruth Ritchie—on some of the figures in the level 4 breakdown that the committees have. In the "Miscellaneous" category, £2.782 million is provided for civil defence and emergency planning. My recollection is that the figure is roughly the same as those for previous years and that the amounts have been similar for some years. Given what we are told is the heightened risk from international terrorism and other sources and the increased impact of bad weather—an example of which we have just had in the north of Scotland—which require emergency planning, is it appropriate for the figure to remain static?
As you suggest, Ruth Ritchie may wish to comment on particular issues. It is important to make it clear that we take emergency planning seriously. We have tried to ensure that it is built into the core business of all the people who have to respond to emergencies. Funding is mainstreamed into their budgets for that but, on top of that main funding, I have made additional funds available for civil contingencies—the figure for 2007-08 is £2.715 million. That figure has increased in the past three years. The priorities for the funding are to ensure the implementation of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, to allow local training and exercise programmes and to support emergency communications systems. We are also considering funding a strategic co-ordinator post in each of the group areas, which are based on the police areas, to try to ensure better communication between local responders.
My next question, which is probably simpler, is about the figure of £3 million for Disclosure Scotland, which is under the "Police Central Government" heading. As there are about 500,000 applications a year—the figure is projected to rise to 600,000—at £20 a head, that comes to £10 million to £12 million. What is the £3 million for?
It is the balance. The £3 million is the amount that Disclosure Scotland needs to deal with people who do not have to pay for its services—those in the voluntary sector. There is otherwise nil cost to the Executive.
So the document therefore reveals to us that the true cost to organisations of applications to Disclosure Scotland is between £7 million and £9 million. Is that a fair comment, given that it costs £20 for an application and that there are 500,000 of them a year, which is projected to rise to 600,000?
We have tried to ensure that we get value for money through the process. The fee that was charged in the early stages did not reflect the true cost, so the fee has been increased, but we have tried also to ensure that the voluntary sector and organisations that depend on volunteers to provide services are protected from that increase.
The bad news is that only two weeks' notice was given of a rise from £17.60 to £20, but the good news is that the equivalent fee in England is over £30, so we are probably doing okay. The rise is not a huge issue, but I wanted some clarity on the matter.
My answer, as I am sure you know, is that we do not assess such things on the number of positive tests. The drug treatment and testing orders are part of our wider work of trying to turn round the lives of people who are involved in drug misuse. We try to get them into the right treatment programmes in the hope that they will come out of the other end of the system less likely to reoffend. I would be loth to give a number for the number of positive tests. In fact, success is achieved when we do not get a positive test when we get people out of the other end of the system.
Curiously, I would agree with you. However, that neatly sidesteps us into the core question of how output measures of the sort to which my question refers are related to policy objectives that are delivered over a longer term than the budget planning period. Can committee members be given research or other evidence to show that the current year-on-year measures deliver the desired long-term policy objectives and that, therefore, the fine-tuning that we make to the budgets each year results in the right decisions being made on spending and saving?
I presume that the question is posed generally, rather than being aimed at the specific issue of drug treatment.
That is correct, but the minister can deal with the issue in the context of drug treatment.
I will talk about the issue in terms of the Justice Department more generally rather than the specific issue of drug treatment, but I am happy to respond to particular questions about drug treatment if necessary.
Would it be fair to say that, in essence, targets are comparatively short-term stages en route to long-term goals?
In some instances, that may well be the case. However, like the committees, we face the reality that many of our targets can be set only for the lifetime of the parliamentary session or for the life cycle of the spending review. As Minister for Justice, I cannot easily set a long-term target that will necessarily be accepted by any future Administration. However, I have been keen to ensure that we begin to consider trends and the general direction of travel and aim to reach milestones on the way to ensure that we are moving in the right direction.
Given that the Executive was quite happy to enter 25-year contracts that commit us to particular provision for the Scottish Prison Service—the same point could be made about other contracts in other portfolios—the Executive is clearly doing some long-term planning. I come back to the question of how we know that our short-term actions relate to our long-term goals.
