Examination of witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 1998
MR FRANK
MARTIN, Second Treasury Officer
of Accounts, HM Treasury, further examined. SIR
PAUL CONDON,
QPM, and MR
DAVID OMAND
140. Perhaps it was before your time. We
had a rather amusing exchange in relation to computers which rather
confirmed our doubts about anyone computerising actually! It has
taken you about six years to develop these things, I think you
said. Why so long?
(Sir Paul Condon) When I returned to the Met in
1993, the Met for historical reasons was under-provided in terms
of technology. We needed to provide a new radio system, a new
command control system, new crime computers, to support the intelligence-led
policing approach which has led to, I think, the dramatic reductions
in reported crime in London. When we were faced with the tough
choices of, did we put all our eggs into the operational basket
or into the support basket, most of the effort in those early
two or three years went into the operational front end for the
specific benefit of the public. The personnel computer system
has been running for a number of years. It has been a bottom-up
approach to infrastructure and that comes to fruition in the timescale
I have said. But we have delivered in that same time the most
sophisticated crime computer system in the world, we have delivered
probably the best personal radio system of any large city anywhere
in the world, and the Audit Commission and others show we provide
the best emergency response through our command control of any
major city in the world. So I would pray in aid a significant
record of achievement in computerisation over the last five years,
but we cannot do everything at once.
141. I understand that. I was just asking
about the system and after six years you still were not able to
tell the NAO the amount of overtime which was required as a result.
(Sir Paul Condon) Because it is not fictional,
but it is purely speculation.
142. It should not be speculation if it
is working properly, should it?
(Sir Paul Condon) Well, it is speculation because
if someone goes sick tonight at a location, the chances are that
there will be no overtime incurred at all.
143. You have said that and we understand
that, but a personnel computer system which does not record the
facts is not much good, is it?
(Sir Paul Condon) It may record the facts, but
you get into a cost-benefit analysis where you have to ask whether
that piece of information worth is perhaps a million pounds' expenditure
on. If I thought we were using lots of overtime to backfill on
sickness, then a cost-benefit analysis would suggest it was a
worthwhile thing to do.
144. How much has it cost so far?
(Sir Paul Condon) The PIMS computer?
145. Yes.
(Sir Paul Condon) I do not have the full costs
to hand, though I can certainly give them to you, but we are talking
in single figure millions. If I may, sir, I would rather let you
have a note on that.
146. It is in millions, but less than 10
million?
(Sir Paul Condon) Yes.
147. Well, if you let us have a note on
that and perhaps you will also let us have a note on compatibility
with the divisions[4]
because if the divisions cannot speak to it, it is difficult to
see how it will work, but a note will do. Can I then jump to a
point raised by Mr Hope? He raised the question of medical retirement
and, if I come on to the first point, I want to clarify the costs
of this. Now, on early medical retirement, I think you said, and
it may have been in reply to the Chairman, that it cost £57,000
per person, was it?
(Sir Paul Condon) It is a very personal computation
based on each individual, depending on length of service, whether
they are going out with a straightforward medical pension, whether
they have any——
148. I understand that. It is only the average
I am asking about. I do not want you to go into detail.
(Sir Paul Condon) The average for the relevant
year, 1996/97, and again if I may confirm by note, sir, to make
sure I get the accuracy, the figure I have in my mind is an average
of about £57,0001.
149. Well, if it is not, just pop a note
in.
(Sir Paul Condon) That is a product of a colleague
commuting their pension. They can commute up to a quarter of their
pension and take a lump sum.
150. Yes, I appreciate that. Did you say
that 457 of your officers take early medical retirement a year?
(Sir Paul Condon) The figure in this report, and
again I cannot remember this exactly, but I think it was 457 or
458 in the last year.
151. So that means that early medical retirement
is costing you £26 million a year. Is that £26 million
a year part of the £72 million or is it in addition to the
£72 million cost?
(Sir Paul Condon) The £72 million is the
opportunity cost lost through officers being sick when they could
be working, so it does not embrace the cost of medical pensions1.
152. So really the cost of illness to you
is not £72 million, but it is at least £98 million,
the cost of them retiring and the ongoing costs, so in fact a
third of your costs in relation to sickness, or the equivalent
to a third of your costs in relation to sickness is the cost of
retirement.
(Sir Paul Condon) Hence the importance that I
and others have placed on this and why we are looking forward
to the pension review.
153. I was only trying to get to the reality.
You must understand, I am sure you do, you have been here often
enough, the reason we are asking these questions is not because
we are antagonistic, but it is our job to ask questions of you.
(Sir Paul Condon) And I respect that entirely,
sir.
154. If we do not ask the questions, you
might ask them of your colleagues.
(Sir Paul Condon) It is helpful, sir, because
I think we need the force of this Committee and others to encourage
reform of these areas.
155. Can I just explore then a little further
what you said to Mr Hope. If I understood correctly, you accepted
his proposition that some people use the medical route to escape
disciplinary action, but you rightly said that you are hoping
that action will soon be taken by the Home Office in this respect.
(Sir Paul Condon) To put that into context, before
the Home Affairs Committee when I was asked to quantify that,
then it was the figure, which again if I may confirm it by a note[5],
but I think the figure that I had researched and prepared was
perhaps 34 officers over a three-year period where we had anxieties
that there was an unhelpful interplay between sickness provisions
and the disciplinary provisions.
156. So that cost you £2 million?
(Sir Paul Condon) It would depend on their age
and service, but they may not have been typical of colleagues
generally.
157. But accepting your average and accepting
your number of people, as a ballpark figure, it has cost you around
£2 million over the last three years for people who are using
the medical system to evade the disciplinary system?
(Sir Paul Condon) I would not want to be associated
with that figure as tightly as you are suggesting it because they
are a typical group and the discipline may have been triggered
at any point in a 30-year career, whereas we know there is a clustering
of medical pensions around 26 or 27 years.
158. It is helpful information, it is useful
for us to know and it enables us to add some strength to the resolve
of the Home Office when we produce our report that they should
help you in dealing with the problem, so I think it has been beneficial
from everyone's point of view. May I then switch completely to
figure 16 on page 40? This is the chart you have referred to on
several occasions showing the fall in the working days lost to
injury on duty and the rise in stress related. Can I just ask
you to look at the footnote, the small print? It says, "Any
injury incurred by an officer between leaving and returning home
... is recorded as an injury on duty". Why?
(Sir Paul Condon) Because that is a statutory
obligation.
159. But what is the sense of it? If he
slips on a piece of ice or he slips on a banana skin or he gets
knocked over by an errant cyclist or something of that sort, why
should he be treated as on duty when he is not? I do not know
of anyone else who is treated in that way?
(Sir Paul Condon) It is a legislative requirement,
but part of the reform we have argued for is that an injury on
duty should be confined to an officer exercising his powers related
to being a police officer.
4 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 30 (PAC
218). Back
5
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 28 (PAC 218). Back
| 