Committing to long-term contracts to provide buildings, services, treatment programmes and so on in the SPS is perhaps different from setting a particular target for 25 years from now for a percentage decrease in serious and organised crime, or a percentage increase in the number of people whom we can sensibly put through drug treatment and testing orders. We must always know the direction of travel that we are trying to take and set targets, and we should perhaps set longer-term targets for some things. However, it can be difficult to set specific numeric targets in relation to, for example, the work that we are doing to try to change the culture of violence. Clearly, in the shorter term, we want a reduction in the number of serious and violent crimes and a reduction in the number of reports of street disorder linked to knife crime. We must ensure that we have the right procedures in place to deal with the matter.
The current number of injecting heroin users is 51,000, but the figure for the previous year was 55,000. The decrease is good news, but what should the figure be in 10 years' time?
I will not put a number on that at this stage. I would like the trend to continue to be that fewer heroin users are injecting. However, I would also like to ensure that fewer people come into the system requiring treatment for drug misuse in any event. I hope that, as well as treating the people who are in the system, we prevent others from coming into it.
This comes back to the first question that I asked about putting a label on your targets—the suggestion applies to all your colleagues—so that in the future we have an idea of what we are comparing and can tell whether the targets that you set are being met. Such targets are helpful to committees. For example, a target of an on-going 8 per cent reduction each year for the next three years is helpful to us. However, the statement that a reduction will be made over time is not helpful for committees.
I have two brief questions on prisons. The committees asked the SPS about the implications of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill. The response from the SPS indicates that if Parliament passes the bill, the cost to the SPS will represent an increase of a quarter in its direct running costs in next year's budget and a doubling of its capital spending in year 5. Is there also a forecast for a reduction in reoffending?
As committee members will be aware, we are trying to focus a lot of our work on reducing reoffending, particularly for those who repeat offend and end up in the prison system several times. We know that we still have some way to go on that, which is why we brought in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, why we have introduced community justice authorities and why we have invested in alternatives to custody, which offer tough options in which I hope sentencers can have confidence.
I acknowledge that, but I did not hear that there was a forecast reduction in reoffending.
As you are aware, we have a target—to come back to the point that the convener made—of a 2 per cent reduction in reoffending rates. One difficulty is that we did not have all the baseline data that we needed when that target was chosen. We made a commitment that, when the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed and the new national advisory body was set up, it would do some work on whether the target was correct and whether we were doing everything possible to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
We will come back to the matter at a future meeting.
In every situation, we try to ensure that we are as efficient as possible, but if we go down the route of significant new prison building, that could not be financed entirely from savings elsewhere.
So, as things stand, the indication from your discussions with the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is that there will be a net increase for the Justice Department.
In the future, yes. We would have to have those discussions.
So those discussions have not taken place.
As I am sure you are aware, there is always a range of discussions at Cabinet level before a financial memorandum is signed off. Discussions have taken place in that context.
I return to your comments on the resources that are available to tackle persistent young offenders. You said that there has been an increase in resources and therefore that resources are not an issue, but is it not where the resources are spent that is important? For example, is there any move to introduce DTTOs to district courts? That would make sense because early intervention would kick in at the lowest level of substance abuse.
When I talked about youth justice funding, I was referring specifically to the funding that is associated with the youth justice provisions that are dealt with through, for example, the children's hearings system and those that are the responsibility of local authorities, rather than to young offenders institutions or the other work that is on-going.
The committees heard from the representatives of ACPOS on the subject of a bid that it has put together for additional resources for the prevention of terrorism. Can you say anything to the committees today about your likely approach to that bid?
I cannot tell you what approach we will take, but we will consider the bid when we get it. I understand that the Justice Department has had on-going discussions and engagement with ACPOS over a period. However, we will have to consider the bid when it is finalised and all the work has been done.
I thought that you would say that. When is it likely that you will make a decision on the bid?
I am not aware of the final timescale for that. Robert Gordon might know more about that than I do.
I understood Sir William Rae to say that it was a three-year bid, so some of it will be in years beyond the year that we are talking about now. Some of it will come into consideration in the 2007 spending review.
Yes. I realise that you cannot give me a figure, but we have been asked to scrutinise the budget. How are we expected to do that if we do not know whether the Executive is going to say yes or no to that bid? At what point will we know that, so that we can take a view?
I recognise the difficulty for the committee members. However, I hope that the committees will understand that, until we receive the final bid and all the work is done on that, it would be difficult to outline a complete timescale. You will have picked up from what Robert Gordon said that discussions have been under way. It is fair to say that, within this budget year, we are trying to be as helpful as we can. However, we will have to wait and see what the bid requires for future years.
You cannot give us any indication whether it is going to be for 2006 or 2007.
Robert Gordon has just said that it will be for 2007 and beyond. We are trying to be helpful, where we can be, in the context of our available budgets in this year.
Every year, there is some money under the "Police Central Government" heading that goes to a variety of things that are listed. The managers of that budget are in negotiation with ACPOS throughout the year to identify where pressures are emerging and things are slipping. My understanding is that, for the year that we are in and for 2007-08, it will be possible within those resources to cope with what is being sought.
There seems to have been a shift in ACPOS's position. Do you acknowledge that? ACPOS previously told the committee that it could manage its approach within its existing budget, but it now tells us that it has submitted a bid to the Executive, although we do not have any details of that. I must assume that ACPOS is saying that, this year, it requires additional resources; otherwise, we would not have heard that it was making a bid of some kind.
No. It was always likely that there would be a bid. The situation is probably still, in one sense, as it was before. That is what Robert Gordon outlined.
ACPOS did not tell us that.
We are trying to manage that process within our existing resources, but there is likely to be a bid that will look to the future over three years. Until I have seen the bid—how much people are looking for and what that would buy—it is difficult for me to give details of how we will respond to it. That is the work that is going on at the moment. I am not sure that it would be fair to say that there has been a huge shift. I think that ACPOS is clarifying to the committee what the future may hold, rather than simply looking at the current year.
As time goes by, ACPOS will gain more experience of the costs of some of the activities. In recent months, the costs of investigating a certain case in central Scotland have given ACPOS real figures to add into its discussions with us.
I have two fairly rapid questions. I am pleased to hear that there is dialogue and flexibility about possible in-year additions for any new and immediate burdens. ACPOS raised two process points. First, the treatment of pensions is different in England and Wales, in that the money is held in the centre alongside teachers' pensions. There is a suggestion that that would be a neat solution for Scotland, which has won some agreement in the committee. I would like the minister's view on that. As an ancillary to that, there is the suggestion of converting the £30 million in capital that ACPOS gets, in all or part, to prudential borrowing. That struck me as being in the flow of Executive thinking elsewhere. That is my first question in two parts.
The committee heard Sir Willie Rae say that the police pension scheme is being looked at. We are considering the new arrangements that have been put in place in England and Wales and whether it would be appropriate to adopt similar arrangements in Scotland. The committee tried to tease out the benefits and drawbacks of those arrangements, and we will be happy to come back on those issues once we have had some deliberations on them.
That is interesting. I would like to pursue that further. Is it not the case that local authorities have access to prudential borrowing, which is converting that capital into a form that the Treasury seems to approve of? Logically, one would think that, as local authorities are substantial funders of the police force, the same rule might apply.
The problem with the police/LA capital is that it is classified as central Government expenditure. It is now under the prudential regime and has been drawn into the core justice spending. As such, it is classified by the Treasury as capital.
It is not an issue that has never been considered.
My second question relates to evidence from the Scottish Prison Service. I believe that the Lady Smith judgment went against Scottish ministers. Are you confident that the SPS has scoped the risk in relation not just to Napier but the article 3 infringement, in the event that you lose again in the inner house?
I know that the committee has taken a particular interest in the matter. The only assurance I can give is that the SPS has considered it closely. We have asked it to consider all the potential scenarios and the numbers involved, and to give us the worst-case scenarios. Having been through the figures, I see no reason to doubt that the SPS has given us the correct information.
Do you have any idea when we will know absolutely?
I am not aware of when we will get the final judgment. We would need to await that then consider what it means in practice.
We expect the Somerville judgment reasonably soon; whatever the outcome, however, that case is likely to go on to the House of Lords and it could be quite some time before it is finally determined. To reinforce what the minister said, the SPS is looking closely at the cases that could come out of the woodwork. As the chief executive said, it is also considering European jurisprudence. The moving of the goalposts and any further exposure to which that gives rise are quite worrying.
For clarity, what is the Somerville judgment case?
That is the case around whether time limits apply to ECHR claims. I am not a lawyer I am afraid, but I think that the ECHR regime assumes a 12-month period within which a claim can be made on an offence, whereas it is possible that the interaction of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 would suggest that there is no time limit on those claims, so that the claims could go back much further than a year. That is where the £58 million plus £27 million contingency, to which the chief executive of the SPS referred, would come from. If a 12-month limit were to apply, the exposure would be significantly less.
Although complements no longer exist, in the ACPOS evidence there was an issue about not having full police numbers. Is it likely that moneys will be needed from the budget we are considering now to deal with that issue?
If I heard it correctly, Sir Willie Rae's point was that we no longer have establishments—for example, "This is the establishment for X police force in Scotland"—and that the objective has been to increase the numbers of police in each of the forces. I think that a number was quoted for where we are now compared with where we were at the start of the exercise. The committee was also given evidence about the additional resources that have been put in to deal with the so-called retirement bulge.
For clarity, you have no intention of addressing that in a financial way in the budget that the committees are now considering?
Sorry, but it is unclear exactly what you want us to address in a financial way.
We—certainly, I—got the impression from Sir William Rae that, although police numbers are up, they are not up on a pro rata basis in all forces. There is therefore a need to address that issue in certain forces. Are you saying that money is available for police forces to do that? If I heard you correctly, you have just said that they could do a Peter and Paul on the money for early recruitment to deal with the retirement issue and use that money to acquire a bigger current force.
The objective of the exercise is to ensure that forces have money in advance to enable them to recruit people now, so that they will be in post and will have relevant experience before the retirement peak comes in 2009-10 or thereabouts. The additional resources that were put into some forces through the levelling-up of the GAE are another matter. I may be misinterpreting, but I do not think that I heard Sir Willie Rae or anybody else suggest that there is a gap in funding that we need to fill for some police forces.
I did not suggest that he did. I was asking you the question.
I do not think that there is a gap.
You have not ring fenced the forward recruitment moneys. You said that there is flexibility and that forces could use the money for another purpose.
As I understand the matter, we cannot ring fence that money—although ring fencing some of it is an interesting notion. Ruth Ritchie will correct me if I am wrong about that. We were clear that we would put resources in place to allow the police forces to carry out that recruitment process. I cannot imagine a scenario in which police forces would not want to do that. It would not be in their interests not to use the money in that way.
Thank you for the clarity on that.
The figures that we have on police numbers show that, comparing 30 June 2005 with 30 June 2006, three police forces had fewer whole-time equivalent police officers.
I am sure that that is part of the recruitment process that forces are going through. We have ensured that we now always measure on the basis of full-time equivalents rather than a head count.
Yes, but there were fewer full-time equivalent officers this year than there were last year.
At the end of the day, it is down to the chief constables to get on and do the recruitment. I cannot remember the exact number off the top of my head, but in June this year, there were 16,200-plus officers, which was well up on the previous figure, as Sir Willie Rae said. I suspect that any dip in a particular police force's number of officers on a particular day is because of the cycle of the recruitment process that it is carrying out rather than for any other reason.
How satisfied are you that the information on the justice portfolio that the committees have before them is the best possible, given that the Howat review group's independent report has not been published and is not available to us?
As always, I hope that the committees have the information before them that relates to the budget that we are discussing. The committees are not slow in asking if they feel that specific pieces of information are required. As you are aware, the review that you mention was commissioned to enable us to consider how we might get the best value from future spend. I hope, from the answers that have been given today, that members will feel that the Justice Department takes that matter seriously in any event. We have heard about the significant number of savings, new ways of working and reinvesting savings in services. I hope that the committee has enough information on which to base any recommendations to us about how we might want to make changes in the future.
I thank the minister and her colleagues for coming along. I apologise for the earlier delay.
Meeting continued in private until 16:38.
Previous
Item in Private